Situated within pragmatics, this study investigates the strategic use of language in institutional discourse, where indirectness often plays a crucial communicative role. Boardroom discussions provide a productive context for such analysis, as participants must assess performance, justify decisions, and negotiate responsibility in high-pressure situations. Focusing on The Apprentice UK, the research examines how Grice’s conversational maxims are flouted in boardroom interactions, with attention to their types, linguistic forms, communicative purposes, and role-based differences. Using a mixed-methods approach, the study analyzes 90 instances of maxim flouting through both qualitative and quantitative methods. The findings show that all four maxims, Quantity, Quality, Relation, and Manner, are strategically flouted, with Quality occurring most frequently. These floutings are realized through devices such as irony, metaphor, exaggeration, vagueness, and indirect responses. Functionally, they serve both evaluative aims, including criticism and pressure, and defensive aims, such as justification and blame avoidance. The study concludes that maxim flouting operates as an important communicative resource in high-stakes institutional contexts, offering practical implications for Business English and professional communication training.