This piece is most relevant to technology leaders because it mirrors a growing issue in enterprise governance: oversight bodies can lag the pace of digital change even when they are staffed with highly accomplished people. For CIOs and CTOs, the implication is practical: do not assume board familiarity with past transformation successes translates into sound judgement on AI, cyber resilience, platform economics, data regulation, or sourcing risk today. Board competence now needs active renewal, not passive tenure.
The management question is not simply whether the board has “technology experience,” but whether decision rights and advisory capacity are matched to the organization’s current strategic inflection points. A stable core still matters for risk appetite, institutional memory, and benefits oversight, but time-bound capability may be needed for specific transitions such as AI adoption, ERP modernization, major cloud commitments, or market expansion. That suggests a more deliberate governance design: fixed oversight responsibilities combined with periodic capability reviews of the board and its committees.
For IT leaders, this creates both an opportunity and an obligation. Boards that prize curiosity are more likely to ask better questions, but management must give them structured ways to learn. Useful next steps include:
- mapping upcoming strategy decisions against the board’s current expertise,
- identifying where external advisers, committee changes, or director refreshment are needed,
- establishing short learning cycles on AI, cyber, data, and regulatory shifts,
- testing whether governance forums reward challenge or merely confirm legacy assumptions.
The trade-off is clear: too much continuity can harden outdated beliefs; too much churn can weaken accountability and context. The better model is intentional renewal tied to the technology and business agenda.
by Marianna Zangrillo and Thomas Keil
For decades, boards have treated experience as a competitive advantage. The underlying assumption has been simple: the more seasoned the directors, the better the board’s judgement. But what if that assumption no longer holds? In today’s business environment, knowledge has a much shorter shelf life than it once did. Artificial intelligence, geopolitical shifts, new regulation and rapidly evolving business models mean that expertise acquired over a successful career can become outdated surprisingly quickly. Experience still matters, but unlike financial capital, its value is no longer steadily compounding. In many areas it is quietly depreciating, as the world changes faster than even the most accomplished directors can keep pace with. Rod Adkins, board chair at Avnet and board member at United Parcel Service (UPS), PayPal, and W. W. Grainger summarised this idea:
“Going forward, boards must think about a dynamic versus a static model. In the past, board members may have been on the board for as much as twenty or thirty years… High‑performance boards will always have to focus on the types of skills, backgrounds, and experiences of the directors needed at any time. It must be consistent with the pace of change in the marketplace.”
We call this the half-life of board expertise: the time it takes for the strategic relevance of a board’s collective knowledge to diminish. The implication for how boards should be staffed are significant. Adapting to a shorter half-life of expertise does not simply mean refreshing boards more often. It means rethinking the role that different directors play. Some provide continuity and institutional memory. Others contribute specialist expertise that is particularly valuable during specific phases of a company’s development.
Balancing stability with renewal
The challenge is therefore not to choose between stability and renewal, but to combine them deliberately. Boards still need directors who understand the company’s history, culture and strategic context. That perspective can only be built over time and remains essential for effective oversight. At the same time, boards increasingly need directors who bring fresh perspectives and deep expertise in emerging technologies, new business models or geopolitical developments. The future belongs neither to static boards nor to constantly changing ones, but to boards designed to balance institutional memory with intellectual renewal. The balance between stability and change does not mean regular replacement of all the board’s members. Instead, boards should maintain a stable core deliberately creating room for directors whose contribution is tied to a particular strategic challenge. Not every board seat needs to serve the same purpose. Some directors provide continuity. Others contribute expertise that is valuable precisely because it is time-bound. Christian Trümpler of Partners Group described how this works in practice:
“In one of our investments, we knew that we had to reposition the brand within the first two years because although it was successful in Europe, it was not known in the US. So, rebranding was important. We needed an American with brand experience on the board to support this project because we had to reposition it globally. But from the outset, we also knew that the best person to help us with rebranding would not be the same person who would continuously drive our go‑to‑market efforts in the US. We communicated this to the board members right from the start: we need one person on this board to help us rebrand, then in two years’ time, we will need somebody else to get us into Walmart and Target. That was the plan from the beginning, and it’s now being executed one‑to‑one without any bad blood because it was made clear to everyone from the start.”
Curiosity as a governance capability
The priority is no longer simply to recruit accomplished directors. It is to ensure that the board’s collective expertise evolves as quickly as the environment it is expected to govern. This changes the questions boards should ask themselves. Rather than focusing only on whether they have the right mix of skills and experience, they should also ask how quickly they update their assumptions, expose themselves to new ideas and recognise when long-held beliefs no longer fit reality. As Debbie Hewitt, chair of England’s Football Association put it: “For board development to work, you need that the board openly accepts it does not know everything, that it is curious about finding out different ways of learning, and that it is open to acknowledging where the weaknesses might be.” In a world where the half-life of expertise is shrinking, curiosity becomes as important a governance capability as experience itself. The boards that remain effective will not be those that assume they already have the answers, but those that deliberately seek out new perspectives and continually renew their collective understanding of the world around them.
The most effective boards of the future may not be those with the deepest reservoir of experience, but those that recognise when experience is no longer enough. As the half-life of board expertise continues to shrink, the real competitive advantage will lie in a board’s ability to renew its collective knowledge while preserving the judgement that comes from understanding the business. The next frontier in governance is therefore not simply board refreshment, but designing boards that evolve as deliberately as the companies they oversee.
Enjoyed this article? Sign up for our newsletter to receive regular insights and stay connected.