When board evaluations reveal disagreement, that is not the problem. Ignoring it is.

Board evaluations are often approached as a scorecard. Are we doing well or not? But one of the most valuable signals rarely sits in the averages. It sits in the gaps.

Across our aggregated board evaluation data, one pattern stands out clearly: different groups experience the same board very differently. And those differences are often more instructive than the overall score.

What the data tells us

When we compare responses, we consistently see differences between how board members and executive management assess board effectiveness. We also see systematic differences between how male and female respondents rate the same statements.

These are not random variations. They appear across multiple evaluations, companies, and contexts.

In practical terms, this means that what feels clear, effective, and value-creating to one group may feel less so to another, even though they are observing the same meetings, decisions, and behaviors.

Why this matters more than averages

High average scores can be comforting. They can also be misleading.

Perception gaps often point to underlying dynamics that the board itself may not be fully aware of: whose voices carry weight, whose input shapes outcomes, how safe it feels to challenge prevailing views, and whether decision rationales are understood and trusted beyond the boardroom.

Importantly, these gaps are rarely about bad intentions. They are about different vantage points.

Executives experience the board through interactions, feedback, and consequences. Board members experience it through governance, dialogue, and decision-making. Male and female respondents often experience dynamics of airtime, challenge, and inclusion differently, even in well-functioning rooms.

The risk of dismissing the gap

A common reaction to disagreement in evaluation data is to look for the “right” view. Are executives too critical? Are some respondents overly cautious? Are the numbers skewed by expectations?

That instinct misses the point.

The gap itself is the insight. It tells you where alignment may be weaker than assumed, where intentions are not landing as expected, or where parts of the system are working better for some than for others.

Boards that dismiss these signals risk reinforcing blind spots. Boards that explore them tend to learn quickly.

How high-performing boards use disagreement constructively

Boards that get the most value from evaluation data do three things differently.

First, they resist the urge to explain differences away. Instead, they treat them as hypotheses worth testing.

Second, they create space to explore what sits behind the numbers. What experiences lead different groups to see the same situation differently? What assumptions are at play?

Third, they focus less on who is “right” and more on what the gap reveals about how the board operates in practice.

Used this way, perception gaps become an early warning system, and a learning opportunity, rather than a reputational threat.

A simple question that opens the conversation

Instead of asking “Why do they see this differently from us?”, try asking: “What might this difference be telling us about how our board actually works?”

That shift alone often changes the quality of the discussion.

Closing thought

Alignment at the board level does not imply uniform perception. It means having the curiosity and maturity to engage with differences before they become dysfunctional.

Disagreement in board evaluations is not a failure. It is data. What matters is whether boards are willing to listen to what they are trying to say.

If you want to explore how to interpret and use perception gaps constructively, you are welcome to reach out.