Rubber stamping on Nigerian public sector boards: a silent destroyer of institutional performance

This behavior, often mistaken for cooperation, leads to significant negative consequences. A board that merely ratifies decisions provides institutional cover for the Chief Executive, misleading stakeholders into believing decisions have been independently reviewed. This can lead to errors compounding, the institutionalization of mediocrity, and failures in succession planning, as the board cannot effectively evaluate a Chief Executive it has not challenged.

The Theranos case serves as a global example, demonstrating that even distinguished board members can engage in rubber stamping, leading to catastrophic outcomes. This issue persists due to structural factors, such as directors being unprepared for meetings, lacking deep understanding of the business, a culture that prioritizes politeness over scrutiny, and a lack of consequences for ratification. Additionally, Chief Executives may actively cultivate compliant boards.

To address this, five practices are recommended: ensuring information arrives early for absorption, Chairs explicitly inviting challenge, holding reserved board sessions without management, assigning a dissenting voice for major decisions, and the board evaluating its own performance annually. These practices are standard in well-governed boards globally and require a willing Chair, Chief Executive, and