Boardrooms as black boxes: Understanding what really happens behind closed doors

The dramatic exit of HDFC Bank board chairman Atanu Chakraborty has triggered understandable handwringing over ethics and values. But it also puts a spotlight on the rights and wrongs of corporate governance.

Consider the resemblance between a boardroom and jury room. In both, a curated group of individuals is ushered into a closed setting, buried under an avalanche of data and opinions, and expected to re-emerge with a verdict that may reshape reputations, rattle livelihoods or rescue the next quarter's numbers.

Also Read: No clarity on HDFC Bank chairman’s exit; bank ‘baffled’, RBI backs governance


The comparison is not entirely fair. Jurors are typically civilians, drafted into a world of legal jargon and procedural gravity. Board members are seasoned professionals with expertise and experience in managing balance sheets, market cycles and egos. And, yet, the most interesting similarity between these two is not their composition, but their opacity.

Juries deliberate in secrecy. Their discussions are protected, reasoning shielded, internal disagreements are never intended for the public. Corporate boards operate in a similar fashion. Yes, minutes are recorded. But these tend to read like minimalist poetry: 'The matter was discussed. The board approved.' One imagines entire hours of debate, and perhaps an existential crisis, all distilled into a sentence.

Boards, much like juries, possess the power of minor deities and transparency of a locked cupboard. Shareholders, employees and assorted onlookers are politely asked to nod along, sustained by a steady diet of trust. We are told that every decision is forged in the fires of rigorous analysis, objective judgement and an almost saintly devotion to the organisation's welfare.

To be fair, that is probably true... on good days. But when outcomes emerge from a sealed black box, the human mind does what it does best: it fills in gaps with speculation, suspicion and conspiracy theories - as Chakraborty's resignation has.

What actually happens inside that room? Is it a model of rational discourse, where data is interrogated, risks are weighed and consensus is achieved through honesty? Or is it, occasionally, something more... human?

Also Read: A look at past compliance issues at HDFC Bank

A director nods thoughtfully, having skimmed the briefing note between airport lounges. Another harbours a silent disagreement with the CEO, dating back to an offhand remark in 2020. A third is mentally calculating whether the meeting will end in time to catch a flight. Someone raises a concern, which is acknowledged and promptly buried under a slide titled 'Strategic Imperatives 2030'.

There may be genuine debate. There may also be fatigue. The final decision might reflect careful judgement... or the subtle gravitational pull of authority, hierarchy or desire to avoid being the lone dissenter. Sometimes, one suspects, decisions are less the product of deliberation and more the outcome of momentum: the proposal sounds reasonable. Risks appear manageable. The clock is ticking. The vote is called. Hands go up. Resolution passed.

It is not that boards are careless. It's that they are composed of people, and people bring with them preferences, biases, loyalties and impatience. The mythology of boardrooms suggests a realm of pure logic and governance. The reality is likely a blend of insight, instinct and the occasional educated guess dressed in formal language.

Independent directors, audit committees, governance frameworks and regulatory scrutiny serve to keep the process within acceptable bounds. Activist investors may ask questions. Legal teams ensure that procedures are followed. But process is not the same as transparency.

A board can confidently assert that it acted on 'information available at the time', followed 'appropriate governance protocols', and arrived at a decision 'in the best interests of stakeholders'. All of which may be true - and yet unilluminating.

The deeper question remains unasked: how did the room feel? Was there doubt? Was there dissent? Did conviction triumph over convenience, or did convenience take over?

Directors prefer, understandably, to believe in the ideal: that boards, like juries, are wise, impartial and guided by a sense of duty; that their decisions are the result of disciplined reasoning rather than the subtle chaos of human interaction. And, often, that belief is justified.

But every now and then, one suspects that behind polished minutes and resolutions lie something less predictable. Not reckless, not negligent. Just human. And the rare public resignation.

'Be just, and if you can't be just, be arbitrary,' wrote William S Burroughs with less corporate governance in mind than he realised. For, when certainty evaporates, agendas swell and the clock edges unhelpfully forward, even the most distinguished board can begin to resemble a weary jury: less a temple of reason, more a room in search of closure.

Principles are consulted, of course. Data is invoked. And, then, with admirable efficiency, ambiguity is resolved. Be just, if you can manage it. If not, there is always the comforting arithmetic of a vote.