I am innately curious, and, in the spirit of openness, was born before JFK’s audacious “We choose to go to the moon" challenge. Consequently, and as you would expect for a child of the sixties and seventies, I have seen and done a few things.

While these statements are evidentially correct, the past twenty-five years have seen me concentrate my efforts on something reasonably narrow, but which seems, to me, to be important if societies are to function well: that leaders and boards make great decisions and build enduring companies. 

I am all-in when it comes to boards, governance, and performance, but make no claims about having it all together. No, not at all. However, I have noticed a few things that stand in the way of great outcomes:

• We have a problem in our boardrooms. One in six directors understand the business of the business, many directors can only recall two or three of the seven duties they owe, and one in twenty boards are completely aligned when it comes to the purpose of the business (the reason it exists). Given these indicators, how can boards do their job if they don’t know what their job is?
• Almost all directors I know are well-intentioned, and some boards are effective. However, weak engagement and faulty moral compasses remain a real problem.
• Over the decades, best practice recommendations,  governance codes, and compliance measures have been promulgated as harbingers of better outcomes. But, at what cost? What has been achieved, and what difference have they made, in real terms?
• Conceptions of corporate governance vary (widely) despite the original definition being perfectly adequate. Richard Eells, who coined the term, said corporate governance describes the structure and functioning of the corporate polity, the board. Sir Adrian Cadbury offered a refinement in 1992 with "the means by which companies are directed and controlled." Why the variety of understandings?

On this final bullet point, the original definition highlights the two critical aspects of board work (conformance and performance), and these are directly aligned with the etymological root of governance: to steer, to guide, to pilot. 

Have you noticed that, in life, you cannot comply your way to a great outcome? Closing a barn door simply limits passage. Boards are no different. If the company is to thrive (meaning: achieve and sustain high performance), a future focus is critical. Compliance is necessary, of course, but it is far from sufficient. The barn door must be open, so boards can look out, beyond the business, and make decisions. And, because boards are social, the key to achieving success in this regard is likely to be [underpinned by social mechanisms] as well. 

Reputable research supports this: Values, culture, capability, activity, and behaviour matter far more than structure and regulation. Such is Boardcraft, a pragmatic philosophy to help directors take the company they govern into the future. And what is there not to like about that?

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.

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.

May 17th–23rd: Familiar territory—living on the land of the long white cloud.

To see earlier pictures: May 1st–2nd, May 3rd–9th, May 10–16th.

May 17: Left, only.

May 18: Announcing one’s arrival.

May 19: Afternoon [de]light

May 20: An early-morning chauffeur-ride to client engagements, for the third day in a row.

May 21: Autumnal hues

May 22: Ah, those long white clouds…

May 23: What picture are you in: Life? Work? Play?

Have you ever wondered who is looking at your website, and why? My new website was published seven days ago (well, a very similar website), so I decided to look at the analytics, to get an idea.

To my astonishment, some 40,600 total visits (page hits) have been recorded over the past seven days, from just over 8500 unique visitors. Extrapolated, that points to over two million page hits per year.

This sounds impressive. I’m not convinced, and closer inspection shows the numbers are not quite what they seemed at first glance. When ‘include Crawlers/Bots’ is de-selected, a clearer picture emerges: the total visitor count drops to 10600-odd. That about three quarters of the traffic to petercrow.com is not by or from real people is good to know. That they are AI-tools and other systems, hoovering around collecting data justifies our investment in appropriate security. That one-in-five visits is from a mobile device suggests our selection of a tool that provides desktop-, tablet-, and mobile-friendly display options—automatically—was a good decision too.

Turning to the ‘real visitors’ now. If one-in-four Unique Visitors are not bots, about 2100 people visited the some part of the site over the past seven days. Some (most?) will have been curious about the new site. But others looked at one or more Musings articles; and some have checked some other aspect of the capabilities and credentials material.

Even if one or two per cent of these ‘real people’ are genuinely interested (20 per week), and ten per cent of these get in touch, my decades-long quest (to provoke candid conversations to help boards can govern with impact) has, probably, been worthwhile. Onward.