Monday Muse - Peter Crow | Helping boards govern with impact

Published on: 13 April 2026

On founder-led businesses and governance

Do founder-led businesses always need governance, as many consultants, advisors, and governance professionals assert?

My response is straightforward: It depends.

If, for example, the founder owns all the shares of the company, and is the only director, and runs the business day-to-day, then probably not. But, if the founder wants to grow the company further, and/or they do not want to make all the decisions themselves, and/or they lack some expertise to make good decisions, then it can make sense to gather some people around, appoint them as directors, and get the basics (of corporate governance) underway.

I made the comments recently, during a wide-ranging conversation with Charlie Meaden, CEO of eccuity. If you would like to know where our 35-minute conversation went, grab a coffee and listen in.

And, if you have any questions or feedback (critical or otherwise), do get in touch. I would be glad to hear from you.

Published on: 6 April 2026

On complexity, prioritisation, decision-making

The onset of the latest war in the Middle East has captured the hearts and minds of political and business leaders, and the general population, around the world. The mainstream media is awash with coverage of military interventions and responses, and, now, the choking of the Strait of Hormuz. And this is reasonable, for the impacts on global commerce are being felt widely.

That the situation is complex is axiomatic. But it is not a new phenomenon: the Middle East has been a hot-bed of disputes since biblical times. Muslims, Jews, Ottomans, Babylonians, Zoroastrians, and other groups including colonial powers have fought over land, water, and, latterly, oil, for a long time. If history is a reliable indicator, lasting peace will be difficult to achieve.

The situation is instructive for another reason too: the near-total focus on the subject. From mainstream media to business meetings, and in conversations around dinner tables and in local pubs and bars, the topic du jour is the Middle East War (an intentional descriptor, for the scope has long-since reached beyond Iran and Israel). Little else matters at the moment—or so it seems. And yet other battles continue around the world, in Ukraine, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere; the climate continues to change; China’s influence continues to rise; and the impacts of Brexit and Covid continue to be felt, despite fading memories.

That events beyond the Middle East War are not being widely discussed does not mean they have gone away or are no longer relevant.

The parallels for boards and business leaders are stark: That which is front-of-mind dominates the mindshare. However, just because risks are not discussed does not mean they are not present. Boards that ignore complexity and dynamism do so at their peril. To wit, how often does your board allocate time to consider carefully still-weak signals, strategic risks, various scenarios and interdependencies? In times of great change or disruption, “At every board meeting” is a good answer.

If boards are to have any hope of governing with impact amidst complexity, directors need to be on their game. That means preparing well (understanding extant risks, emerging developments, and interdependencies); being actively engaged and decisive in meetings (includes prioritising where and how limited resources are applied); and holding fast to the tenet of collective responsibility after a decision is made.

Directors who keep alert and maintain a strategic mindset are more likely to detect still-weak signals, make smart decisions and, ultimately, realise the potential to the company they govern.

And what is not to like about that?

Published on: 11 November 2025

On high-performing boards: unlocking potential

Have you ever stopped to wonder why so many companies fail to realise the potential they aspire to?

When I speak with directors, the desire to operate at high levels of performance is palpable. In my experience, most say they aspire to have a great impact. But when one looks more closely, a great many boards struggle to break the shackles of average: they are constrained by confusion over the role of the board, impaired by dysfunction within the boardroom, and/or expectations are misaligned.

A recent survey (conducted by PwC) highlights the characteristics of high-performing boards:

strong and effective leadership from the chair
strategic vision and focus
proactive engagement
culture of trust and collaboration
pragmatism and responsiveness
focus on high-performance [mindset and teamwork]
awareness of stakeholder expectations
cool in a crisis

This is quite a list! Yes, it is. But most of these characteristics are consistent with the findings from ground-breaking board research conducted over a decade ago. That research concluded that if the board is to have any impact beyond the boardroom (especially on firm performance), three things matter:

capability (what directors 'bring')
activity (what the board does)
behaviour (how directors act and interact)

Board structure and composition is relatively less important, to the point of being insignificant. This finding (now known as the Strategic Governance Framework, see this article for a summary) emerged from a peer-reviewed long-term observation study of boards going about their work—one of a small handful conducted to date. As with studies conducted by the late Jane Goodall, my study sought to get as close as possible to the subject of interest (the board) to observe them in their 'native' habitat. That meant direct observations, for the board only exists when the directors meet.

Since that time, the Strategic Governance Framework has shown itself to be a useful mechanism to help ambitious boards move beyond orthodoxy and box-ticking, to realise organisational potential. But the embrace of such a mechanism is not without its challenges: it means stepping away from the perceived safety of 'best practice' recommendations—a daunting prospect of some.

Ultimately, boards must decide: is compliance with contemporary recommendations, codes and regulations sufficient to discharge duties owed, or is more required? For those who decide more is required, the Strategic Governance Framework may be worthy of consideration.

Published on: 16 October 2025

Keeping up appearances

Today, on the third day of an intrepid journey through several Eastern European countries, we have been exploring Kraków Stare Miasto—the Old Town—searching for glimpses of how life was lived in the past. Back streets and less-trod paths, away from trinket stands and touts, are my happy place, for they offer opportunities to peer beyond facades and veneers.

This scene was one amongst several that caught my attention today. The seemingly decrepit building itself was far from remarkable—but then I noticed two signs—clues to what lay inside: a five-star hotel named after a Polish polymath, and a Michelin-starred restaurant. Who knew?

As I looked at the building and signage, a woman sauntered past, on the phone to an unknown soul and seemingly oblivious to her surroundings. My mind wandered. Who was she speaking with and about what? Was she a local or a visitor? What were her circumstances?

The imagery and parallels with board work are stark. Statements written in board packs may seem complete and accurate, but they may not be. Often, there is more to the story than what is first ‘seen’ in the board pack. Depending on how eloquently the papers have been written, directors may find it easy to form opinions quickly—jump to conclusions, even. Directors should resist such urges! Boards have a duty of care to look beyond the facade, to gain a more complete understanding through discovery and debate, before deciding. Some boards do this well; some are well-intended but struggle; and yet others appear to be motivated by looking good (as evidenced by complying with various ‘best practice’ recommendations and corporate governance codes) than doing what it takes to operate as a high-performing unit.

When the pretence of keeping up appearances is stripped away, how does the board you serve on stack up?

Wittgenstein cautioned people to reserve judgement, for what seems to be so may not actually be so.

Published on: 2 June 2025

The [high] value of white space

When was the last time you stopped and thought about your work, your contribution and the value you offer others? Are you adding value, or simply occupying space?

Most leaders say taking time for self-reflection and to think is important, if high performance is to be sustained. But many do not follow through. Instead, they remain 'on': making lists, completing tasks, checking emails, and responding to social media feeds—all in the name of getting things done. Some even speak, proudly, of workaholism and busyness. Such behaviour is lauded in many modern societies. But is 'always on' and busyness conducive to high performance? Or is it a delusion? What of personal and professional relationships; of curiosity; of gaining new insights; of becoming a better person?

Allocating uninterrupted time—white space—for reflection, thinking and dreaming is critical if organisational leaders (especially board directors!) are to have any hope of contributing well.

The idea of dedicated white space was an anathema for me through the first half of my career. But as I got underway with my doctoral research (circa 2012), something changed. Gradually, the guilt I felt when stepping away from my desk when I was stuck subsided: the act of changing neural activity (from sitting staring at a problem, to going for a walk or riding my bike) often had the effect of helping clear the mental block I had been struggling with!

Since completing my doctoral research in 2016, I continued to prioritise white space, as follows:

Early morning (0530–0700, six days per week), to read inspirational texts, news feeds and topical articles.
Daily walks, to activate my cardiovascular and musculoskeletal systems.
Evening (a 60-minute block before retiring for the night, at least five nights per week), to read what a close friend calls 'brainy books'—books on philosophy, psychology, neuroscience, human nature, history and trekking, but also the 'great books'.
Long-haul flights have become precious white spaces too, because I am left alone to do what you want. I keep a pencil and paper to hand, and record my thoughts (often my best ideas!)

None of this makes me good, or any better than anyone else. However, my dedication to allocating white spaces and holding them sacrosanct has seen me become more curious. My mind seems to have become more malleable too. Hopefully, my contributions have become more valuable as a result—but this is best assessed by others, not me.

Does the idea of white space resonate for you? If so, would you mind sharing your experiences, so others can benefit from them?

Published on: 25 March 2025

Better truth or health?

The truth, they say, is a good thing, for it will set you free. This seems reasonable, even self-evident to many. But what is truth? Is it a thing (a fact) or a process? Is it deterministic or does it emerge? Is it absolute or relative? And, in a social context, is truth even possible or desirable?

The pursuit of truth conjures the notion of a deterministic 'answer' to a question or problem, without worrying too much about (or even considering) the context within which the truth claim exists. Consider darkness. Does being unable to read a book on the patio at twilight mean it is dark? How might this expression of darkness compare with the darkness inside a sealed cavity into which light cannot penetrate? And what of degrees of truth? If just one instance is discovered to be false, does that mean the entire truth claim needs to be set aside? Complicating matters, something may be 'true' but unpalatable, such as, genocide or rotten eggs.

Now, consider health. What does it mean to be healthy? For some, maintaining a balanced diet and sleep pattern is sufficient. For others, health involves strenuous exercise and physical fitness. Yet others pursue mental health, a sound mind and great relationships. Is the threshold one of having food, shelter and security; or is a higher order of fulfilment necessary to be healthy?

And, how might health and truth relate to each other? Is truth a necessary condition for personal health, or are there situations in which truth might need to be secondary to health? Are truth and health even related? And what of truth and health in an organisational setting? Are the comparisons similar or different? Who decides and what factors should be considered in the decision process?

In the past two years, I have come face-to-face these types of questions on many occasions:

Observing a demanding board chair pressing hard to get her way, because, in her words, "I am right." (trading off a healthy discussion and decision process to secure her version of the truth, even to the extent of flouting directors' duties)
A family member receiving chemotherapy and surgical intervention following a cancer diagnosis. (accepting truth—cancer—but taking a tough option in pursuit of health)
A chief executive adhering to a strict interpretation of employment law during a restructuring process, but in so doing delaying the process and exposing the company to viability risks.

Selecting between two tough options is never easy. The 'least bad' option doesn't sit well in many cases. But as in life, decisions in organisations need to be made, more so in boardrooms. If boards are to provide effective steerage and guidance in pursuit of an agreed outcome, they need to roll their sleeves up, understand the options and make a decision. But with what reference point to the fore? Should boards prioritise being 'right' (legalistic, truth), or should they select options more likely to lead to sustainable outcomes (organisational health)? If boards are to govern with impact, the high road is, in most cases, the better option.

Tags