People bring with them to the workplace a range of filters through which they interpret all that is going on. They have a family filter, relationship filter, social filter, a financial filter, a security filter and so on. And they have an ego.

When change occurs, the impacts on people don’t necessarily remain within the organisation's boundaries. People take home with them their stresses, concerns and anxieties that exist at work. Similarly, when 'stuff' is happening to people outside the workplace, then it’s a rare person indeed who can disassociate him/herself at work from all that is happening to them out of work.

As an example, if a person has significant financial commitments and if a change threatens that person's job (i.e. suggests potential redundancy or demotion,) then it should surprise no one if that person experiences some anxiety and stress about the change - certainly until there is more clarity about the specific impacts of the change on that person. When that person goes home, then their home situation is affected by the emotion generated at work.

Similarly, when a sole parent has a small sick child and relies on his/her salary to sustain them both, then they will be under huge stress to tender to their child while earning revenue. Not to notice the impact on the person at work would be unusual. Life changes, births, deaths, marriages, health, economic stress, housing all come with strong emotions that have carry over effects in the workplace.
Being able to avoid stress and anxiety requires suitable timely communications to the people who might suffer from these normal yet difficult emotions.

Yet while good communications can avoid or remedy some emotions, it’s unlikely to be a remedy for all negative emotions - only because those emotions are entirely normal.

Remember, even when good stuff happens it can create an emotional response. For example, a person being promoted may be anxious about their ability to perform in the new role - a positive change certainly, yet a potentially negative emotion.

Sometimes and for some people however, these anxieties act as stimulants for achievement.
The scientific evidence is extensive for the significant effects of emotion on behaviour, on one's mind and on one's body. A strong common thread however, is that emotions have a purpose and help a person cope with situations.

People commonly have a preference to 'work on the left' (of the brain) or work on the 'right'. What this means is that there is a natural, biological preference to work in one hemisphere of the brain than the other.

Right or left does not refer to competence but to preference. Those who are capable in one hemisphere are commonly capable in the other - but may not have the confidence to do so.
A left-brain preference implies a desire for predictability, certainty, clarity, and detail. The person is likely to be analytical and needs to be convinced before there is acceptance.

A right-brain preference implies a comfort with the abstract, ambiguous and creative tasks. The person is comfortable in non-exact 'spaces' and works through them without much discomfort.

The implication of this is as follows: the place a person sits within an organisation or the work that the person does for a significant period must sit with their respective brain-hemisphere.

What this means is that although most people can operate in either hemisphere, they struggle to do it over long periods because it’s not their preferred brain activity.

Left-brainers are suited to performing analytical and exacting work over long periods. If as a result of a change initiative, you ask them to be creative over the long-term, or to work under a matrix style management structure, then they will probably stress because they are out of their comfort zone. A Matrix style of management requires a person to answer to multiple managers with differing and sometime competing priorities. A left-brainer needs precision so this ambiguity and imprecision is likely to be stressful.

Right-brainers like to set their own agenda, be responsible for outcomes but not for exacting rules or processes. They value opportunities to be creative or to work on abstract concepts and ideas. They don’t feel much stress during changes in the organisation and go with the flow. They do however, feel uncomfortable with tight control. Therefore, if you were to impose on a right-brainer deeply analytical work with tight controls over long periods, then stress and discontentment would surface.
Interestingly, successful managers can operate in both hemispheres with high competence for considerable periods.

The point here is, you should know the psychological make-up of the people that your organisation is impacting before you decide on solutions and a change management strategy.

Although 'full-time' board membership provides a greater level of detail and understanding to the incumbent, it also detracts from the role of the board member, i.e. ensuring compliance, probity, legality, risk management, and adherence to and delivery of set goals.

When you're very close to the action, you inevitably become part of the action and as a board member, you then have to adjudicate over your own decisions, actions and performance.
Extensive research has demonstrated that managers and directors act subjectively (but with well-meaning intent.) Such subjectivity needs to be effectively over-sighted in the interests of the company and its shareholders.

Further, different companies in different contexts at different stages of their development need different inputs from their directors. There is no universal truth here.