Advertise on podcast: The Better Boards Podcast Series

Send us Fan Mail Boards and management should connect smoothly on cyber risk, but often don’t. The 2026 Cybersecurity Board Reporting Study reveals what is happening in boardrooms and, more importantly, what boards can change to get better information and achieve better outcomes. In this episode of The Better Boards Podcast Series, Dr Sabine Dembkowski, Founder and Managing Partner of Better Boards, the provider of board evaluation and board development services, speaks with Dr Maya Bundt and Chris Verdonck about why so many boards still feel under-informed on cyber and what the highest-performing boards do differently. Maya is a Zurich-based board director and cyber-risk expert. She serves on listed Swiss boards, chairs the Steering Committee of the Swiss National Cyber Strategy, and co-founded Cybersecurity Board Reporting (CSBR). Chris is a retired Deloitte Partner and experienced board adviser. He works with boards and executive teams on digital transformation, cybersecurity, AI, technology risk, and organisational resilience, and co-founded CSBR. “Less than a quarter of directors think they have the information they need.” This year’s study included 78 board directors across 13 countries, 35 security executives, and a review of 11 real board documents. One finding stands out: only 24% of directors believe they receive the information they need to fulfil their responsibilities on cyber risk. That is not simply a reporting problem. It is a governance problem with real consequences for decision-making, oversight, and organisational resilience. “You don’t have to change who you are. You have to change what you do.” Maya and Chris explain that board size, headcount, listed status, and regulatory intensity did not determine whether directors felt well informed. What mattered was behaviour. Boards that actively discussed and worked through severe yet plausible cyber scenarios rated the quality of their cyber reporting almost twice as highly as boards that did not. Perceived value was also greater when reporting came through a CISO, risk function, or cyber committee — rather than being treated primarily as an audit matter. In other words, better cyber oversight is not about becoming a technical expert. It is about creating the right conditions for meaningful boardroom dialogue. “We have a standard report developed as part of our new publication. It has all the content areas that are needed.” Chris and Maya identify several factors that improve the quality of cyber reporting. The most fundamental is the organisation’s digital profile. It starts with three questions: ·       What does the business stand to lose? ·       How intensively is it regulated? ·       What would cybersecurity excellence be worth commercially? Together, these questions determine the level of digital reporting and digital governance an organisation needs. Only when the digital profile and governance level align can boards and management achieve what Maya and Chris call a “warm handshake”. Beyond the digital profile, a strong cyber report covers six content areas: context, strategy, risk, risk governance, status, and outlook. Another practical step is appointing a central point person to gather the information. Boards often receive cyber updates from multiple sources, in different formats, and at different levels of detail. A coordinator can speak with both sides, compare perspectives, resolve inconsistencies, and ensure the board receives genuinely useful information. Three takeaways for effective boards 1.       This is not structural. It is about choices. Better cyber oversight does not depend on board size or sector — it depends on what boards choose to do. 2.     Make someone responsible for assembling the information. A clear point of coordination turns fragmented updates into insight the board can use. 3.     End every cyber discussion with a decision. It can be a simple decision, but it should be a decision creating momentum, accountability, and follow-through. Better Boards goes beyond box-ticking. We combine independent, peer-reviewed research with an intuitive digital platform that gives every Director an individualised report, alongside external benchmarks and comparisons across all dimensions of effective governance. Professional services firms can also license the platform to strengthen their own board advisory work — without building or maintaining their own technology. If you would like to join the community, explore our research-based approach to board evaluations, discuss licensing, or share an idea for The Better Boards Podcast, we would be delighted to hear from you at [email protected].

Send us Fan Mail Boards say ethics matter, but many still lack a firm approach to ethical issues. Learn what works in today’s volatile environment to bring ethical judgment to business decisions, strategy, risk, and performance conversations.  In this podcast, Dr Sabine Dembkowski, Founder and Managing Partner of Better Boards, is joined by Vera Cherepanova. Vera serves as chair, director, and ethics advisor to global professional bodies, corporations, and international nonprofits. She brings more than two decades of practical experience across risk, compliance, and internal audit. She is the Executive Director of Boards of the Future, a US-based nonprofit advancing ethical leadership and integrity at the highest levels of corporate power. She writes and speaks about business ethics, risk, economics, and philosophy. Her insights have been featured in the Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, Law360, City AM, The Banker, Thomson Reuters, and multiple governance magazines. “Boards and companies still treat ethics or integrity primarily as a personal virtue.“ Vera sees companies and boards operating as if ethics is a character trait one either has or lacks. However, the real question is not whether leaders are nice, kind, or personally sincere, but whether they understand the ethical obligations created by the power and discretion their roles give them on the board or in executive leadership.  “Ethics got absorbed into compliance and instrumentalised as a mechanism.” To Vera, framing ethics as a mechanism does it a big disservice. It reduces the philosophical and strategic capability to the legal defence function. Ethics in business is not a substitute for regulation or a regulatory intervention. It has a complementary role, because the law will never be sufficient, and enforcement will never be perfect.  “How do we make sure that the ethical reasoning and the ethical judgment happens before something goes bust?” For Vera, the key element is “before,” and boards need to be ahead of the action, not reacting to the crisis. For directors, this means being intentional, consistent, comprehensive, and coherent when dealing with ethical trade-offs.  Governance mechanisms alone do not eliminate competing stakeholder interests or trade-offs. Instead, they structure the process so trade-offs are surfaced, negotiated, confronted, and solved. To Vera, a best practice is to designate an outside expert or existing board member as the point person for ethics so issues surface and are managed ahead of a scandal or crisis. “FOFO, the fear of finding out, gets in the way of asking good questions.” In Vera’s experience, asking good, probing, discerning questions is one of the most underappreciated skills in governance. Too often, boards avoid certain questions or settle for rehearsed, sanitised answers. They don’t want to appear difficult or like they are slowing down the business. However, appropriate ethical curiosity requires both courage and a willingness to notice when an explanation doesn’t add up.  The three top takeaways from our conversation for more effective boards are: 1.      Ethics in business is a practice and discipline that comes as a bundle with the director's role. It's not just a personal virtue. 2.     Collegiality is nice, but constructive abrasion is a prerequisite for effective oversight as it just does not happen when everyone is in full agreement.  3.     Instead of the scary formulation of ‘This is unethical, how can we make it otherwise?’ try ‘How can we make this 10% more ethical?’ When you present the problem as black and white, people get scared of the word unethical. Try something more gradual and less intimidating, and you'll see conversations become better.  Better Boards goes beyond box-ticking. We combine independent, peer-reviewed research with an intuitive digital platform that gives every Director an individualised report, alongside external benchmarks and comparisons across all dimensions of effective governance. Professional services firms can also license the platform to strengthen their own board advisory work — without building or maintaining their own technology. If you would like to join the community, explore our research-based approach to board evaluations, discuss licensing, or share an idea for The Better Boards Podcast, we would be delighted to hear from you at [email protected].

Send us Fan Mail A board career as a young, independent director? It is possible, even without executive experience. Learn what works to earn appointments, how to structure a portfolio of positions, and key lessons for ongoing success.  In this podcast, Dr Sabine Dembkowski, Founder and Managing Partner of Better Boards, is joined by Katia Ciesielska. Katia is an independent non-executive director and corporate governance adviser based in Luxembourg. Over the last eight years, she has built a diverse and substantial cross-border portfolio. A former corporate and funds lawyer, she brings legal, compliance and commercial judgement to the boardroom. Katia is an INSEAD- and ILA-certified director, serves on the board of the Luxembourg Institute of Governance (ILA), and contributes to its working groups. A speaker, trainer, and mentor, she has been named three times to the annual Paperjam’s Top 100 Women on Boards. “My route into the board was not the obvious one.“ Katia joined her first board at 37, just 10 years after university. She chose to leave her corporate and financial law career after being exposed to the world of independent directors and wishing to work on complex issues for different companies. To break in without a long executive career, she took a different approach.  “There wasn't one moment where all the entry barriers suddenly disappeared, so I overcame them gradually.” For Katia, several steps added up to success. She learned to explain how her legal background benefited boards. She got and remains active in the governance community. She joined multiple professional associations, sought out mentors, and became a speaker and educator. This let people see her project work in action, revealed her judgment and thought processes, and helped her grow her network. With these small, consistent steps, she drew closer to her first mandate. “At the same time, I was also very practical about my search.” Katia proactively approached relevant firms and executive search groups to share her interest in open seats and what mandates appealed to her. She invested in becoming a certified director as well as other executive education courses. One year after finishing her first certification program, she had her first seat. “Once opportunities start coming in, it can be very tempting to say yes to everything. Initially, capacity was a major constraint, yet she also feared missing out. Now, she considers her portfolio to ensure she has time, interest, no conflicts, and can truly give the role the attention it deserves. She balances 15 – 20 mandates, including regulated mandates, up to the full limit permitted by her regulators.  “There are quite a few things I would do differently.” Looking back, Katia reflects that patience is particularly important. When she started, she didn't fully understand the time it takes to build trust, develop a reputation, and form the relationships that lead to appointments. She also feels she said yes too often early on without considering fit, relied on hard work to pave her way instead of clearly communicating what she wanted, and worried about being underqualified instead of trusting she had something to contribute.  The three top takeaways from our conversation for effective boards are: 1.      The first mandate is the hardest. Once opportunities arrive, design your portfolio carefully and protect your reputation by saying no when necessary. 2.     Being excellent in your profession is not the same as being ready for the boardroom. Broaden your perspective beyond your specialist expertise. 3.     A board career is a long game. Consistent, proactive steps matter more than occasional bursts of activity. Better Boards goes beyond box-ticking. We combine independent, peer-reviewed research with an intuitive digital platform that gives every Director an individualised report, alongside external benchmarks and comparisons across all dimensions of effective governance. Professional services firms can also license the platform to strengthen their own board advisory work — without building or maintaining their own technology. If you would like to join the community, explore our research-based approach to board evaluations, discuss licensing, or share an idea for The Better Boards Podcast, we would be delighted to hear from you at [email protected].

Send us Fan Mail Is understanding the human performance of boards the missing dimension in board effectiveness? Drawing on insights from human factors research, this podcast discusses how communication, leadership, authority, cognitive bias, and group dynamics influence the quality of board decisions, and what directors can do differently. In this podcast, Dr Sabine Dembkowski, Founder and Managing Partner, is joined by Simon Laffin. Simon has over 35 years of board experience as a chair, non-executive director, and adviser. He has chaired Care REIT plc, Assura plc, Flybe Group plc, and Hozelock Group. He served as a non-executive director of companies including Dentsu Group Inc., Aegis Group plc, Mitchells & Butlers plc, and Northern Rock plc, where he joined the board as part of the rescue team following the run on the bank. “We ask the wrong questions about failure.“ When a failure occurs, Simon notes a rush to point fingers or change the rules. However, to achieve better results, human factors must be changed. This means investments and coaching around an organisation’s human capabilities, limitations, performance, and behaviour, particularly behaviour under stress.  “When I've looked at company failures over the last few hundred years, two things come out very strongly.” To Simon, there are two key factors. One is leadership. Boards yearn for an ideal leader, but leadership is a situational quality that depends heavily on the team around the leader. The second factor is overconfidence. Successful companies can cross the line from justified confidence to arrogance, which fosters complacency and leads boards to miss warning signs, resulting in failure or scandal. “We are not saying you should blame people for that. We're saying that is how humans work.” When failures happen, boards want a scapegoat, or to blame a person vs the framework that enabled the seeds of failure to flourish. Instead, by giving more time and space to understanding human behaviour patterns, boards can develop resilience and resistance to instinctive patterns and biases. For example, Simon advocates rigorous 360-degree feedback systems and pre-mortems for risky scenarios to bring uncomfortable issues to the forefront. This helps boards catch gaps and guard against overconfidence. “When you do a board evaluation, boards should be thinking about their own decisions.” In Simon’s experience and studies, too few boards reflect on their own decision-making processes. When things go well, and especially when things go badly, improvement only happens when boards understand the human behaviours that led to the adoption of a certain strategy or the tolerance of a red flag. He advocates for zero tolerance for ethics violations or conflicts of interest, careful examination of incentive structures, and moving risk assessments from the back of the business case to the forefront of the discussion.  The three top takeaways from our conversation for effective boards are: 1.      Governance tells us who should make decisions and how the board should operate, but human factors explain how those decisions are actually made.  2.     Better boards don't eliminate uncertainty, risk, and human error, but they understand and manage them.  3.     The next evolution in board effectiveness will come from combining good governance with a better understanding of human performance. Better Boards goes beyond box-ticking. We combine independent, peer-reviewed research with an intuitive digital platform that gives every Director an individualised report, alongside external benchmarks and comparisons across all dimensions of effective governance. Professional services firms can also license the platform to strengthen their own board advisory work — without building or maintaining their own technology. If you would like to join the community, explore our research-based approach to board evaluations, discuss licensing, or share an idea for The Better Boards Podcast, we would be delighted to hear from you at [email protected].

Send us Fan Mail Cybersecurity is a top risk for organisations, yet many boards feel poorly informed. At the same time, executive teams feel they are reporting into a void. The reasons behind this ongoing disconnect bear close examination.  In this podcast, Dr Sabine Dembkowski, Founder and Managing Partner of Better Boards, is joined by Dr Maya Bundt. Maya is a board Director and cyber risk expert based in Zurich. She serves as a Non-Executive Director on the boards of listed Swiss companies and is President of the Steering Committee for Switzerland’s National Cyber Strategy. She also co-leads the International Cybersecurity Board Reporting Study and Framework, teaches cybersecurity, and serves on the boards of several universities. “It’s a cold handshake.“ For Maya, a warm handshake happens when cyber is on the board meeting agenda. The CISO (or other IT representative) comes to talk with the board. The board hears, understands, and can actively discuss the cyber issues and cyber risks. That’s what warmth means.   Unfortunately, most often it’s a cold handshake. When Maya’s group interviewed 67 board members across three countries in 2025, only 31% believed they received the right information to assess risks and make informed decisions. The 2026 survey results are trending even lower, with only 23% comfortable with their data.   “Boards and management speak a different language.”  To Maya, a big part of the problem is structural. There is no standard format for a good cyber report or for what board members should see. Without that infrastructure in place, directors feel uneasy. “There has to be someone on the board who knows a little bit more and can drive the discussion a little bit further than the basics.” Maya strongly believes that a best practice for boards is to have someone on the board who can lead cybersecurity discussions from an informed position. After all, boards are expected to be experts in other critical areas like finance, so why not cybersecurity as well? It’s a real gap, and therefore a real opportunity for many firms to build a competitive advantage.  Maya also recommends that organisations do regular training with their boards. Outside speakers and presentations are helpful. Crisis simulations can also help clarify roles, responsibilities, and responses needed, keeping board members current on governance procedures and realistic risk scenarios. “A good report starts with the risk and risk appetite.” Beyond training, the structure of the reports matters for boards. Maya feels a good report starts with risk levels and risk appetites. This should also be put in context of world events, the industry, and the firm’s position. Budget, key regulations, operational frameworks, the present-day situation, and a forward outlook are also recommended for a good report. Between training and reports, boards should also work to build a strong relationship with their CISO or cyber risk team lead. A 10-minute presentation during a meeting is not enough time to build the trust and rapport needed to shepherd an organisation safely through cyber risk. Boards must make an effort to build a two-way, plain-language conversation grounded in trust to keep things aligned and ensure warm handshakes at meetings and during any crisis events. The three top takeaways from our conversation for effective boards are: 1.      A warm handshake has two halves: governance and reporting.  2.     The problem is universal, and it is not about budget.  3.     Warming the handshake is a leadership task for the board, not something to delegate to the technology function. Better Boards goes beyond box-ticking. We combine independent, peer-reviewed research with an intuitive digital platform that gives every Director an individualised report, alongside external benchmarks and comparisons across all dimensions of effective governance. Professional services firms can also license the platform to strengthen their own board advisory work — without building or maintaining their own technology. If you would like to join the community, explore our research-based approach to board evaluations, discuss licensing, or share an idea for The Better Boards Podcast, we would be delighted to hear from you at [email protected].

Send us Fan Mail Rapid global change has created an unprecedented landscape. Many Boards have fallen into a reactive mode. A new research report from FGS Global highlights the challenges and offers insights to help boards govern with confidence again.  In this podcast, Dr Sabine Dembkowski, Founder and Managing Partner, is joined by Dorothy Burwell. Dorothy is Global Head of Board Advisory at FGS Global, a board director herself at Post Holdings and Pennon PLC, and co-author of A Hard Job Getting Harder: The Board's Role in a Rewired World. Drawing on interviews with board directors and General Counsels in North America, the UK, and Europe, Dorothy brings both the data and lived experience to this conversation. What she found is sobering and actionable. “It is impossible to govern when you are flying blind.“ One of the most striking points in the new research is that more than 50% of Boards receive no real-time data updates between meetings. This creates practical challenges for Boards in terms of both intelligence and credibility. Management will not take recommendations from an out-of-date Board seriously, nor can Boards react well using stale information. As a result, smart Boards are building adaptive capacity to obtain fresher data and insights without sacrificing the deep expertise and judgment of experienced members. “When you have to put everything together in a pretty, pretty bow and wrap it up for the board meeting, it's disruptive.” Board members are often advised “nose out, fingers out” when it comes to operations. Management teams can find it intrusive to need to pull up to deliver reports and data packets to the Board, especially in a time-sensitive crisis. However, the best Boards blend rigorous accountability with psychological safety to have authentic discussions of business challenges and needs. These conversations and data sharing happen between and around formal meetings, so that Boards can have more meaningful official sessions and offer more impactful support in crisis scenarios. “Our biggest job is to help management prioritise.” For Dorothy, the most important duty of a Board is to make it easier for management to identify and respond to risk and change with the right levels of urgency and prioritisation. To do this, she recommends a 2x2 decision matrix modelled from emergency medicine’s best practices. In this matrix, Boards look at issues across two dimensions. The first asks if the change is evolutionary or revolutionary. Evolutionary change is sustained and gradual, while revolutionary change is disruptive and destructive. The second dimension asks if the change or issue is uniform or fragmented. This considers whether there will be equal impact or whether selected areas will be more intensely impacted. Once Boards understand where the issue falls in the matrix, they can work out the tangible ways to support management. For example, does a geopolitical risk require an adjustment of protocol over time, or an immediate halt to in-market activities? This approach clarifies conversations and nourishes ongoing transparency about priorities and impact The three top takeaways from our conversation for effective boardss are: 1.      The power of the question is no longer enough. You need continual dialogue to build trust and relationships as the foundation of meaningful governance. 2.     If your decision architecture within your Board is not clear and well-practised or does not enable you to rapidly prioritise between issues, it’s time to have a rethink. 3.     Don’t be afraid to question whether you need to unlearn some of your assumptions and build new ones based on experiences rooted in the current environment. Better Boards goes beyond box-ticking. We combine independent, peer-reviewed research with an intuitive digital platform that gives every Director an individualised report, alongside external benchmarks and comparisons across all dimensions of effective governance. Professional services firms can also license the platform to strengthen their own board advisory work — without building or maintaining their own technology. If you would like to join the community, explore our research-based approach to board evaluations, discuss licensing, or share an idea for The Better Boards Podcast, we would be delighted to hear from you at [email protected].

Send us Fan Mail New research suggests the biggest leadership risk right now may not be bad leaders — it’s “good” ones. In fact, good leaders are both the problem and the solution: they already have the fundamentals, but they haven’t adapted to what employees need from leaders today. A study of 2,206 U.S. employees, conducted by The Grossman Group with The Harris Poll, found that 54% rated their senior leader as “good.” Yet those same employees report three consistent gaps: they don’t feel valued as individuals, they don’t feel heard, and they don’t believe their leaders help them reach their full potential. “Good” leadership was built for stable times. But we don’t live in stable times. Today’s uncertainties—economic volatility, AI disruptions, geopolitical conflicts, and constant organisational change—create relentless instability. These pressures are widening the gap between “exceptional” and “good” leaders and what employees now expect in the workplace. This means your “good” leaders are your most dangerous blind spot, putting the whole company at risk. If you fail to move leaders from “good” to “exceptional,” employees will disengage. You will steadily lose trust, talent, and relevance. You will fall behind your more adaptive competitors.  In this podcast, Dr Sabine Dembkowski, Founder and Managing Partner of Better Boards, is joined by David Grossman. David is the Founder and CEO of The Grossman Group, which helps Fortune 1000 companies lead with heart and drive strategic results by transforming how they communicate, operate, and inspire their people.  Boards are happy with leaders who get results. Indeed, some 54 per cent of employees rate their leaders as good. Unfortunately, boards that accept “good” results miss the potential for exceptional outcomes.  David notes most good leaders were trained for stable times. That’s not the present environment. Their employees note that good leaders appreciate results, answer questions, and solve problems. It’s operationally good, but voluntary turnover rates and innovation speeds indicate a big underlying gap. “The blind spot is all about appreciating those who work for you.” In David’s experience, the difference is in how a leader treats and inspires workers. Good leaders see results; great leaders see people. Yet research reveals just 16 per cent feel their leaders value them as people, only 19 per cent feel heard, and a mere 14 per cent say they are reaching their full potential at work. Under good leaders, people will report feeling invisible as human beings. Under great leaders, the metrics for being valued, heard, and seen will be double or more.  “The discipline is knowing which are crystal balls, the ones you cannot drop without permanent damage, and which are rubber balls, the ones that bounce back.” David compares leaders to balls. Crystal balls are what most organisations have – fragile leadership structures that collapse in a crisis. The goal is rubber balls – resilient, adaptable leaders who inspire their teams to excellence in all situations.  To make the shift, David recommends boards move from a performance vs. underperformance view to a three-tier lens of what’s exceptional, good, or outdated. This captures both inspirational ability and goal performance. “The most important thing boards can measure, based on what I've actually seen move the needle, is how well their leaders address the three blind spots.” Leaders who make their people feel seen, heard, and valued make the difference. Good leaders routinely overestimate how comfortable their teams are with speaking up on issues. David notes independent perspectives, from skip-level reviews to third-party surveys, can uncover this gap. Another vital investment is in heart-focused attributes. Out of the top 10 qualities of exceptional leaders, nine are heart-based skills. These include fostering a positive work culture, building trust, and communicating transparently. All are trainable skills, including gratitude, the number one differentiator of exceptional leaders. The three top takeaways from our conversation for effective boards are: 1.      Good leaders are both the problem today and the solution. 2.     The gap between good and exceptional is a training gap and belongs on the risk register.  3.     Put leadership quality on the standing agenda.  Better Boards goes beyond box-ticking. We combine independent, peer-reviewed research with an intuitive digital platform that gives every Director an individualised report, alongside external benchmarks and comparisons across all dimensions of effective governance. Professional services firms can also license the platform to strengthen their own board advisory work — without building or maintaining their own technology. If you would like to join the community, explore our research-based approach to board evaluations, discuss licensing, or share an idea for The Better Boards Podcast, we would be delighted to hear from you at [email protected].

Send us Fan Mail While we often think in terms of large, listed corporations, family firms account for some 70% of global GDP and 60% of global employment. They are key drivers of innovation, entrepreneurship, and long-term value creation, and effective governance of family firms warrants serious attention.  In this podcast, Dr Sabine Dembkowski, Founder and Managing Partner, is joined by Prof. Dr. Philipp Hoog. Philipp is a Partner at BBE Handelsberatung, a leading German consultancy specialising in the retail sector, and Honorary Professor of Strategic Management at CBS International Business School in Cologne. He advises family-owned and founder-led businesses and investors on strategy, governance, transformation, and succession, with a particular focus on the role of advisory and supervisory boards in navigating disruption in retail. Philipp combines academic insight with hands-on experience from numerous board-related mandates and projects. He also serves as President of the EBS Alumni Association, representing graduates of EBS Universität für Wirtschaft und Recht. “In family business, it's not just the business sitting at the table, but also the family and the ownership, often embodied in the same people.“ Philipp notes that many of the world’s most successful companies are family-owned. Mars, Walmart, Aldi, Lidl, Peters Sports, and Samsung, to name a few. This makes governance more complex and personal, since any strategic advice must also consider family dynamics and generational concerns. “The role of an advisory board in family businesses is something like a balancing act.” For Philipp, advisory boards need to provide advice and control while considering the family interests. This can mean serving as a sparring partner, driving succession conversations, or diffusing emotional conflicts. At times, this requires a greater time commitment and investment in understanding the relationships than you would see at a non-family firm, to give appropriate advice and remain mindful of the dynamics. “Boards, especially in family businesses, work well when there are three things in place.” In Philipp’s experience, family boards need three things. The first is clear role separation, so family members understand when they are acting as shareholders vs family members or external stakeholders. The second is timely professional information about the business, ideally through structured reporting. The third is regularly scheduled, well-structured board meetings. To Philipp, three to four quality meetings per year, plus a strategy retreat, is ideal. “A good advisory board doesn't restrict entrepreneurial freedom; it expands it.” Philipp sees boards operating under two distinct models in family businesses. One is as an early warning system and strategic challenger. Another model is a board that oversees the company and monitors overall governance issues.  A critical question is whether the company is playing to win or playing not to lose. Family-owned businesses can be reluctant to share authority and control, but a good board offers structure and support. Indeed, since family businesses often think in generations rather than quarters, partnering with board members who share the entrepreneurial DNA and bring a governance structure can be the key to more stable long-term growth.  The three top takeaways from our conversation for effective boards are: 1.      Governance is not a luxury. It is a success factor, especially for family businesses.  2.     Family ownership and business must be clearly separated in roles, in bodies, and in decisions. This creates professional governance.  3.     The right board makes the difference.  Better Boards goes beyond box-ticking. We combine independent, peer-reviewed research with an intuitive digital platform that gives every Director an individualised report, alongside external benchmarks and comparisons across all dimensions of effective governance. Professional services firms can also license the platform to strengthen their own board advisory work — without building or maintaining their own technology. If you would like to join the community, explore our research-based approach to board evaluations, discuss licensing, or share an idea for The Better Boards Podcast, we would be delighted to hear from you at [email protected].

Send us Fan Mail Selecting the Chair: Governance Lessons from the US and the UK Chair succession is handled differently in the US and the UK. However, both approaches have merit, and there are key principles that matter regardless of geography.  In this podcast, Dr Sabine Dembkowski, Founder and Managing Partner, is joined by Susan Skerritt. Susan is a Non-Executive Independent Director on the boards of Citibank Europe PLC, Tanger, Inc., and IG Group PLC. She previously served on the boards of Royal Bank of Canada US Group Holdings, Community Financial Systems, Inc., VEREIT, and Falcon Trade Group. Before her Board career, she had a successful 35-year financial career and served as the Chairman, CEO, and President of Deutsche Bank Trust Company in the US.  “Procedural differences reflect genuinely different governance philosophies.“   To Susan, the differences between the US and UK approaches reflect the differing philosophies at play. The US model is rooted in the idea that Boards are best positioned to govern themselves. So, the Board Chair is almost always selected from existing Directors, with the process managed internally. The Chair and CEO roles are often combined, and there is a deep resistance to “governance by checklist” regulations.   The UK model places greater weight on structural independence and investor accountability. The current code was built after corporate failures in the 80s and 90s and holds that self-governance without structural safeguards is insufficient. There are term limits, rules about external candidates, and separate CEO and Chair roles. It’s not wholly prescriptive, but “comply or explain” dominates.   “The strengths of one approach tend to illuminate the weaknesses of the other.”   In the US, Susan sees that internal candidates, who already know the company, its strategy, culture, and management team, can reduce transition risk. This is valuable in fast-moving situations and reduces search costs. Plus, internal candidates have established relationships and a track record with management that foster trust and candour from the start. The downsides are insularity, cultures of deference, and a lack of external benchmarking.   In the UK, those potential downsides are addressed. The formal process carries a mandate for independence from the new Chair and searches a wide talent pool for the best candidate to meet a carefully vetted list of needs. However, there’s a risk the search becomes an expensive, time-consuming theatre. There’s also transition risk if the new Chair can’t fully integrate with the company culture.   “Regardless of which governance tradition we're working within, there are three principles that matter.”   To Susan, three principles matter most. First, Boards should know what they need and not reach for what they’ve always had. The most common failure in Chair succession is a default to continuity.    Second, process quality matters as much as outcome. Susan views this as the UK’s greatest contribution to the global governance conversation. A well-designed search process is rigorous, transparent, and defensible. It surfaces assumptions, creates a record, and signals to shareholders that the Board is taking the decision seriously.    Third, succession planning is not an event. It's an ongoing discipline. Effective boards keep succession on the live agenda, actively managed and not derailed by unexpected departures.    The three top takeaways from our conversation are:   1.    Structure matters, but it isn’t everything. The issue is always whether the Board is exercising genuine, independent judgment. 2.   The US and UK models are converging and getting better for it.  3.   Chair succession is a government bellwether.  Better Boards goes beyond box-ticking. We combine independent, peer-reviewed research with an intuitive digital platform that gives every Director an individualised report, alongside external benchmarks and comparisons across all dimensions of effective governance. Professional services firms can also license the platform to strengthen their own board advisory work — without building or maintaining their own technology. If you would like to join the community, explore our research-based approach to board evaluations, discuss licensing, or share an idea for The Better Boards Podcast, we would be delighted to hear from you at [email protected].

Send us Fan Mail Chair succession is a pivotal moment for boards. It presents an opportunity to reflect on the organisation's future needs and steer it forward strategically. For this reason, organisations must proceed carefully in their Chair searches, eschewing the obvious in favour of what’s truly needed.  In this podcast, Dr Sabine Dembkowski, Founder and Managing Partner, is joined by Louise Angel. Louise is Senior Managing Director at Teneo and a leading board headhunter, specialising in Chair and Non-Executive Director appointments for UK companies. She works closely with boards on succession planning, board composition and effectiveness, and complex and high-profile chair appointments.  “Chair succession is one of those moments where you can genuinely change the trajectory of how a board operates.“ To Louise, while companies often refer to Chairs as “running” the board, the reality is much more subtle. Chairs set the tone for the quality of the debates, challenges, and discussions. High-quality conversations lead to higher perceptions of board effectiveness, CEOs feeling better supported, and stakeholders being happier and more engaged. For this reason, when succession comes up, it is a key moment to reflect on what the company needs for its next phase of evolution, and what an effective Chair would need to look like to support and lead that evolution. “The Chair shouldn’t be choosing their own successor.”  Ideally, Chair searches begin 18 to 24 months in advance. Louise notes that the conversation around succession planning is less awkward if it is a consistent agenda item. The Senior Independent Director (SID) is best suited to drive the conversation, and the board should also consider the timing of Chair succession with CEO transitions to avoid too much change at once. "I would always encourage boards to challenge themselves on some of their assumptions. Do you really need someone who has chaired before or who has direct sector experience? Or are you potentially ruling out some very strong candidates by default?” Louise notes that Chair succession is an inherently conservative process. This leads selection committees to choose people with traditional profiles and lean on prior experience as an easy proxy for suitability. However, by questioning assumptions and expanding the search pool, firms can go beyond the handful of people everyone is chasing to uncover other strong candidates who may be better suited for the firm’s unique needs. “If you spend the time upfront getting as much clarity as possible on the necessary candidate skillset and profile, you increase your chances of a quick and clean process, which you will only have to run once.” For Louise, investing extra time at the beginning to clarify must-haves, nice-to-haves, and wish lists reduces the overall length and complexity of the search. Support for the SID, a decision on internal vs. external candidate tracks, and keeping the process moving also improves the search experience. Louise further advises firms to remember that candidates are assessing them as well, so appearing well-organised and aligned during the search is an advantage.  The three top takeaways from our conversation for effective boards are: 1.      See Chair succession as a real opportunity for strategic development and not just a tick-box process. 2.     Spend time getting the brief right. 3.     Run a process that is both rigorous and thoughtful. The mechanics matter, but so do the human dynamics — and it’s the combination of the two that leads to the best outcomes. Better Boards goes beyond box-ticking. We combine independent, peer-reviewed research with an intuitive digital platform that gives every Director an individualised report, alongside external benchmarks and comparisons across all dimensions of effective governance. Professional services firms can also license the platform to strengthen their own board advisory work — without building or maintaining their own technology. If you would like to join the community, explore our research-based approach to board evaluations, discuss licensing, or share an idea for The Better Boards Podcast, we would be delighted to hear from you at [email protected].

Send us Fan Mail Once boards prioritise managing geopolitical risk, how can they successfully move from diagnosing a problem to designing a plan of action?   In this podcast, Dr Sabine Dembkowski, Founder and Managing Partner, is once again joined by Colin Reed, Chief Intelligence Officer at Clock&Cloud, a software startup transforming how large enterprises manage geopolitical risk.  Colin brings his experience as a US intelligence analyst and as the architect of Salesforce’s geopolitical risk management function to the conversation, revealing how boards and leadership teams can translate geopolitical complexity into actionable insights.  “Building around competencies already in place is a much superior method to contracting for an external problem-solver to come in and do it on your behalf." Colin recommends starting with an audit. No business is truly at zero when it comes to managing geopolitical risk. Find out which managers and functions are already managing risk at a tactical level and use them as building blocks.  “This is the biggest failing of the current consulting-based approach to this problem - it assumes that what works for one company will work for another.”   Consultants and outside experts can be useful, but they are not always the best for managing geopolitical risks. Instead, Colin recommends bringing multiple functions together – legal, supply chain, procurement, marketing, security – to form a working group that meets quarterly. Share strategic insights, bring in current-events speakers or special-topic experts, and then start gathering knowledge about where risk is manifesting in each area to inform a highly customised, forward-looking view of the company’s true geopolitical risk profile. No outside consultant can replicate this kind of deep company understanding, and it becomes the foundation for meaningful mitigation and a true competitive advantage.  “Identifying the internal fragility is the best way to focus attention on where global risk might actually break the company. If you don’t approach it this way, you spend all your time chasing the news cycle, which is broad and full of scary things, but only a few of which are probably truly scary to your firm.” A firm’s unique risk profile is the best insurance against noise and unnecessary expense. Large firms can overspend on mitigation or miss a big risk and still survive. Mid-size and smaller firms don’t have that grace. Focusing on real, specific risks is a more affordable and sustainable model for closing the gap than worrying about everything. “The institutional muscle needs to be there already and running all the time. If you wait until there are issues, the problems will be outsized compared to if you were able to detect them early.” At a bare minimum, companies need to care about and prioritise geopolitical risk. A little time spent consistently beats out a crisis reaction, even if only partial solutions can be developed with the available resources. Systems, processes, and open lines of communication help all the time, and are especially valuable to have in place well in advance of a big crisis. The three top takeaways from our conversation for effective boards are: 1.     Despite the number of people claiming to be experts, nobody has solved geopolitics completely. Experimentation and change will be necessary. 2.    Connect with industry peers to share best practices and learn. 3.    Board members should take an interest in history – there’s a sense we live in unprecedented times, but things have been chaotic before. Everyone benefits from the grounding historical perspectives provide.  Better Boards goes beyond box-ticking. We combine independent, peer-reviewed research with an intuitive digital platform that gives every Director an individualised report, alongside external benchmarks and comparisons across all dimensions of effective governance. Professional services firms can also license the platform to strengthen their own board advisory work — without building or maintaining their own technology. If you would like to join the community, explore our research-based approach to board evaluations, discuss licensing, or share an idea for The Better Boards Podcast, we would be delighted to hear from you at [email protected].

Send us Fan Mail Many boards treat geopolitics as background noise, leaving their companies exposed to unnecessary risk. Smart boards take a different approach, closing the gap and treating geopolitical risk with the same rigour as financial, cyber, and regulatory risks. In this podcast, Dr Sabine Dembkowski, Founder and Managing Partner, is joined by Colin Reed. Colin is the Chief Intelligence Officer of Clock&Cloud, a software start-up transforming how large enterprises manage geopolitical risk.  Previously, Colin built Salesforce’s first-ever geopolitical risk management function, and before that, he was a senior intelligence analyst with the U.S. government.  “Most of the business leaders we have today have had their entire careers in an unusual period of history.“ As Colin looks across history, he notes that the post-Cold War period was an unusually stable business climate. This led boards and C-suites to treat geopolitics as something governments must manage rather than their own business priority. However, as history reverts to its tumultuous norms, corporations must step back into taking an active approach to geopolitical risks. “There’s nothing unavoidable about geopolitical risk. It very often telegraphs its approach.”  Colin feels boards needn’t be surprised by geopolitical risk. Thanks to modern systems, it is easier than ever to model how risks can impact operations and the bottom line. Boards have learned to map and mitigate financial and cyber risks. They can learn to do the same with geopolitics, especially now that the tools exist to model even very complex situations quantitatively. “To me, geopolitics is akin to the weather. It never goes away, and try as you might, you’ll eventually have to go outside in it.” The best practices right now for closing the geopolitical risk gap are to stop treating geopolitics as ‘Act of God’ surprises and instead build a robust risk management framework around it. While there are many nuances to geopolitics, there are not so many that they can’t be mapped and modelled with the latest tools. Ideally, this is handled at the strategy level and should be forward-looking rather than backwards-looking or reactive.  “I don’t think it’s sufficient to rely on a single board member, or an external advisor, to manage this problem, because doing so builds a single point of failure into the system.” Colin feels that boards of large companies do best when they internalise the understanding that everyone must be aware of the need to track and manage geopolitical risk. This is especially true for European boards. Identifying a C-suite-level champion for geopolitical risk to build alignment across operations and identify gaps, and then investing strategically in solutions, is a cost-effective approach to building resilience.  The three top takeaways from our conversation for effective boards are: 1.     Geopolitics can be understood and managed, and the expertise to do so already exists if you know where to look inside and outside your organisation.  2.    Proactive engagement on geopolitics isn’t new. What’s happening now is a return to historical norms.  3.    Quantitative metrics and modelling systems are about to revolutionise this field.  Better Boards goes beyond box-ticking. We combine independent, peer-reviewed research with an intuitive digital platform that gives every Director an individualised report, alongside external benchmarks and comparisons across all dimensions of effective governance. Professional services firms can also license the platform to strengthen their own board advisory work — without building or maintaining their own technology. If you would like to join the community, explore our research-based approach to board evaluations, discuss licensing, or share an idea for The Better Boards Podcast, we would be delighted to hear from you at [email protected].

Send us Fan Mail Beyond listed corporations, there is a vibrant world of start-ups, scale-ups, and organisations at the pre-IPO stage. What does it take to add value to these Boards, and how does the work differ from that of a listed organisation? Most importantly, how can working with these companies shape a Board portfolio career? In this podcast, Dr Sabine Dembkowski, Founder and Managing Partner, is joined by Susanne Chishti, Chair of FINTECH Circle, Europe’s first Investor Network focused on fintech investments. Susanne is an experienced Non-Executive Director, best-selling author, and in 2024, was named as one of the Top 100 Women in Fintech. She is also a former CNBC fintech commentator and a guest lecturer at the University of Cambridge and Warwick Business School. “At every single stage, customer and investor expectations increase“ Susanne sees the role of Board members shifting as companies move through different stages. Initially, in the start-up stage, Board members add value by providing practical help to entrepreneurs, demonstrating a strong governance model, opening doors and developing a strong go-to-market strategy. Then, at the scale-up stage, Board members work closely with VCs and investors and add value by showing there’s a strong governance model in place and that invested funds will be well looked after. When a firm prepares to go public, the role changes again, and Board members add value by helping the firm prepare for public scrutiny and public governance structures. “It is not easy for somebody who has managed 10,000 people in a large bank to come into a startup with 10 people and add value without killing the innovation, fast movement, and agility of a start-up" For Susanne, it is vital that Board members have an awareness of the scale-up cycles and where their company is in the cycle. This helps inform Board members about what value they can bring. Ideally, Board members maintain flexibility and an openness to learning what’s needed in the moment. She acknowledges this requires listening, humbleness, and savvy observation of the environment. “Lots of large private companies have not yet gone public, but they are more successful, you could argue, than large, listed companies.“ Susanne notes the private market is fairly new and expanding rapidly. Joining the right start-up at the right stage can offer a chance to experience a similar or greater level of challenge, opportunity, and success than at a listed firm.  “In order to be inside the funnel which headhunters use, it's important to understand who the right headhunters“ To get a Board seat takes intentional networking and relationship building. For networking, Susanne recommends FINTECH Circle and FinTech conferences.  The three top takeaways from our conversation for effective boards are: 1.     FinTech and technology sectors offer great opportunities for Board members to add value, even without a pre-existing tech background. 2.    Getting a Board seat requires an intentional plan to network and build headhunter relationships.  3.    Look at this opportunity as a potential long-term enrichment of your life and an enjoyable extension of your career path.  and best-selling author, and in 2024 was named  Better Boards goes beyond box-ticking. We combine independent, peer-reviewed research with an intuitive digital platform that gives every Director an individualised report, alongside external benchmarks and comparisons across all dimensions of effective governance. Professional services firms can also license the platform to strengthen their own board advisory work — without building or maintaining their own technology. If you would like to join the community, explore our research-based approach to board evaluations, discuss licensing, or share an idea for The Better Boards Podcast, we would be delighted to hear from you at [email protected].

Send us Fan Mail In capital-intensive, brand-driven organisations, strategic ambition must be matched by disciplined governance. Effective governance links capital allocation to technology strategy, culture development, and measurable KPIs, so that speed and ambition balance with long-term enterprise value creation. In this podcast, Dr. Sabine Dembkowski, Founder and Managing Partner of better Boards, is joined once again by Marco Mattiacci, a global executive with 25+ years of leadership across the luxury, automotive sector - Aston Martin Lagonda and Ferrari, Formula 1, and media. He has operated at the CEO and Board–Executive levels in capital-intensive, high-visibility environments, partnering directly with shareholders, sovereign investors, and rights-holders across the USA, Europe, China, and Japan. “It is important that you don't have very general or first-level KPIs. You need to go into the details“ The most meaningful KPIs for Boards to monitor, in Marco’s opinion, are very richly detailed KPIs that directly tie to the progress and success of the CapEx project. It does require extra work from the Board to delve deeply into the details and have a strong grasp of the data. However, it also helps with every Board meeting and progress check, enabling the Board to understand what’s behind each KPI and what the changes mean in terms of progress against the roadmap.  “At the same time, you need to make sure you deliver clarity and simplicity, not tsunami the Board with a massive amount of data“ To Marco, ambiguity is the worst enemy in business. Massive amounts of data create ambiguity and overwhelm. Setting up KPIs aligned with your roadmaps in each area – talent, culture, and technology – and doing the early work to ensure alignment before launching the project pays off for Boards down the line. Incoming data can be filtered for key facts and used to create meaningful yet simple dashboards.  Marco recommends that the Executive Committee provide perhaps five pages to support the discussion of the dashboard and KPIs. No Board packs with 1000s of pages or mountains of unfiltered data. Summarising key qualitative and quantitative elements into shorter documents builds on the early work of aligning stakeholders and setting clear gates, while allowing time for meaningful discussions in meetings on project health, needed changes, and risk monitoring.   “The key element is to be competent“ Large capital projects attract scrutiny, and there can be tension in providing constructive challenge while preserving momentum. Yet, for Marco, anger is always outside the scope of work. Ego, anger, and frustration add nothing, and for the three to four hours of a meeting, operating as a team with an eye on results leads to the best outcomes. The three top takeaways from our conversation for effective boards are:  1.     Understand the KPIs and definition of success. Use simple, intuitive dashboards and scorecards to monitor progress against your KPIs and goals. 2.    Keep ego out of the Boardroom and Executive Committee. 3.    The first enemy to fight is ambiguity.  Better Boards goes beyond box-ticking. We combine independent, peer-reviewed research with an intuitive digital platform that gives every Director an individualised report, alongside external benchmarks and comparisons across all dimensions of effective governance. Professional services firms can also license the platform to strengthen their own board advisory work — without building or maintaining their own technology. If you would like to join the community, explore our research-based approach to board evaluations, discuss licensing, or share an idea for The Better Boards Podcast, we would be delighted to hear from you at [email protected].

Send us Fan Mail In capital-intensive, brand-driven organisations, strategic ambition must be matched by disciplined governance. Effective governance links capital allocation to technology strategy, culture development, and measurable KPIs, so that speed and ambition balance with long-term enterprise value creation. In this podcast, Dr Sabine Dembkowski, Founder and Managing Partner, is joined by Marco Mattiacci. Marco is a global executive with 25+ years of leadership across luxury, automotive, motorsport, and media. Marco served as an Executive Committee member and Global Chief Brand and Commercial Officer at Aston Martin Lagonda, and was the Team Principal of Scuderia Ferrari Formula One, and President & CEO of Ferrari North America and Asia Pacific.  “Don’t approve a budget. Approve a sequence of proofs.” For Marco, large investments are not budgetary line items. They are roadmaps and processes. Succeeding with a CapEx project requires careful assessments of the technology, the talent, and the company culture — what he calls the Three Interlocking Roadmaps. Stage-gating funding against predefined KPIs preserves governance leverage and keeps investment disciplined as conditions change. “AI that outpaces your ecosystem doesn’t create advantage. It creates fragility. And fragility at speed is the most dangerous condition a board can be blind to.” In addition to internal assessments, Marco recommends evaluating the company’s full ecosystem, including suppliers, stakeholders, and clients. Will they be able to interface appropriately with your company during and after the CapEx investment? What limits or risks do you need to account for as a part of the process? “Ambiguity is the worst enemy of business.” Marco notes that preparation is key to removing ambiguity. This may require significant effort at the beginning to ensure that technology and talent/culture roadmaps are fully intertwined and aligned, both overall and for short- and medium-term gates. Overlaying roadmaps and grid scorecards based on hard data ensures ongoing alignment and progress. “You need to establish a very good dialogue.” Marco is familiar with the tension between Boards and Executive Committees during intensive CapEx projects. Boards worry they step on toes, and managers want to protect their turf. In a managerial role, he gets the best outcomes by trusting the Board’s wisdom and helicopter view rather than an operational viewpoint. Boards, in turn, can provide support and a longer-term perspective. Marco notes that technology can provide real-time information about culture, talent, governance, and organisational dynamics. Firms can continually survey and monitor, which is important in high-pressure, high-profile situations.  This tangible data, blended with qualitative data from strategic conversations and informal sentiment gathering, closely monitors culture and talent dynamics within the company and across the full ecosystem.  The three top takeaways from our conversation are: •        A CapEx investment is not a budget line item. It is a sequence of proofs and gates that guide disciplined spending. •        Consider the impact on the full ecosystem, which includes suppliers, stakeholders, and clients. •        Once you have your vision, assess the culture and talent to bring the right elements forward to meet your goals. Better Boards goes beyond box-ticking. We combine independent, peer-reviewed research with an intuitive digital platform that gives every Director an individualised report, alongside external benchmarks and comparisons across all dimensions of effective governance. Professional services firms can also license the platform to strengthen their own board advisory work — without building or maintaining their own technology. If you would like to join the community, explore our research-based approach to board evaluations, discuss licensing, or share an idea for The Better Boards Podcast, we would be delighted to hear from you at [email protected].