One board member has prestige.
People listen when he speaks. He speaks often. Soon his view fills the meeting before other members have formed their own.
Carver and Charney call this a board problem, not merely a personality problem, in rehearsal 5.7.[1]
The board should reclaim its deliberation.
A dominant member may be intelligent, generous, experienced, or deeply committed. None of those qualities creates additional governing authority. Each trustee owes independent judgment. The board needs the information that disappears when quieter members conclude the decision is already made.
I would ask the chair to address the behavior privately and specifically.
“You often speak first and at length. Several members are not entering the discussion. I need your help creating room before you offer a second comment.”
That is better than accusing the person of being difficult.
Then change the meeting process.
Send decision questions in advance.
Ask members to write an initial view before discussion.
Begin with a round in which every person speaks once.
Let the member closest to the issue speak before the person with the highest status.
Use time limits when necessary.
Ask, “What are we missing?” before closing.
BoardSource’s guidance on productive meetings emphasizes clear facilitation, preparation, and participation.[2] These are not cosmetic techniques. They protect the board’s collective authority.
The chair should also stop interruptions and repetition in the room. “We have heard that position. I want to hear from someone who sees it differently” is a fair sentence.
The board cannot outsource this entirely to the chair. Members should ask questions, challenge assumptions, and resist signaling agreement merely to move on. A self-governing board shares responsibility for its culture.
There is a more serious version.
The dominant member may use donations, community standing, founder status, or access to threaten others. The board should apply its code of conduct and conflict rules. If coaching fails, it may need formal warning, removal from leadership, censure, or removal under the bylaws.
Prestige cannot purchase control.
The board should still examine whether the member dominates because other trustees are unprepared. Silence caused by weak preparation is not cured by blaming the person who did the reading. Distribute useful materials. State the decision. Expect every member to contribute.
I would evaluate the meeting before adjournment.
Did every member have a meaningful chance to influence the decision?
Did the chair invite disagreement?
Did we decide from evidence or status?
Which voice was absent?
A brief self-assessment makes patterns visible.
You can also ask the influential member to speak last on selected issues. Strong leaders often discover that their best contribution is framing what they heard rather than determining what everyone will hear.
A board is not democratic because each person has one vote on paper.
It becomes democratic when each person’s reasoning can reach the decision before the vote.
The dominant member may have much to give.
The board should receive the gift without surrendering the room.
I would also watch seating and technology. A remote member who is never called on, a junior member placed at the edge, or a chat channel dominated by side comments can reproduce the same hierarchy. Facilitation includes the physical and digital room.
After the meeting, ask two quieter members whether the process allowed their best judgment to surface. The answer may teach the chair more than another agenda template.
Footnotes
[1] Miriam Carver and Bill Charney, The Board Member’s Playbook (Jossey-Bass, 2004), rehearsal 5.7, pages 168–171.
[2] BoardSource, “Productive Meetings”.
Additional reading
Richard P. Chait, William P. Ryan, and Barbara E. Taylor’s Governance as Leadership offers methods for richer, less scripted deliberation.
BoardSource’s The Nonprofit Board Answer Book includes practical guidance for chairs dealing with difficult participation patterns.