This is the first of three articles to be posted on consecutive Fridays through July. Read on to learn about PwC's research(*) on board work and director contributions, and how boards intent on governing with impact might respond to identified gaps.

Much has been made about artificial intelligence in recent times; familiarity growing to such an extent that ‘AI’ has become ubiquitous, a word in and of itself. Expectations are sky high, that is clear. But what of competency, application, and, crucially, return on investment and beneficial outcomes?

Over the past 12–18 months, almost every speaking invitation I have received, and every request to curate a capability-building workshop or provide advice, has included, in some way, an expectation that I’d comment on AI in the boardroom. Whether expressed as AI governance, AI powered board decisions, the AI director, or some other variant, folk seem to be rushing, headlong to embrace AI.

That this is happening is self-evident: just look at social media feeds and newsletters from directors’ institutions. But board directors are not lemmings: they need to think critically about their work (which is, to provide effective steerage and guidance—govern with impact) and their duty to take the company into the future, not run headlong into whatever might be around the corner. 

PwC's research suggests that, while AI is top of mind in most boardrooms and expectations are very high, some major gaps are starting to become apparent. For example:

• Currency gap: Over one third of directors surveyed (38%) say they lack adequate education on AI developments, and nearly half (43%) say their top concern is keeping up with the pace of change. 
• Impact gap: Only 12 per cent of CEOs say they have successfully reduced costs and increased revenues as a result of AI deployments; over half (55%) have seen no progress on cost reduction or revenue increase (including 13 per cent who have seen costs increase with no revenue impact).

These gaps, and others, have the potential become chasms, unless directors come to terms with the changing environment and boards respond well. Fortunately, directors (individually and collectively) are not devoid of options:

• Continuing education: If directors are to maintain relevance, they need to detect and critically assess emerging trends, cultural shifts and market preferences.  For this, directors need to commit time to read widely, attend briefings from a range of sources, and ponder options. Five to ten hours per week is not unreasonable. 
• Purpose and strategy: Many corporate strategies are strategic in name alone; they are more accurately either fluffy vision statements without substance, or detailed plans without a clear sense of direction. In high change environments (especially), directors need to insist on strategic reviews twice or three times per year, to check the continued relevance of previously agreed strategic priorities and projects, and make adjustments if needed. This is not planning, nor is it management. It is reviewing overall direction and pathway, given what lies ahead. Clarity on purpose and strategy will enable the executive to empower teams to explore options to expedite approved strategy, and reject projects that have no direct linkage to the advancement of strategic goals.
• Frequency of meetings: In high-change environments, a lot can change between board meetings. Directors should consider meeting more frequently during periods of high change, or to oversee a strategically important project. But caution is needed, to avoid real-time dashboards and reporting feeds; the board's job is to govern not manage!
• Capability and expertise: Boards need to ensure they have the right sort of expertise available, to understand risks and opportunities, and make informed decisions. Annual governance assessments, conducted by a credible third party, is recommended. The findings will help identify capability and expertise gaps, especially in relation to critical thinking, deep sector knowledge, technical expertise, and behaviours necessary to provide effective steerage and guidance in a turbulent environment.

From all I have read to date (which is a lot), AI tools promise material benefits to companies wanting to gain operating efficiencies and improve customer service. However, emerging evidence suggests AI is not a silver bullet. If directors are to add value, they need to be both informed and vigilant: A useful starting point is to check if (and if so how) any proposal might expedite progress towards the company's purpose and strategy. 

(*) PwC research: 2025 Corporate Directors' Survey and 2026 Global CEO Survey.

Fifty-nine years ago, on 10 July 1967, New Zealand adopted decimal currency. The then Finance Minister, Robert Muldoon, championed the change from pounds, shillings and pence, to dollars and cents. Many older people struggled to make the change. After all, they had had a lifetime of operating within a completely different paradigm. But now, almost six decades on, we take decimal currency for granted. What changed?

Some people seem to embrace change well, others tend to be much more comfortable with the status quo. Some openly resist change. Society is, by definition, dynamic. Therefore, change is normal and natural. And the way we react/respond to change can have a significant bearing on our quality of life. Time is a factor too. 

Companies, as are microcosms of society, are not  immune to change either. The emergence of new technologies (think: decarbonisation, AI), expectations expressed by shareholders and stakeholder and activist groups), and competitors, not to mention geopolitical changes and natural disasters, have the potential to completely upend a once-high performing business.

How do you and the board you serve on cope with change?

As a board director, are you a pioneer, on the vanguard, championing change initiatives? Or, are you one back, happily embracing changes that others define? Perhaps you are more ambivalent, simply accommodating change when it comes? Or, do you tend to be resistive, because keeping safe and protecting inherent value is more important to you?

In practice, these mindsets are, to a greater or lesser extent, present at every board meeting. Sanguine-types, who tend to be enthusiastic about new options; driver-types are all about the outcome; guardians, who tend to be detail-oriented and strive to protect what is in place; and, phlegmatics, who want to know everyone is agreeable before moving on.

That there are differing mindsets is a good thing, for it helps consider change from different perspectives. No board director needs to ‘cope’ alone. But, as with the adoption of decimal currency, the decision itself is not the greatest challenge: after the decision the board needs to  ensure the desired outcome and associated benefits are realised in practice. And that is what differentiates a great board from the rest. Such is boardcraft.

I am a son of a dairy farmer, a grandson of two (dairy farmers); a father of three adult children (none of whom have any interest in farming), and a grandfather of one grandson. I was born in a seemingly simpler time, before JFK’s audacious challenge: "We choose to go to the moon."

While the natural path was to follow those who had gone before me, my eyes were opened to new possibilities while living in the United States: I discovered business and technology. That, and, more generally, my innate curiosity led to a decision to study software engineering, manufacturing systems and management. A career in product development, project management, international business development and leadership followed, and, later, in 2001, a rather significant decision to leave paid employment, to serve others directly. 

Today,  25 years on from that decision, I have had the good fortune to study, travel, and contribute in a variety of ways including serve on the boards of over 20 private and family businesses and social enterprises; advise and educate thousands of boards and chairs on five continents, and regulators and governments as well; deliver hundreds of keynotes and talks, on stages large and small; and, quietly, research boards and their impact on business outcomes.

None of this makes me special—but it has made me who I am. 

Along the way, I have noticed a few oddities, some of which have exercised my wee grey cells deep into the evenings:

• While most directors are well-intentioned, some are downright lazy. Why is this so?
• One in  six directors understands the business of the business they are charged with governing. Worse, only one in twenty boards are united as one when it comes to the purpose of the business, the reason it exists. This being the case, how can any board do its job if directors don’t know what their job is?
• Conceptions of what corporate governance is vary, widely, despite a definition being offered Richard Eells, who coined the term in 1960. He said corporate governance describes the structure and functioning of the corporate polity (the board). Cadbury's refinement (1992) “the means by which companies are directed and controlled” made the performance and compliance aspects of every board's work explicit. Given these perfectly adequate definitions, why do some many academics, consultants and others continue to propose new definitions?
• Many people and organisations have over the decades proposed and pursued best practice recommendations, corporate governance codes, and compliance measures, in the hope of better outcomes. Considerable effort has been applied. that is clear—but for what effect?
• Because boards are social, the key to great outcomes is likely to be (social) as well. If values, culture, and behaviour matter more than structure and regulation, why do structural recommendations and 'regulation first' approaches continue to dominate the discourse?
• In life, you cannot comply your way to great outcomes. If you want better, you gotta do better things better, n'est-ce pas? I have concluded that boards are no different—and that if boards are to have any hope of governing with impact, they first have to understand what governance is, and work out how to put their understanding into practice having taken into account prevailing circumstances.

I have been told I'm an outlier on some matters. That may be, but am I the only person who thinks like this?

In these first few days of June, I have been pondering the photographs I took in May (together, my Mundane May project). My motive was plain: to photograph a scene or object each day in May, post the images with an open mind, and see what happens.

The exercise was a test of sorts, to see whether I could establish and sustain a new rhythm, without preëmpting what might emerge. My hope was that I would become more observant, especially of things and situations in the periphery or out of sight. That was realised. But, I seem to have become a little more patient as well; my innate curiosity, which has languished in recent times, has been rekindled too. All of this is gratifying.

Then, yesterday, a postscript emerged. While cataloguing the final few photographs, I looked at some older images. One, captured in October 2023, seemed to levitate over the screen. I stared at it for quite a while, and let my thoughts wander.

The photograph captured one section of the Rococo library, which is located in the Abbey of Saint Gall. The library is the oldest in Switzerland and one of the oldest monastic libraries in the world. It houses over 170,000 religious documents, many of which are over one thousand years old. Several artworks are displayed too, and a sarcophagus to boot.

Staring at the picture reminded me of time spent on the parquet flooring, exercising my senses in the company of my dear friend, Riccardo (from Lisboa). I was inspired awe-struck by it all. As we moved about that day, quietly, and studied various items and explanatory notes, many questions came to mind. What might the authors have been thinking when they wrote, what did they eat, and who were their patrons? Did they ever dream their contributions might still be preserved hundreds of years later?

Recalling that visit to Rococo helped encapsulate my thoughts about the Mundane May project: We know far less than we think we do.

At first contact, it is easy to draw conclusions, especially if quantitative data is available. But these are often an illusion. As we think more deeply, we realise the world around us is dynamic; things change, often in unpredictable ways. Understanding in such situations relies on reasoning, intuition, and judgement. And, for that, qualitative data is necessary.

Indeed, what seems to be so at first may not actually be so.

Context matters.

The parallels with board work are stark. If I have learned one thing in the past 25 years serving as a director and advising boards, it is this: look beyond what can be seen, and hold options lightly. Validate what is reported. Strive to fill gaps by asking good questions and listening intently to the responses—before making a decision.

That none of us knows it all should be self-evident. That being the case, why do so many leaders, directors, and consultants continue to assert deterministic answers, best practice models, and 'ideal' structures, as if they exist and acting on them will deliver a prescribed outcome?

Wittgenstein's maxim is ringing in my ears.

Riccardo and me, chatting on a bench seat at the St. Gallen station, awaiting the train to Zurich.

I have been based in Johannesburg this week, working with boards and directors in both South Africa and neighbouring countries. What has struck me is their entrepreneurial spirit: their ambition to realise the full potential of the companies they govern. That most are looking beyond compliance-based orthodoxy, for clues to help them get ahead, has been refreshing.

While conversations have been wide-ranging—from board structures and compositions, to enquiries about the Strategic Governance Framework, corporate governance codes, board pack designs and board meeting frequency—one topic has stood out: artificial intelligence.

On AI, everyone wants in it seems, but not necessarily to deploy AI tools and agents directly in the boardroom (although some are). Instead, having heard of my involvement with AI since 1984 (I studied the topic and built an ‘engine’ at university), they wanted to hear my perspective on several macro issues—especially how companies might gain, and possibly even sustain, competitive advantage.

My responses to directors have been fairly candid:

• Maintain an open mind.
• Technical advances are racing along. What was bleeding edge yesterday, may well be mainstream soon, or even passé.
• Don’t try to become an expert—learn to ask great questions of experts.
• Ensure projects that incorporate AI tools are tested against corporate strategy for alignment. A good question to ask is something like, “How will this project advance our strategic ambitions?”
• The business case to secure efficiencies and improve effectiveness within business operations, and in the preparation of board reports and administration of board materials, is fairly strong.
• Encourage staff to try stuff, but in your capacity as a director, be vigilant. Ensure the outputs produced by the AI tools (agents) being trialled are reliable and consistent before committing capital. If reliability is questionable, the likelihood of the board making high-quality decisions is low.
• Judgement, reasoning and intuition remain, exclusively, human capabilities.
• Any policies developed need to be policies, not procedures dressed as policy.
• Be cautious of inflated claims and overzealous consultants and sales people!

The appeal is great, but so is the hype, so keep Wittgenstein’s aphorism close:

These are my thoughts, this week. As I listen, read, and learn, I may change my mind. How do you see the so-called ‘AI-opportunity’ emerging?