Blog
A strong board takes more than strong directors alone
Date
24 Sep 2026
Author
Redacteur
An effective board requires attention to composition, dynamics and governance alike.
Research by InterSearch shows that board members are spending more time than ever on board meetings. Yet they feel they have less of a grip on the world in which they must make decisions.
This striking finding comes from the Global Board Survey 2026, based on interviews with nearly 3,500 directors and board chairs worldwide.
For Vanessa Delacourt, CEO, and Isabel De Buck, Partner at Schelstraete Delacourt, this tension is all too familiar. Through their work on the composition, strengthening and functioning of boards, they see every day how the demands placed on directors are evolving faster than boards themselves.
Schelstraete Delacourt is part of the international InterSearch network and supports organisations in director search as well as broader governance matters. Their conclusion: “Investing more time alone is not enough. Boards must also work more deliberately on the right competencies, healthy dynamics and governance that evolves with the context.”
Vanessa, the Global Board Survey shows that directors are clearly investing more time in their mandates today. More than one in four even say they spend significantly more time than a year ago. Where is that additional attention going?
Vanessa Delacourt: “More than one in four directors say they now spend significantly more time on their board mandate than they did a year ago. Add the 35% who report investing somewhat more time, and nearly two in three directors are putting more time into the board than before.
What stands out is that topics such as AI and geopolitics account for much of that additional time. That is hardly surprising, given the pace at which technology and AI are evolving. Directors must continuously upskill and rethink opportunities, risks and governance. At the same time, geopolitical decisions are putting economies, markets and companies under constant pressure.
We hear the same from our own clients. The board’s playing field has become far broader and less predictable. So directors are investing more time than ever, but a growing share of that time goes to developments beyond their control. And that is precisely where a paradox emerges: more effort, but not necessarily more grip.”
The right topics are on the agenda and the time commitment is rising. Why does that not automatically translate into greater control?
Isabel De Buck: “Most boards today are indeed highly aware of the challenges. The right topics are on the agenda, the risks are identified and the intention to evolve is certainly there. So the issue is not so much awareness as readiness. In practice, we see that translating this into how the board actually operates often lags behind. And that challenge consistently centres on three axes: competence, dynamics and governance. Competence concerns the composition of the board. Is the right mix of knowledge and experience around the table to properly assess topics such as AI, geopolitics, cyber risk or international growth?
Boards know very well what is coming their way, but their composition, collaboration and ways of working do not always evolve at the same pace.
Dynamics is about how well the board functions as a group. Is there sufficient openness to challenge one another? Are different perspectives genuinely leveraged? And the third axis is governance. The board agenda keeps expanding. New topics are added, but traditional responsibilities obviously do not disappear. The question then becomes how to organise time, attention and responsibilities so that the board does not simply do more, but also becomes more effective.
To me, that is the real paradox: boards know very well what is coming their way, but their composition, collaboration and ways of working do not always evolve at the same pace.”
If competencies are a challenge, isn’t it simply a matter of bringing more expertise onto the board?
Vanessa Delacourt: “It is not that simple. AI, cyber risk, geopolitics, talent management: they are all on the board agenda. Yet it is precisely in these areas that directors themselves indicate the competencies around the table often fall short of what the organisation needs. The first challenge, then, is finding the right mix. You don’t just need someone who knows a lot about AI or geopolitics, but someone who can translate that expertise into the company’s strategy and into boardroom decision-making. The need is therefore not for pure specialists, nor for generalists alone, but for directors who combine subject-matter depth with a broad strategic perspective. That is exactly the profile that is scarce.
A second challenge is how boards search. Despite the call for new competencies, directors’ own networks remain by far the main source of new profiles. That is understandable: you choose people you know and trust. But the risk is that you keep fishing in the same pond and bring in fewer fresh perspectives.
Directors’ own networks remain by far the main source of new profiles. That is understandable: you choose people you know and trust. But the risk is that you keep fishing in the same pond and bring in fewer fresh perspectives.
On top of that, diversity is too often viewed too narrowly. A board can become more diverse in terms of gender, age or nationality without necessarily becoming more complementary in thinking, experience or style. Bringing in younger talent is not straightforward either: boards want younger profiles, for instance to add digital expertise, yet they still expect a substantial track record.”
Competencies determine who sits around the table, but the question remains what happens at that table. Why are board dynamics so decisive?
Isabel: “Because a board can work together perfectly well and still fall short on effectiveness. Trust, respect and constructive relationships matter, but they are not enough. Strong boards also stand out for their ability to challenge one another, question assumptions and not shy away from difficult conversations. That is often where we see a tension. The better the relationships, the stronger the tendency to avoid friction. Discussions stay within safe boundaries and sensitive topics get deferred. Yet a good board should be able to create productive tension before a crisis hits. The relationship between the CEO and the Chair plays a key role here. When it is open and strong, it creates room for debate and can accelerate decision-making. When that relationship is less solid, you often see the opposite: tensions are made less explicit and the board loses its edge.
A large majority rate the board’s performance as good to very good or excellent. At the same time, around three quarters believe at least one director could be replaced at the next general meeting.
What I find particularly interesting in the Global Board Survey is the contrast between how positively directors rate their own performance and what they simultaneously say about board composition. A large majority rate the board’s performance as good to very good or excellent. At the same time, around three quarters believe at least one director could be replaced at the next general meeting. That is a significant blind spot. Comfort and good collaboration are sometimes mistaken for effectiveness. A board can function in a pleasant and collegial way, but that does not mean the right discussions are taking place or that action is taken in time.”
That leaves the third axis: governance. Where does the challenge lie there?
Vanessa: “Many boards still operate according to a model built in an era of far greater stability and predictability. The emphasis was heavily on oversight, compliance and reporting. Today, new topics are constantly being added: AI, geopolitics, cyber risk, ESG, stakeholders, strategic resilience. Yet the way the board organises its time is by no means always adapted accordingly. The agenda gets fuller, but not necessarily sharper.
That is a problem. McKinsey research shows that boards still spend a large share of their time on compliance and looking back, while more time is needed for strategy and looking ahead. The familiar lament is: by the time we finally get to the interesting questions, everyone has to leave again. Greater involvement, then, does not automatically mean better governance. On the contrary, if you are not careful, a board drifts ever further into operational discussions and the line with management becomes blurred.
The challenge, then, is not to add even more topics to the agenda, but to fundamentally rethink how the board uses its time, how information is provided, which discussions are prioritised and where the board’s responsibility begins and ends. Governance largely determines whether a board is truly capable of providing direction in a far more complex world.”
