Oleksandr “Alex” Matsiuk built a self-improvement app into a company with 110 employees spread across 12 countries. He did it in just two years. Success came fast. Honest feedback arrived slowly.
Matsiuk, cofounder and CEO of RiseGuide, an expert-powered microlearning platform founded in 2024, realized early that rapid growth created an echo chamber. “As CEO, I don’t have a formal manager, performance reviews, or a personal development plan,” he told Business Insider. His performance tied directly to company results. That metric, he learned, wasn’t enough.
So he started hiring people who would push back. Outspoken employees first. Then a board member selected for one purpose: to argue with him. The move sounds risky. It has delivered sharper decisions and better outcomes. And it reflects a broader shift in how some leaders and governance experts think about board dynamics.
CEOs at growing firms often surround themselves with agreeable talent. Loyalty feels safe. Yet it breeds blind spots. Matsiuk saw this pattern in himself. Passionate belief in an idea would shut down debate. Team members yielded. “I needed someone who wouldn’t give up until one of us proved our point,” he said.
The search for that board member followed strict rules. The candidate had to grasp the business model. Know Matsiuk personally. Commit time with the team. Above all, possess the spine to challenge the boss without backing down. The chosen individual tested those traits immediately. Before accepting the seat, he grilled Matsiuk on why the role existed, what value he would add, and exactly what would happen during disagreements. That exchange sealed the deal.
The Power of Structured Conflict
Fast-forward to target-setting season. About a year ago, Matsiuk laid out ambitious goals for the next six months. The new board member tore into them. He questioned assumptions, poked at feasibility, and refused to accept surface-level answers. The debate stretched. Tempers flared at points. Yet the final targets emerged stronger. They reflected reality more closely.
This wasn’t mere friction. It changed how Matsiuk evaluates progress. He now measures outputs more than outcomes in certain areas. Outputs prove more reliable signals of execution quality. Outcomes can mislead when external factors intervene. The distinction has refined resource allocation and performance reviews across RiseGuide.
His experience lands at a moment when governance thinkers question passive boards. A September 20, 2026, post from the Institute of Directors argues that discouraging dissent courts disaster. The author proposes rotating a “Devil’s Advocate” or “Stakeholder Advocate” at every major board meeting. One director, chosen by turn, gains explicit permission to voice the unsayable, challenge every key decision, and represent employees, creditors, communities, and the environment alongside shareholders. No interruptions during the final summation. The piece suggests many decisions would reverse or improve under this discipline. (IOD)
Similar ideas surface in boardroom literature. An article in Directors & Boards urges respect for the devil’s advocate. Directors playing that part consider wider stakeholder effects. They spot harmful consequences that consensus-driven groups miss. The piece warns against chronic contrarians who criticize without data. It favors assigning the role deliberately to test assumptions and expose vulnerabilities. (Directors & Boards, June 2026)
Academic work pushes further. A 2026 law review article by Dana Brakman Reiser and Claire Hill in the Minnesota Law Review advocates rotating contrarians on for-profit and nonprofit boards. The mechanism counters passivity and groupthink. Each independent director takes the role on a schedule. During their turn, they must raise objections, marshal arguments against proposals, and demand better alternatives. The time limit prevents anyone from becoming the permanent naysayer. Failures at Boeing and the NRA illustrate the cost of weak dissent, the authors note.
Corporate scandals and strategic missteps often trace back to unchallenged assumptions. Boards nod along. Management drives forward. Disaster follows. Matsiuk’s deliberate choice to install an internal opponent offers a practical counter at the CEO level. He didn’t wait for crisis. He engineered tension into the governance structure.
Other leaders experiment with related tactics. Some turn to generative AI as a tireless thought partner that challenges strategies without ego. A March 2026 LinkedIn analysis described CEOs using AI for self-reflection, scenario testing, and logic checks before big calls. The technology acts as a “grumpy CEO” that delivers unfiltered pushback. Yet human arguers bring accountability and nuance no algorithm matches.
Recruiting for dissent requires care. Board searches traditionally favor cultural fit. That preference can filter out exactly the voices needed. Experts recommend behavioral questions that probe past tough conversations. Candidates should demonstrate willingness to deliver hard messages. Rules of engagement set early help. Make clear that independent thought counts as a core duty.
Rotation matters. A single permanent critic risks isolation. Colleagues tune out the known skeptic. Spreading the role keeps everyone sharp. It normalizes disagreement as process, not personality.
Matsiuk applies the principle inside his company too. He hires for outspokenness at multiple levels. The habit has shaped culture. Debate feels safer. Ideas face scrutiny sooner. Execution improves.
But tension carries risks. Unmanaged conflict can erode trust. Personalities clash. Productivity suffers. The RiseGuide CEO mitigates this by selecting arguers who know the business and respect the mission. Disagreements stay evidence-based. They end when proof lands on one side.
Boards everywhere face pressure. Activist investors demand results. Regulators tighten oversight. Technology reshapes industries overnight. In that environment, polite agreement becomes luxury few can afford. Constructive opposition turns necessity.
Matsiuk’s story shows one path. Hire the fight. Structure the combat. Measure what matters. His app helps users build better habits. The CEO adopted one himself: invite contradiction. The company grew. The leader sharpened. Both gained.
Other organizations study similar models. Some assign devil’s advocates per discussion. Others rotate the duty across the full board cycle. A few bring in outsiders to present activist-style critiques. The common thread is deliberate discomfort. Comfort, many now believe, signals danger.
The RiseGuide example stands out for its transparency. Most CEOs hide internal friction. Matsiuk broadcast it. The candor itself models the behavior he seeks. Leaders who admit vulnerability invite stronger counsel. Those who project perfection often receive flattery instead.
Results at the microlearning firm remain private. Yet the CEO credits the approach with better targets, clearer metrics, and personal growth. He no longer mistakes silence for support. Passion no longer drowns out doubt. The board member who argued before joining continues to deliver. Their clashes produce decisions both can defend.
Governance isn’t about harmony. It’s about rigor. Boards exist to test management, not rubber-stamp it. CEOs benefit when that test arrives regularly and fairly. Matsiuk built that test into his board from the start. In doing so, he may have sketched a template others will follow.
The next time a CEO claims an all-star board, ask a follow-up. Does anyone on it argue with you? And do you listen when they do?