LATEST ARTICLE

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.

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.

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 s

Boards today confront a paradox. On the one hand, they operate in an environment of radical complexity. On the other hand, directors remain bounded in their rationality despite the emergence of of AI. What is needed is the thinking board that debates assumptions, grounds itself in data, deliberates inclusively, and sustains dialogue with its stakeholders.

AI holds the power not only to improve the efficiency of governance mechanisms but also to democratize corporate oversight by making intelligence accessible and actionable across the corporate hierarchy.