As the business world grows increasingly complex, we are seeing more and more technical experts sitting on corporate boards. The use of skills matrices has become widespread, which has led to a greater number of ESG, cybersecurity, AI and EDI specialists on boards, ostensibly to bring a better understanding of emerging issues, boost credibility and embrace a more proactive and less reactive stance.

But with these changes come several risks. Given the relatively small pool of experts to choose from, especially in the French-speaking world, boards may end up prioritizing technical expertise over other fundamentally important factors such as independence, strategic vision and availability. There is also an authority bias to contend with: adding a director with expertise in a given field may make other board members less inclined to contribute to discussions on the matter, resulting in diminished due diligence.

Having too many specialists on a board can also interfere with group dynamics. In some cases, adding extra members may make the size of the board unwieldy. And then there’s the risk of “board washing”: appointing a director in response to external pressures, without any intention of driving real and lasting change.

Good board composition is ultimately about achieving the right mix of people and skills in order to contribute to the quality of the discussions and helping members make informed decisions as a cohesive group in line with a shared vision.

DOSSIER - GOVERNANCE

Reskilling: A Governance Priority

A New Age of Governance

Certification in Corporate Governance