Is Your Board Designed for the Future It’s Trying to Create?

Insights from our latest webinar featuring governance advisor and facilitator Guy Beatson, Director of Beatson Company

A board can look the part.

Experienced directors, sound processes, a clear strategy on paper.

But does it have the collective capability to make that strategy succeed over the next decade?

In our recent Govn365 webinar, Gerry Lynch sat down with governance advisor and facilitator Guy Beatson, Director of Beatson Company and former General Manager of the Governance Leadership Centre at the Institute of Directors New Zealand. Guy is currently the Chair of YouthLine Wellington and Trustee at YouthLine Auckland, bringing the perspective of a practising director as well as that of an advisor.

Guy’s starting point was simple: too many governance conversations begin with who is around the table. They should begin with the future the organisation is trying to create, and who it exists to serve.

Start with purpose and strategy, then the table

Guy pointed to the Institute of Directors’ four pillars of governance, where determining purpose comes first and strategy sits beneath it. Two signs that a board is designed for its future: a long-term view that guides a clear strategy, owned by the organisation and reviewed regularly, and a skills matrix tied to that strategic direction rather than a static list of skills to be replaced like for like.

Succession, Guy argued, is a strategic task, not a replacement exercise.

“If you’re thinking about succession, you should be thinking about that as [a] strategic and governance task, rather than simply a replace like with like.”

Is purpose really driving your choices?

Ask many boards what their purpose is and the answer is often less coherent than you would expect. Guy recently worked with a board whose purpose had grown into six bullet points. The directors looked at themselves, looked at him, and concluded they needed to do more work on it.

The harder test is whether purpose is lived beyond the boardroom. Guy’s advice was to talk to frontline staff, genuinely and not as a royal tour. In one session he attended, a number of not-for-profit CEOs said their staff had never seen the board. Then test whether the people being served are being served well. The Hayne Royal Commission found Australian banks and insurers were ignoring frontline and customer feedback. And when financial pressure forces hard calls, use purpose as a touchstone: does this decision preserve the purpose and the people we serve?

Work backwards from the ten-year ambition

Strategy can’t be a document written once in a quiet room. It has to be a living conversation. From there, boards can anticipate what the organisation will need: investment, new capability, new markets, mergers and acquisitions, and sometimes even a managed wind-down.

Guy’s example was capital raising. A board that foresees a capital raise can bring on a director with experience in that area shortly before, during and after the raise. That fills the gap, and it also helps the rest of the board ask better questions of their advisors.

Scenarios help too, provided there aren’t too many and they aren’t too complex. They bring out the questions that matter: what are we assuming, collectively?

As Guy put it: “What are we assuming collectively, not just what are we assuming in our own heads, sitting around a board table?”

You can’t hire a specialist for every issue

Guy was candid about board advertisements asking for an AI specialist, a cyber specialist and an entrepreneur. A board of 12 or 14 can never hold enough specialists, and the approach raises harder questions. What are the specialists expected to contribute to the governance task? Are other directors expected to defer to them? If so, they are not fulfilling their duty to decide collectively. And does a long list of specialties undervalue governance skills themselves?

His answer: set minimum literacy expectations for every director, accept that no one can be across everything, and use other options. Ryman Healthcare’s clinical committee includes clinicians alongside directors. Advisory boards can also advise the board itself, not just management.

Testing capability beyond CVs and a skills matrix

The evidence a board needs goes further than who is on the roster. Guy recommended:

• Data on the capabilities, ways of thinking and diversity around the table
• A skills matrix linked to strategic priorities. He singled out Transpower and the skills matrix it publishes in its annual report as an exemplar
• Regular board reviews. Data suggests some of the more poorly performing NZX-listed companies weren’t doing board reviews at all.

Hearing from the people you serve

A community representative on the board isn’t always the answer, because directors must act in the best interests of the entity. Alternatives include advisory boards and board committees. National Australia Bank, for example, created a customer committee of its board in response to the Royal Commission. Where and how you engage matters too: a boardroom isn’t always the best venue for young people to share their experience.

Turning a capability gap into action

Whether the answer is to develop, recruit, plan succession or bring in outside expertise, Guy’s advice was to first understand what the gap is and why it exists. Then settle on three things: where the gap is arising, what governance task you are asking someone to do, and how long you need the skill.

At YouthLine Wellington, a significant funding challenge led the board to recruit someone with fundraising skills. They also looked inside the organisation, where volunteers sometimes bring governance experience worth having at the table.

And capable individuals still need to work as a team. Guy pointed to openness and safety, every voice being heard, and assumptions made visible, and noted this is the whole board’s responsibility, not just the chair’s.

One practical change for your next three meetings

Guy’s challenge to any board: ask whether the strategy you have for the organisation reflects its purpose. Then ask whether you are thinking about governance capability through the lens of that strategy, rather than a skills matrix alone.

Gerry summed up the session this way: you can’t design the board of the future unless you have some assumptions about what that future might be.

Because the real risk isn’t having the wrong people around the table today. It’s not noticing when the table itself needs to change.

Where Govn365 fits

Govn365 supports this work through governance evaluations and facilitated conversations. It helps boards and leadership teams:

• Identify strengths and gaps, with evidence rather than assumption
• Align on the priorities that matter most
• Turn those priorities into practical action plans

If you’d like to see how your board’s capability stacks up against the strategy it is overseeing, let’s talk.

Start a conversation with Govn365

Want to explore this further?

Watch the webinar recording

Continue the conversation

Join us for our next webinar featuring Alexie O’Brien, AI Enablement Coach and Consultant, leadership coach, board director and founder of Leadership Academy.AI, where we look at how boards can govern AI with both eyes open: managing the risks while also leading the conversation about where AI belongs in strategy.

AI in the Boardroom: Governing Risk, Leading Opportunity

Thursday, 26 November 2026 | 12:00pm – 1:00pm NZDT

Register here.