Behavioural Traits of Executives and Directors
- 28 June 2025
An inspiring and empowering event dedicated to women excelling in the boardroom.
This special event began with a thought-provoking fireside chat featuring Happy Ralinala, respected non-executive board member of various companies. Happy shares candid reflections and valuable lessons from her leadership journey, offering practical insights into navigating board dynamics and driving meaningful impact at the highest levels of governance.
The event continues with a powerful masterclass exploring the Behavioural Traits of Executives and Directors, presented by Mpho Seboni, Director at Spencer Stuart. This Masterclass is designed for current and aspiring leaders seeking to deepen their understanding of what drives effective leadership at the highest levels. It explores the core behavioural traits that define successful executives and board members, including decision-making under pressure, emotional intelligence, ethical leadership, and strategic thinking.
Fireside chat with Happy Ralinala
The most significant unspoken rule is the “independence of mind”. This extends beyond mere independence to encompass the subtle art of knowing when to speak, what to say, and how to influence within and outside the boardroom. It involves understanding non-verbal cues like language and body posture, and then integrating these elements succinctly without compromising one’s authentic self, especially as a woman. New board members are advised to prioritise listening and observing the “table dynamics” – the different voices and personalities – rather than feeling pressure to make an immediate impact. The boardroom is also a dynamic learning environment where yesterday’s knowledge may not apply tomorrow due to rapid changes, particularly in the digital age.
Executive presence involves understanding the interconnected dynamics between executives, the board, and other stakeholders (shareholders, the public). It places significant emphasis on emotional intelligence (EQ) and adaptability quotient (AQ) over purely technical skills. While executives are often subject matter experts, they must also recognise the board as their principal and understand the reciprocal influence in these relationships. A crucial aspect of executive presence is continuous self-development – what one reads, listens to, and how they foster personal growth. It also requires the ability to set aside one’s ego, as the boardroom thrives on partnership. Ultimately, impactful executive presence is about contributing meaningfully at the right moment, after attentive listening, rather than dominating conversations. Executives also have a role in educating the board.
Being invited to the table doesn’t automatically equate to having power. The nature of the invitation (who invited you, for what agenda) and your association with that table are crucial. The speaker highlights the existence of “clicks” or tight-knit groups that influence board dynamics, raising questions about the true independence of such boards. Power at the table is also about knowing when and for what to “raise your hand” – that is, to interject or contribute. It requires aligning with personal values and understanding one’s worth, rather than simply obliging or trying to fit in. Commanding one’s space stems from self-awareness and emotional intelligence. Essentially, to give “oxygen” to an organisation, one must first possess that “oxygen” internally.
Navigating subtle power plays requires strategic influence, akin to the principles in “The Art of War.” It involves emotional intelligence and the ability to engage board members individually outside formal meetings, fostering better understanding. When identifying an issue, it’s advised not to shy away, but to consider the appropriate timing and setting for addressing it. The speaker shares a personal anecdote of influencing the introduction of black teachers at a school by engaging each board member individually over coffee, framing the argument around the changing population and the school’s needs. This demonstrates the importance of being tactical and not opening oneself “vulnerably” to unknown responses that could undermine confidence. Protecting oneself is paramount, which includes knowing what can be absorbed, tolerated, and what constitutes a deal-breaker.
While informal interactions are natural for human connection and can facilitate clarifying discussions, “over-familiarity” among board members can blur the lines of independence. Constant informal communication among a select group can lead to synchronisation, potentially making it challenging to hold each other accountable or “call to order” when necessary. However, maintaining a cordial relationship is still important for board dynamics, fostering trust in the intent of conversations. The speaker highlights the importance of intuition (“8th sense”) in discerning underlying doubts. Ultimately, it is crucial to maintain a clear distinction regarding what is discussed, when, and how, irrespective of the setting. The “when, where, and how” framework serves as a constant self-check, allowing for trust in one’s own judgment and peace with decisions made in real-time, even when faced with hindsight criticism.
Happy Ralinala attributes her grounding to the influence of dynamic women in her life, particularly her maternal and paternal grandmothers and her mother. Her maternal grandmother taught humility, unmovable faith in God, and quiet influence, effectively managing the household without overt control. Her paternal grandmother was a pioneer who moved to Johannesburg for better opportunities and worked with computers, showcasing adaptability and ambition. Her mother, the first woman taxi driver in Soweto, instilled accountability and responsibility from an early age by leaving her in charge of the household. These pioneering, yet often quiet, community-building women, combined with her faith in God, form her core grounding. She believes her faith helps her through challenges and acknowledges that her own parenting journey, focusing on creating quality memories over imposing academic stress, further reinforces her values.
Happy became a parent very early in life due to her mother’s work as a taxi driver after her father’s passing. Her mother would leave her in charge of the younger children and expect the house to be in order. When Happy would blame her sisters for any mess, her mother’s response, “I left you in charge here,” instilled a deep understanding of accountability, responsibility, and leadership. This early experience taught her how to lead and manage a household. In her own parenting, she applies this learning by prioritising quality time and building relationships with her three daughters over stressing them with academic tasks, even advising outsourcing teaching if possible. She believes parents should focus on creating positive memories rather than bringing “animosity” home, recognising the impact of one’s presence on the household environment.
Happy Ralinala believes there is no significant difference in governance between private and listed entities, or even non-profits and small companies. She states, “Governance is governance.” It is fundamentally about acting in the best interest of the institution and its stakeholders, regardless of its listing status. On the topic of corporate retrenchments, she explains that they have always occurred and are often a result of strategic choices and the need for relevance in a changing landscape. While a company may have a “solid, waterproof” strategy, external competitive forces can arise and disrupt it. Therefore, companies don’t necessarily fail because they didn’t prepare, but because a competitor might emerge with a superior competitive advantage, necessitating difficult strategic decisions, including retrenchments.
Masterclass by Mpho Seboni
Mpho Seboni’s discussion centres on the behavioural traits of executive and non-executive directors and how these traits contribute to effective board functioning and company performance. He distinguishes between the core roles of executives (keeping the engine running, operational leadership, risk-taking) and non-executives (providing guidance, monitoring, clearing obstacles, judging executive judgment, assessing risk quality). The presentation emphasises that while their roles are distinct, they are interdependent and complementary, necessitating different assessment approaches for each. A key theme is the importance of “board culture” and the “interaction between board members in the room” for overall effectiveness.
The 2024 Board Index, which tracks the activities of the top 50 companies on the JSE (and globally), reveals several important statistics:
- Gender Representation: 37% of directors on the JSE are women, which is just over one-third. Specifically, 40% of non-executive directors are women.
- Historically Disadvantaged South Africans: 32% of directors are historically disadvantaged South Africans.
- Average Tenure: The average tenure for directors on JSE Company boards is 6.4 years. For women, this average is significantly shorter at 4.6 years, indicating that women stay for a shorter time on boards than their male counterparts. This disparity is identified as both a challenge and an opportunity.
- Multiple Board Roles: 68% of non-executive directors serve on more than one board, with two-thirds holding multiple board roles (e.g., two to three boards). This raises a concern about their ability to contribute sufficiently to each board if serving on three, four, or five boards simultaneously, potentially compromising attendance in the future. Despite this, attendance is generally high, suggesting directors treasure boardroom activity.
Spencer Stuart assesses executive and non-executive directors differently due to their distinct roles.
For Executive Directors:
- Core Focus: Operational leadership.
- Influence Style: Direct authority (not authoritarianism, but clear directive power).
- Appropriate Contribution: Managing operations and executing strategy.
- Risk Orientation: Prize risk-taking.
- Behavioral Traits (High Impact Executives): Driving results, acting strategically, leading change, influencing beyond formal authority, and building talent (developing future leaders and succession pipelines).
For Non-Executive Directors:
- Core Focus: Providing guidance, monitoring, and clearing obstacles; “judging the judgment of executives.”
- Influence Style: Indirect influence, through persuasion and counsel.
- Appropriate Contribution: Reviewing and advising on decisions, focusing on strategy, governance, and risk assurance.
- Risk Orientation: Assessing the quality of risk taken through governance and applying mitigation strategies (setting risk frameworks both before and after risks are taken, focusing on systemic risks).
- Behavioral Traits (Highly Effective Board Members): Strategic insight and judgment, independence of mind (courage to dissent constructively), interpersonal influence (constructive dialogue, communication, persuasion), integrity (transparency and ethical conduct), and inclination to engage (preparedness and active contribution beyond their specific expertise).
Commonalities: Both executive and non-executive roles share the importance of strategic insight and interpersonal influence as critical characteristics.
The “4 C’s” framework for how a board delivers value and impact consists of:
- Composition and Diversity: This includes both demographic diversity (age, race, gender) and diversity of skill sets, ensuring the right combination of expertise on the board.
- Culture and Behaviour: Refers to the dynamics and interactions among board members.
- Coherence: The board has a clear strategic framework, and its actions align with the direction of travel.
- Curiosity: Board members ask questions, seek to understand, and are open to new ideas and exploration.
- Connected: Board members are aligned in their perspectives and behaviours, operating as a cohesive team.
This framework integrates with Spencer Stuart’s leadership model, which assesses individuals at three levels:
- Above Ground (Visible): Career (experience) and Capabilities (e.g., strong influencer).
- Below Ground (Crucial but Less Visible): Capacity (ability to grow in new environments, probe, stretch oneself) and Character (style preferences like decision-maker, consensus builder, planner). These form the roots for effective performance.
- Organisation-Wide Level: Team dynamics (including trust, where trusting board members means trusting their intentions, skills, and capabilities) and the broader organisational purpose, mission, and culture.
An effective board, beyond just competence, must be coherent, curious, and connected.
Board culture is crucial for effectiveness because it dictates the “interaction between board members in the room” and how the board collectively approaches its responsibilities. Spencer Stuart uses a proprietary framework to understand board culture, based on two primary preferences:
- Preference for Change (Vertical Axis): Ranging from stability (control, planning, risk mitigation, decisiveness) to inquisitiveness (experimentation, new ideas, exploring alternatives, agile focus).
- Propensity for Being with Others (Horizontal Axis): Ranging from individual pursuits and expertise to collective effort and collaboration.
These two dimensions define four cultural quadrants:
- Decisive (Bottom Right): High preference for stability and collective effort. Focuses on results, outcomes, and having a focused agenda; a “no-nonsense” style.
- Disciplined (Bottom Left): High preference for stability and individual pursuits. Process-focused, prioritises governance and risk mitigation, ensuring a safe environment through planning.
- Collaborative (Top Right): High preference for change and collective effort. Team-based, relational, consensus-driven, with everyone having a voice and focusing on the bigger picture.
- Inquisitive (Top Left): High preference for change and individual pursuits. Open to experimentation and new ideas, exploring alternatives, and looking ahead; actively engages with management on future possibilities and risks.
Understanding a board’s current culture and its desired future culture allows for targeted recruitment of directors with appropriate styles and changes in board dynamics and agenda setting to facilitate the desired cultural shift.
The process for assessing and evolving a board’s culture involves several steps:
- Individual Diagnostic: Current board members and potential new members complete a 20-minute online diagnostic questionnaire. This provides insight into each individual’s preference across the four cultural quadrants (decisive, disciplined, collaborative, inquisitive).
- Aggregate Board Culture Profile: The individual responses are aggregated to give a “sense of the culture of the board,” showing the predominant cultural characteristics (e.g., “this board is decisive first and foremost”).
- Current vs. Preferred Culture Discussion: Boards are then asked to reflect on whether their current culture is appropriate for their near- and long-term strategy, ambitions, and risk profile. This leads to identifying a “preferred culture” (e.g., dialling up inquisitiveness, dialling down collaboration).
- Cultural Journey Plan: If a gap exists between current and preferred culture, a “board culture journey” is set for a defined period (e.g., three years). This journey is facilitated by two key inputs:
- Recruitment: When opportunities arise (e.g., retirements), recruit new directors whose cultural styles are closer to the desired future profile.
- Internal Behavioural Shift: Work with existing directors to help them understand their personal style profiles and encourage them to adapt their behaviours to align with the desired collective culture. This involves structuring board agendas around key future questions, encouraging exploration of new ideas, and fostering rigorous preparation for meetings.
- Monitoring and Adjustment: Periodically (e.g., annually) conduct “dipsticks” by having members retake the diagnostic to track progress towards the desired cultural profile and adjust strategies as needed.
This structured approach helps boards intentionally shape their culture to better align with their strategic needs and improve overall effectiveness.
It is considered “highly unusual” for a board chairman to step into an executive chairman or caretaker CEO role, typically occurring only under extreme circumstances and for a short, determined period. Mpho Seboni counsels boards not to do this, as it signals a significant “red flag” – a lack of trust in the competence or integrity of the existing executive team.
When such a transition does occur, to mitigate the inherent conflict of interest and maintain governance integrity, the Lead Independent Director assumes a senior oversight role. This individual effectively chairs the board and supervises the chairman who has temporarily stepped into the executive position. This arrangement helps ensure that the necessary checks and balances remain in place, despite the unusual circumstances.
The majority of companies on the JSE Top 50 pay a flat fee for board membership and committee membership, rather than a per-meeting structure. While some boards do have a per-meeting structure, the prevalence of flat fees raises a pertinent question: if attendance is not tied directly to payment per meeting, how does this affect directors’ commitment, especially those serving on multiple boards?
With 68% of directors serving on more than one board (and some on as many as three, four, or five), there’s a potential risk that “attendance might be compromised in the future.” The flat fee structure, while common, is highlighted as potentially “inappropriate in many cases” because it doesn’t directly incentivise attendance and active contribution at each individual meeting for directors who are stretched across numerous commitments. Despite this, directors are observed to generally “treasure” boardroom activity and make “every effort to attend,” suggesting a commitment beyond just financial incentive, though the risk of compromise remains.
