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.

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?

May 3rd–9th: A week characterised by movement and thought. What drives you?

To see earlier pictures: May 1st–2nd.

May 3: On the move, under a watchful eye

May 4: No, just no.

May 5: My name is …?

May 6: For what purpose, and when?

May 7: Cables and converters … “life support” while travelling

May 8: Taxi!

May 9: Even disguised, the answer is apparent, n’est-ce pas?

Mundane May, a project I decided upon a few weeks ago, is underway. The idea is simple: Take a photograph of an object or scene every day in May—nothing special or flashy—post them with an open mind and see what happens.

• Will I become more observant?
• Will I become more patient?
• Will it help me become a better advisor, husband, or member of society?
• And, will anyone even notice?

I do not know, but let's see what captures my attention over the month, and go from there.

Each Saturday after today, I'll drop seven pictures.

May 1: onset of Autumn

May 2: life in <64 litres

(Aug 31, 2026. Link to new essay added. Boardcraft: The essence of high-performing boards)

In recent months, there has been a rising level of interest in Boardcraft, a new philosophy of board work. Word is getting it seems, so a précis is probably timely.

Curious? Grab a coffee and read on…

Boardcraft is a term I coined: a governance-focused initiative to help boards operate well in practice—not just describe on paper what they are supposed to do. At its core, Boardcraft is about treating board work (i.e., corporate governance) as a practical craft to help boards more from a compliance mindset to a performance mindset. This is a philosophical shift, not just an operational adjustment.

Why is this important? Many boards comply with prevailing statutes and governance codes, but they, or the companies they govern, still perform poorly. The underlying problem is a barrier lying in plain sight: one cannot comply their way to a great outcome.

Boardcraft offers a pathway forward for boards wanting to break the mould—to govern with impact. 

The big shift is this: Effective governance is not a product of structures, policies, or independence per se; it emerges from the quality of thinking, interaction, and decision-making in the boardroom. What is more, Boardcraft is not something I dreamt up at a whiteboard or while driving my old car: it is the product of ground-breaking research conducted a decade ago. In essence, it helps boards understand:

• The capabilities, activities and behaviours necessary if boards are to exert influence beyond the boardroom, especially on organisational performance
• How to make high-quality decisions together
• How to handle conflict and disagreement
• How chairs can lead effective discussions
• The board's role in shaping strategy, not just approving management's proposals

Ultimately, Boardcraft is more than a mindset—it is a philosophy, to help boards improve their judgement, oversight, steerage and guidance; work as a functional group and make great decisions (think: positive board dynamics); and, ultimately, drive high levels of organisational performance and outcomes. In effect, to embrace Boardcraft is to strive to govern with impact.

Boards and directors interest to learn about Boardcraft, the Strategic Governance Framework (the underlying foundation), and how to embrace Boardcraft in practice have several options:

• Curated workshops and board development sessions (half-, full- and two-day options)
• Private briefings, coaching and mentoring, for chairs and/or whole boards
• Governance diagnostics (assess current board function and performance)
• Real-world case studies, rather than textbook or theoretical models
• Private advisory assistance

If you want to learn more, check my latest essay (link updated Aug 2026). If you have questions or want to explore this further, please get in touch. I am available globally.

PS: The headline picture is not of a photo of me; it is an AI-generated image. Pretty good eh?