This explorative study examines a case of ethical failings at a major Australian company to understand why independent directors sometimes fail to be as inquiring and challenging as we expect them to be. Using document analysis and framed in identity theory, the research introduces the concept of friendship role identity to the corporate governance literature. The findings highlight how friendships can create an identity conflict in the boardroom when the associated demands are incompatible with the director role. Directors’ responses to this identity conflict can vary based on the perceived benefits of the friendship in relation to the director role. When both roles are considered equally important, the strain of having to act on two competing identities may reduce director engagement, adversely affecting monitoring efforts. The findings indicate that while directors may appear independent on paper, competing roles, such as friendships, can compromise their actual independence. Practically, the study demonstrates the importance of director training, board reviews, and formal selection practices to clarify and reinforce director role expectations.