CASUS
“But who are you actually here for?”
A board member in moral and governance no-man’s-land.
Situation
A member of the Board of Directors, let’s call him Mark, approaches the confidential advisor for a confidential conversation.
He sounds tired. Careful.
And visibly on guard.
“I want to discuss something that has been on my mind for quite some time.
But I don’t know if I’m even allowed to be here.”
What it is about.
Within the organization there is a strong formal line. The confidential advisor is there for employees. That is stated in every presentation. That is how communication and governance are structured.
But Mark is struggling.
He sees, and feels, that tension is emerging at the top.
Not about an incident, but about
- Decisions that hurt
- People who are becoming increasingly silent
- Loyalty conflicts
- And the growing fear of reputational and media consequences
He says:
“I notice that employees are afraid to approach us directly.
And honestly… I feel a kind of cold feet myself. Not because I don’t want to listen.
But because I’m not sure whether I can do it right.”
He asks the confidential advisor:
- Am I actually allowed to talk to you, as a board member?
- Or does that undermine the role?
- Am I then ‘exerting influence’?
- And if you hear something, will it ever come back to me?
- Who actually supports us as a board, if we want to learn without it becoming political?
What he does not say, but what is clearly felt:
“I want to do the right thing.
But I don’t know if I can still learn safely.”
What is happening here?
This is not a simple “case”.
This is system tension at the highest level.
- The confidential advisor is formally positioned “for employees”
- But safety is an organizational value
- And leadership consciously or unconsciously sets the norm
The board member:
- Feels responsibility
- But also vulnerability
- And reputational risk
- And the taboo of asking for help himself
He is looking for a place where he is allowed to doubt, reflect, and learn. Without it immediately becoming political, legal, or strategic.
And there a paradox arises: the confidential advisor is the safest place, but formally perhaps not “intended for him (the board)”.
New conceptual framework
The uncomfortable question
Not:
“Is a board member allowed to go to the confidential advisor?”
But:
“How mature is a system in which leaders have no safe space to learn about safety?”
And:
“What does this say about the preventive maturity of the organization?”
What do we see systemically?
1.The role of the PAV is framed too narrowly.
“For employees” sounds clear.
But it narrows prevention to an HR service.
2. Leadership is often outside the emotional learning loop.
They must be able to handle it.
They are not allowed to doubt.
They are expected to be strong.
That makes learning unsafe.
3. Reputational pressure suffocates reflection.
Board members know that every word can tilt into:
-
- Media framing
- Works council politics
- Legal assessment
- Supervisory scrutiny
4. The confidential advisor is the only place without an agenda.
And that is precisely what makes the question tense.
5. Organizations often do not know who the PAV actually is.
Functionally speaking.
Systemically speaking.
Morally speaking.
What can the confidential advisor do here without role blurring?
The PAV remains:
- Neutral
- Independent
- Relational
- Human
- System-aware
The PAV:
- Carefully names the tension
- Explores intention and need
- Safeguards the working framework
- Prevents it from becoming “advice to the board”
- Keeps an eye on power asymmetry
The PAV can, for example, say:
“I am not here to coach or advise board members.
But when your questions touch on safety, trust, and space to speak,
this conversation can help to gain insight into what safety requires, also at the top of the organization.”
And:
“My role is not an alliance. My role is presence, interpretation, and carefulness.”
Leadership seeking a safe space for reflection is a signal of preventive maturity.
From confidential advisor for employee support to PAV as a moral and preventive anchor for the entire organization, with clear boundaries.
Reflection assignment for PAV members
About your role
- What is my moral foundation?
- Can I be present without taking sides?
- How do I safeguard independence in asymmetrical power relations?
- Where is my boundary between reflection and advising?
About the system
- What does it say that board members experience no safe place to learn?
- Who is allowed to doubt and who is not?
- How do governance, reputation, and safety relate to one another here?
- Is the PAV formally positioned too narrowly?
About prevention
- How can we invite leadership to talk and learn?
- How do we normalize reflection before harm occurs?
- Which rhythms and structures are still missing?
About carefulness
- What does this board member need in order to be human?
- What does the organization need in order to become mature?
- What does this ask of my language, tempo, and presence?
What do we learn from this as a profession?
That mature prevention truly begins when power also learns to reflect, safely and without façade. And that the PAV does not become a “coach to the board,” but the guardian of moral space and human measure.
That is not a small role.
That is a strategic, quiet, dignified role.