Theme: Risk & Compliance for Boards

Who ultimately determines the strategic direction of a corporation? The board, the CEO, the strategy department, the strategy consultants, or perhaps even artificial intelligence?

The obvious answers are tempting, but incomplete. Not the board alone, even though it carries central responsibility for strategic direction and oversight. Not the CEO, although management typically develops and implements strategy. Not the strategy department, although it may structure the process. Not the consultants, although they may sharpen the analysis. And not artificial intelligence, although it is playing an increasingly important role in the strategy process.

All of these actors may shape strategy, refine it, and translate it into decisions and action. Yet the most fundamental strategic expectations should originate one level higher: with the owners.

Whether the owner is a family, the state, a foundation, a private equity investor, or a dispersed group of shareholders, ownership inevitably carries expectations. Owners have views, explicit or implicit, about why they hold the company, what they expect from it, how long they intend to remain invested, which risks they are willing to accept, how much capital they are prepared to provide, and what they ultimately understand by value creation. These expectations form what can be described as an owner strategy.

Boards love simple formulas. “Nose in, hands off.” “Boards set strategy.” “Independence matters.” “Ask questions, don’t provide answers.” They are memorable, easy to teach, and often directionally right. They are also dangerous when taken too literally.

Most governance myths are not wrong because they are false. They are wrong because they are incomplete. They capture one side of a tension while ignoring the other. Yet board effectiveness rarely comes from choosing one side. It comes from understanding both.

Here are ten board myths worth debunking.

Artificial intelligence is beginning to reshape not only how organizations make decisions, but also how governance itself is exercised. Much of the current discussion focuses on the extent to which artificial intelligence can support, augment, or automate human decision-making. Yet the emergence of agentic intelligence raises a more fundamental question: What happens when artificial systems increasingly interact, negotiate, decide, and act autonomously with other artificial systems?

Corporate boards increasingly face complex and dynamic risk landscapes, where traditional risk management processes excel at managing dormant risks but often fail to identify awakening risks that threaten the long-term sustainability of the firm. This paper proposes a dual-framing approach – combining “what if” and “what if not” perspectives in board decision-making – to address cognitive and procedural biases in risk governance. We integrate behavioral decision theory, risk governance frameworks, and fiduciary law to provide a conceptual model for improving board effectiveness. We demonstrate how dual-framing can mitigate risk traps, enhance strategic foresight, and strengthen adherence to the Business Judgment Rule. Practical implications for board governance, legal defensibility, and organizational resilience are presented.

Five years ago, I invited a number of thought leaders to reflect with me on the role of the board of directors in the face of digitalization. The result was a collection of twelve perspectives on the governance of digitalization (Hilb 2017). Where are we now, five years, one pandemic, and perceived thousands of articles on digital governance later?