In many\u00a0organizations, the days when boards could confine themselves to compliance and performance monitoring are long gone. Boards are now asked to provide strategic counsel on issues ranging from AI adoption and cybersecurity to sustainability, talent transitions, and the reshaping of entire business models. The complexity is such that boards must\u00a0frequently\u00a0recalibrate their role depending on circumstances: in crisis, they may need to lean in and shape adaptation; in stability, they may guide long-term positioning and sharpen strategic focus.<\/p>\n
A clear illustration comes from ASM International, where Pauline Van der Meer Mohr became chair of the supervisory board in 2022. ASM had been growing strongly and\u00a0operating\u00a0at the leading edge of semiconductor technology, while also finding itself increasingly exposed to political tensions between the United States and China. Reflecting on the board\u2019s role in such an environment, Pauline noted that \u201cone of the biggest challenges of any board is to connect the long-term perspective we should take with the short-term questions the company faces today.\u201d Her observation captures a central tension modern boards must manage as they navigate complex and fast-changing environments.<\/p>\n
People: Building a Board with the Right Minds, Not Just the Right CVs\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Because governance is carried out by people, not systems, the effectiveness of any board is\u00a0ultimately bounded\u00a0by the quality of its members\u2019 thinking,\u00a0character\u00a0and judgment. Yet many boards still fall into a predictable trap: selecting directors from a narrow circle of familiar faces.\u00a0Robert Nicholson, a director\u00a0in multiple Australian corporations whom we\u00a0interviewed, described how many boards still\u00a0operate\u00a0within narrow networks. As he put it, boards \u201chave been a bit clubby,\u201d with people tending to choose individuals they already know or believe will think in similar\u00a0ways, and\u00a0often\u00a0hesitating\u00a0to take a risk on someone outside their familiar circles. The result, he noted, is a narrower skill set than many boards\u00a0require\u00a0and a corresponding lack of diversity of thought.<\/p>\n What distinguishes the strongest boards is not simply technical\u00a0expertise, though this\u00a0remains\u00a0essential, but the combination of\u00a0expertise\u00a0and mindset. Directors must bring curiosity, independence,\u00a0global awareness, emotional steadiness, and the courage to challenge assumptions without derailing collaboration. In contexts where complexity is rising and decision-making requires nuanced judgments rather than formulaic\u00a0solutions,\u00a0these human qualities often matter as much as domain knowledge.<\/p>\n Structures and Processes: Turning a Collection of Individuals into a Cohesive Governing Body\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Even when highly qualified directors are appointed, a board\u2019s ability to create value depends on the structures within which those individuals\u00a0operate. Processes that once served companies\u00a0well,\u00a0quarterly meetings anchored in thick binders of backward-looking reports, are insufficient in an environment where the pace of change is immediate and often unpredictable. Boards need more agile rhythms, faster information flows, deeper engagement with emerging topics, and a deliberate orientation toward the future.<\/p>\n Equally important is how directors work together. Many interviewees admitted that boards, by their nature, do not automatically function as teams: they meet infrequently, they come from diverse backgrounds, and they often lack the accumulated trust that develops in executive teams. Yet modern governance increasingly requires boards to behave like cohesive units rather than loosely connected individuals.<\/p>\n The\u00a0chair of\u00a0one of\u00a0Europe\u2019s largest\u00a0corporations\u00a0captured this beautifully when he explained that building a real board team \u201ctakes time,\u201d especially when meetings occur only every month or two. For that reason, he insisted that informal interactions, even something as simple as a dinner the night before, were essential to create the cohesion needed for genuine debate, joint problem-solving\u00a0and a shared sense of responsibility for outcomes. His point underscores a truth often overlooked: strong governance is as much about human connection as it is about structure.<\/p>\n For boards to add strategic value, they must\u00a0establish\u00a0processes that encourage forward-looking discussions,\u00a0timely\u00a0access to emerging signals, and the kind of open environment in which directors can challenge,\u00a0question\u00a0and refine each other\u2019s thinking without ego or defensiveness.<\/p>\n Board Leadership: The Chair as Culture-Shaper and Integrator\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n In this evolving governance landscape, the board chair plays a\u00a0more\u00a0central\u00a0role\u00a0than ever. The chair sets the tone for how directors interact, approach complexity, assess the CEO\u2019s decisions, and how rigorously they examine the\u00a0organization\u2019s\u00a0long-term positioning. Chairs must\u00a0synthesize\u00a0vast amounts of information,\u00a0maintain\u00a0composure under uncertainty, balance support for the CEO with independence, and cultivate a climate where diverse perspectives can flourish without fracturing the board.<\/p>\n The chair\u2019s imprint often\u00a0determines\u00a0whether the board functions as a strategic partner or\u00a0remains\u00a0trapped in outdated supervisory habits. Given the demands of the role, it is unsurprising that the most effective chairs combine analytical strength with emotional intelligence, humility, and an instinct for when to step forward and when to step back.<\/p>\n Evaluation and Development: The Often-Missing Engine\u00a0for\u00a0Board Improvement\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Despite the\u00a0rising\u00a0importance of\u00a0strong\u00a0governance, many boards still\u00a0underinvest in\u00a0their own development. Several directors we interviewed described board evaluation as a \u201cmissed opportunity,\u201d often treated as a box-ticking exercise rather than a powerful instrument for learning and renewal.\u00a0Stefan\u00a0N\u00f6ken, a director at\u00a0Germany-based\u00a0Vaillant and Vorwerk, stressed that boards miss critical opportunities when evaluation is weak. As he explained, insufficient evaluation affects team\u00a0dynamics, limits the board\u2019s own development, and\u00a0ultimately reduces\u00a0its impact on the company. In\u00a0his words,\u00a0continuous improvement is hampered by the fact that evaluation is not taken seriously and not connected to board development.\u2019<\/p>\n This critique goes to the heart of the challenge. Without honest feedback, boards cannot\u00a0adjust\u00a0composition, refine\u00a0processes\u00a0or\u00a0identify\u00a0blind spots. Yet evaluation is only one half of the equation. Development,\u00a0investing in the growth of directors and in the board\u2019s collective capabilities,\u00a0is equally\u00a0essential.<\/p>\n Luka Mucic, Director at Heidelberg Materials\u00a0captured this in a memorable line: \u201cIt\u2019s not possible to simply set up a committee for five years and hope competence develops automatically.\u201d Boards, he argued, must actively cultivate\u00a0expertise, especially in fast-moving areas where expectations evolve\u00a0quickly\u00a0and the knowledge\u00a0required\u00a0to make sound decisions cannot be left to passive accumulation.<\/p>\n Whether through targeted training, scenario sessions, external expert input or structured reflection, board development should be as continuous and intentional as the development of the executive team.<\/p>\n![\"Marianna](\"https:\/\/ceoworld.biz\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/marianna-zangrillo-2.jpg\")
<\/p>\n