Howard Levitt: Difficulties arise because directors underestimate the significance of their early decisions
Fri, July 10, 2026 at 11:08 p.m. GMT+3Directors often assume that their greatest challenge when a complaint is brought against the CEO will be in determining whether the allegations are substantiated.
The complaint may involve harassment, bullying, discrimination, retaliation, conflicts of interest, financial impropriety or other misconduct. The allegations may ultimately prove true, false or somewhere in between. At the outset, the board likely does not know. What it does know is that the next several days may determine not only the future of the chief executive, but of the board's own credibility and whether it or any of its members should best resign.
Directors often assume that their greatest challenge will be determining whether the allegations are substantiated. The more immediate challenge is ensuring that the organization responds appropriately before that determination can even be made. The first 72 hours are rarely remembered for what the board did right. They are remembered for what it failed to do.
The difficulty is that complaints against senior leadership arrive burdened with uncertainty. The facts are often incomplete. Emotions run high. Rumours spread quickly.
Directors find themselves under pressure to act decisively while possessing only fragments of the information they require. In such circumstances, the greatest risk is not making the wrong decision. It is making a premature one. One of the first questions is deceptively simple: Who should receive the complaint?
If allegations concern the chief executive, management cannot investigate itself. The matter must immediately move beyond the normal reporting structure and into the hands of independent directors, typically through the board chair, lead director or an appropriate board committee.begin when a complaint remains with management for too long. A board cannot exercise oversight on a matter it is unaware of. Boards sometimes hesitate.
Independent investigations are expensive, disruptive and often uncomfortable. Directors may also believe they can assess the issue internally before involving external advisers. The decision to retain outside counsel, which should always occur, is not solely about legal advice. It is about independence, credibility and process.
Employees, regulators, shareholders and courts may be willing to accept an unfavourable outcome. They are far less willing to accept a process that they perceive as compromised. Should the CEO remain active while the investigation proceeds? There is no universal answer.
Some allegations may not justify any interim action. Others may require restrictions on authority, limitations on access to personnel or information, or temporary leave pending the investigation's outcome. What matters is not necessarily the conclusion it reaches. What matters is that it confronts the question directly rather than avoiding it.
A decision not to act is still a decision. By the time directors learn of a complaint, relevant emails, messages, documents and electronic records may already be at risk of alteration or deletion. The board's obligation is not merely to investigate. It is to ensure that the evidence necessary to conduct a fair investigation remains intact.
Organizations often underestimate how quickly this information becomes critical. Yet excessive disclosure creates its own risks. Employees want reassurance. Investors want confidence.
The media may demand answers. Regulators may seek information. Boards frequently discover that communicating too little or too much are both capable of causing damage. The objective is neither secrecy nor transparency for their own sake.
It is preserving confidence in the integrity of the process. Public companies face an additional consideration. At some point, directors may need to determine whether the allegations or the investigation itself trigger disclosure obligations. That analysis depends upon the facts, the nature of the allegations and their potential impact on the corporation.
What should never occur is allowing disclosure considerations to influence the investigation itself. The board's first responsibility is to discover the truth. Its disclosure obligations flow from that responsibility, not the other way around. Over the years, I have observed that the greatest challenges for boards rarely lie in the allegations themselves.
More often, difficulties arise because directors underestimate the significance of their early decisions. Its investigation lacks independence. Communications are improvised rather than planned. The ultimate findings of an investigation may vindicate the CEO, justify discipline or lead to dismissal.
The board's responsibility is not to predict the conclusion. It is to ensure that when the conclusion eventually arrives, it is one that the organization, its employees, its shareholders and the public can trust. It is established in the first few days after it begins.
Please follow us on Google to support usAllegations Board Committee Greatest Challenge Independent Directors
Canada Latest News, Canada Headlines
Similar News: You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Volkswagen’s supervisory board to discuss auto giant’s future amid widespread protestsPlan to shed 100,000 jobs and shutter four plants would mark the company’s largest restructuring effort ever
Read more »
Canadian Justice Sketch and National Headlines: From Review Board to Amber Alert, Healthcare, and Climate RecordsThis news summary covers a range of topics including a courtroom sketch of Allan Schoenborn, a Toronto woman's successful challenge of traffic tickets, an Amber Alert in Alberta, a nurse's suspension in Manitoba, a police shooting investigation in Ontario, rising gas prices, PM Carney's human rights talks in Saudi Arabia, a cyclospora outbreak in the US, Emmy nominations for 'The Pitt,' Terry Rozier's potential NBA return, Barcelona's record heat, and a medication adherence platform.
Read more »
Proposed class action targets school board over Rosemere High School data breachA class-action lawsuit request has been filed in Quebec Superior Court against the Sir Wilfrid Laurier School Board following a data breach at Rosemere High School on the North Shore of Montreal.
Read more »
Board expectations and where will Coventry be at Christmas?Rob: I definitely think staying in the Premier League is the minimum requirement this season, and in every interview I've seen or heard Doug King do, that's what he's always said.
Read more »