Curiosity, Climate and Governance: Questions for Boards This Earth Day
Cornwall’s famous ‘Coming Home Trees’
Reflections on governance, stewardship and how boards respond to long-term environmental change
Each year, Earth Day offers a moment to pause and reflect on the health of our planet and the shared responsibility for its future. For boards, it can also prompt a quieter, but equally important, reflection: how is environmental responsibility understood in the context of governance?
Because while climate and sustainability are often framed as technical, political or operational matters, they are also — fundamentally — questions of stewardship, risk and long-term decision-making. In other words, they sit squarely within the remit of good governance.
From Global Issue to Governance Responsibility
Environmental sustainability can sometimes feel distant from the day-to-day work of boards — particularly in organisations where the connection is not immediately obvious. But the impacts are rarely abstract. They can be seen in:
Supply chain resilience
Regulatory expectations
Cost pressures and resource availability
Stakeholder expectations and reputation
The long-term viability of services and operations
Seen through this lens, environmental factors are not separate from governance — they are part of the landscape within which governance operates.
Curiosity as a Starting Point
As explored in earlier reflections, effective governance often begins with curiosity. Boards are not expected to be climate scientists or technical experts. But they are expected to be thoughtful, informed and appropriately questioning. That curiosity might begin with simple, open questions:
What environmental factors are most relevant to our organisation?
Where might we be exposed to risk — now or in the future?
How are these issues reflected in our strategy and decision-making?
What information are we receiving, and how sufficient is it to support assurance and oversight?
These are not specialist questions. They are governance questions — grounded in understanding, oversight and accountability.
From Reassurance to Assurance
As with other areas of governance, there is an important distinction between reassurance and assurance. It is relatively easy for organisations to express commitment to sustainability. Many do so with sincerity and good intent. However, the role of the board is to move beyond intent and ask:
How do we know this is meaningful, proportionate and embedded?
What evidence do we have to support what we are being told?
How are we triangulating our evidence?
This assurance might involve exploring:
How environmental considerations are reflected in risk registers
How policies are translated into operational practice
How progress is monitored and reported
Where responsibilities sit within the organisation
Essentially, it is about considering what evidence trustees can see, hear or experience to assure themselves that stewardship has moved beyond paper and into practice. This is not about challenge for its own sake. It is about ensuring that commitments are understood, evidenced and aligned with organisational purpose.
Everyday Decisions, Lasting Impact
One of the risks in conversations about sustainability is that the scale of the issue can feel overwhelming. In practice, however, environmental impact is often shaped by everyday organisational decisions rather than grand gestures. Boards may see this reflected in:
Procurement choices and supplier relationships
Estates management and energy use
Travel and operational policies
Digital infrastructure and resource use
Individually, these decisions may seem modest. Collectively, they shape organisational impact over time. Governance, at its best, pays attention to these cumulative effects.
Stewardship and the Long Term
At its heart, governance is concerned with stewardship — holding responsibility not just for the present, but for the future. Earth Day brings that long-term perspective into sharper focus. It invites boards to consider:
How today’s decisions may affect future stakeholders
How resilient the organisation is to environmental change
How values are reflected in practice over time
These are not new questions; they are extensions of the core responsibilities boards already hold.
A Natural Part of Good Governance
For many organisations, environmental considerations will continue to evolve — shaped by sector expectations, regulatory developments and societal change. Boards do not need to have all the answers. But they do need to:
Remain open and curious
Ensure appropriate visibility of risk and impact
Integrate environmental thinking into broader governance frameworks
Approached in this way, sustainability becomes not a separate agenda item, but a natural part of governing well.
And finally…
Perhaps the opportunity presented by Earth Day is not to add something entirely new to the board agenda, but to look again at familiar responsibilities through a slightly different lens. To ask, with quiet curiosity: What does stewardship look like here — now, and in the future?
This blog forms part of a series exploring practical governance: from curiosity and connection to assurance and continuous improvement.
Governing in a Digital World: Curiosity, Questions and Cyber Security
Reflections on governance, risk and how boards build assurance in a digital environment
Cyber security can sometimes feel like a technical domain — full of acronyms, systems and specialist Reflections on governance, risk and how boards build assurance in a digital environment.
Cyber security can sometimes feel like a technical domain — full of acronyms, systems and specialist language that sits just beyond the comfort zone of many boards.
But at its heart, cyber security is not just a technical issue. It is also a governance issue, because the risks it presents — operational disruption, financial loss, reputational damage and impact on service users — sit squarely within the fiduciary responsibilities of trustees and non-executive directors.
The National Cyber Security Centre Cyber Security Toolkit for Boards offers a helpful reframing: boards do not need to become technical experts. Instead, they need to be curious, confident and purposeful in the questions they ask.
Curiosity, questioning and governance
As explored in earlier reflections, curiosity is often the starting point for effective governance. It becomes most valuable when expressed through thoughtful, sometimes bold questioning — not questioning for its own sake, but questioning that seeks to understand:
What really matters
What could go wrong
What is changing around us
What the future might hold
Cyber security is a domain where this mindset is particularly important. The risks are often unseen, fast-moving and continually evolving. Waiting for certainty can mean responding too late, which highlights the importance of proactive rather than reactive governance.
Looking to the horizon, not just the dashboard
At a time when missions such as Artemis program are quite literally expanding our horizons, boards are also being asked to look further ahead — anticipating risks that may not yet be visible.
Boards are often presented with reports that describe the current position:
Compliance metrics
System performance
Incident logs
These are clearly important. But governance also requires something more — the ability to look beyond the immediate picture and towards the horizon.
A curious and questioning board might ask:
What emerging risks should we be aware of, and how might these affect our organisation?
How is our operating environment changing, and how fit for purpose is our governance in response?
What might challenge our current assumptions, and how prepared are we for potential disruption?
In cyber security, this forward-looking perspective is essential. Threats evolve quickly, and yesterday’s assurance may not be sufficient for tomorrow’s reality.
From technical complexity to governance clarity
One of the strengths of the NCSC toolkit is that it translates cyber security into governance language, structured around questions rather than technical solutions.
This enables boards to engage not as specialists, but as governors. Their role is not to manage systems, but to ensure that:
Risks are understood
Controls are proportionate
Accountability is clear
Oversight is evidence-based
Curiosity, expressed through questioning, is what allows boards to bridge the gap between complexity and oversight.
From reassurance to assurance
Boards will often receive reassurance in relation to cyber security:
“We have appropriate systems in place.”
“We are compliant with requirements.”
“There have been no significant incidents.”
These statements are helpful — but on their own, they are not enough.
As explored in Governance in Orbit: Turning Visits into Assurance, effective governance requires boards to move beyond reassurance and towards assurance, in doing so, seeking to understand not just what is reported, but what is happening in practice.
In the context of cyber security, this may include understanding
How systems operate in practice
What evidence underpins reported confidence
How resilience has been tested
What would happen under pressure
This is where curiosity and questioning become critical. They enable boards not just to receive information, but to understand and gain confidence in it.
Curiosity in practice: what assurance looks like
In practical terms, assurance does not require technical expertise — but it does require thoughtful engagement.
For example, boards might look for:
Evidence of testing
Has the organisation undertaken cyber incident simulations or exercises? What was learned?Independent validation
Are external audits, certifications or reviews in place to provide objective insight? How well does the board understand the integrity of this validation?Clarity of reporting
Are risks clearly articulated, with trends over time rather than one-off snapshots?Visible accountability
Is there clear executive ownership, and does reporting enable meaningful board oversight?Connection to wider governance
Is cyber risk integrated into business continuity planning, risk registers and strategic discussions?Learning from experience
How are near misses or incidents used to strengthen practice?Learning from others’ experience
How is external intelligence used to strengthen the organisation’s approach?
Together, these create a more complete picture, enabling boards to move from relying on statements to forming their own informed judgement.
Curiosity in practice: asking the right questions
The NCSC toolkit provides a helpful structure for this, centred on key governance questions:
Do we understand our critical assets?
Do we understand our vulnerabilities?
Do we have clear accountability?
Are we prepared to respond to an incident?
How do we build a security-conscious culture?
These are not technical questions. They are governance questions grounded in curiosity, clarity and accountability.
From curiosity to proactive governance
Curiosity and questioning should not only help boards understand the present — they should also enable boards to act ahead of events.
Too often, organisations strengthen their approach to cyber security after an incident. Good governance seeks to do this before — taking a proactive rather than reactive approach.
This may involve:
Anticipating potential risks
Testing assumptions
Investing in resilience early
Creating space for forward-looking discussion
In this way, curiosity becomes a driver of proactive governance, rather than reactive response.
Balancing confidence and challenge
Being curious and asking questions does not mean creating tension or mistrust. At its best, it reflects a board that is engaged, thoughtful and willing to explore complexity.
At times, it may also require a degree of quiet boldness:
To ask the question that has not yet been asked
To look beyond the comfort of reassurance
To explore what may lie ahead
This is not about disruption — it is about stewardship.
Embedding this approach into everyday governance
Cyber security does not sit apart from governance — it forms part of how governance is exercised. A board that values curiosity and questioning will naturally integrate cyber considerations into:
Risk and assurance discussions
Audit and compliance processes
Strategic planning
Culture and behaviour conversations
Over time, this supports a governance approach that is inquisitive, forward-looking, proportionate and resilient.
And finally…
The NCSC toolkit does not ask boards to become cyber specialists. It asks something more practical — and more powerful. It asks boards to be curious enough to ask, confident enough to question and diligent enough to seek assurance.
Because in a digital world, governance cannot rely on reassurance alone.
The role of the board remains clear — to look beyond the immediate, to understand what sits behind the answers and to ensure the organisation is prepared — not just for today, but for what may come next.
Reference
National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC). Cyber Security Toolkit for Boards. Available at: https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/collection/board-toolkit
This blog forms part of a wider series exploring practical governance — from curiosity and connection to assurance and continuous improvement.
Governance in Orbit: Turning Visits into Assurance
International Space Station orbiting Earth, illustrating perspective and interconnected systems
Reflections on governance, connection and how boards build meaningful assurance in practice
As anyone interested in what lies beyond the Earth’s atmosphere will know, the International Space Station circles the planet multiple times each day — an interconnected system of people, technology and shared purpose, constantly in motion.
This offers a useful analogy for governance. At its best, governance is not static. It is dynamic, interconnected and continually evolving.
From Curiosity to Assurance
An earlier reflection explored the role of curiosity in governance — often expressed as:
Please tell me
And please show me
Now, let’s discuss
All of this helps trustees to be curious. It is this curiosity that enables boards to move beyond being passive recipients of information and towards more active governance. It encourages questioning, exploration and a deeper understanding of the organisation and the context in which it operates.
But curiosity on its own is not enough. The next step is assurance.
This raises an important question: how do boards ensure that what they are told — and what they are shown — reflects the reality of how an organisation is operating in practice?
This is key to moving from reassurance to assurance — two closely connected but distinct aspects of governance. While papers and presentations can reassure, assurance requires something more grounded: evidence, triangulation and lived insight.
Connecting Governance to Practice
This is where visits can play a valuable role. If curiosity asks the right questions, visits help boards experience the answers. They create a direct connection between governance and delivery — between strategy discussed in the boardroom and practice experienced on the ground. And this is particularly important in the context of ongoing governance.
As explored in Proactive Governance: What Happens Between External Reviews?, strong governance is not something that happens every three or five years. It is sustained through continuous attention, reflection and learning. Visits are one of the ways boards can support this in practice.
From Informal Engagement to Structured Insight
For visits to add real value, they need to be more than informal interactions. They are most effective when they form part of a planned and purposeful programme, with:
A clear objective for each visit
Defined areas of focus
A role within a wider sequence over time
For example, a programme of visits focused on service user or student experience might include:
Observing frontline service/teaching delivery
Understanding the role of facilities and environment
Exploring the contribution of external partnerships
Each visit provides a different lens. Together, they build a more complete picture which is where visits move from anecdote to evidence.
Hearing the Whole Organisation
Equally important is who trustees engage with. Different groups bring different perspectives:
Staff
Service users, customers or students
Volunteers
Partners and stakeholders
No single conversation provides a complete picture. But taken together, they can help boards understand whether:
Practice is consistent across the organisation
Strategic intent is understood and embedded
Culture and delivery align with what is reported
This is the practical application of triangulation — moving from “tell me” and “show me” to a deeper understanding of how the organisation is operating in practice.
Enabling Effective Visits
Well-run visit programmes do not happen by accident. They rely on strong governance infrastructure and thoughtful coordination — often supported by a governance professional. This may include:
Planning visits in a way that aligns with organisational priorities
Ensuring clarity of purpose and appropriate boundaries
Supporting trustees to engage in a way that is constructive and proportionate
Capturing insight and feeding it back into board discussions
Arranging visits at times that fit in with trustees’ broader responsibilities
In many ways, this mirrors the approach taken by regulators such as the Care Quality Commission, Ofsted and the Regulator of Social Housing, where visits form part of an evidence-based approach to assessment. Trustee visits are clearly not inspections. However, they can play an important role in strengthening assurance.
A Continuous Governance Practice
Seen in this way, visits are not a one-off activity. They form part of a wider governance rhythm — alongside board meetings, reporting, external reviews and ongoing reflection. They help ensure that governance remains:
Connected to the organisation it serves
Grounded in real experience
Responsive to change
In doing so, they support boards in moving from periodic oversight to continuous understanding.
A Question for Your Board
A simple but powerful question to consider: How do we know that what we see in board papers reflects what is happening in practice?
If the answer relies solely on reporting, there may be an opportunity to strengthen assurance.
Governance Without Leaving the Ground
The International Space Station remains in constant orbit — continually observing, adjusting and connecting. Strong governance operates in much the same way. Not as a distant oversight function, but as an engaged and evolving practice — one that brings together:
Curiosity
Evidence
Experience
Reflection
Creating a living, connected understanding of the organisation — while remaining firmly grounded in the context it serves.
You may also be interested in:
Curiosity in Governance: Great Questions Matter — exploring the role of inquiry and triangulation
Proactive Governance: What Happens Between External Reviews? — reflecting on how governance remains current between formal reviews
Part of a wider series exploring practical governance — from curiosity and connection to assurance and continuous improvement.
Recruiting a Chair: Getting the Process Right
Reflections on governance, leadership and how boards work in practice
Recruiting trustees is rarely straightforward. Appointing a chair can be more complex still. Boards often find themselves balancing whether to appoint from within or to undertake a wider search — sometimes without having navigated a process of this kind before.
Which raises an important question: how can boards design a chair appointment process that is robust, transparent and genuinely trustee-led?
A Defining Governance Moment
The chair is not the ‘best trustee’, but a first among equals. This applies equally to panel, committee and board chairs. For a board chair, however, the role is distinct — enabling the board to function well, drawing out insight and supporting effective governance.
At its heart, appointing a chair is not simply a recruitment exercise. It is a defining moment in the life of a board’s governance. Central to this is the relationship with the senior leader — one that combines support, challenge and trust, and which benefits from clarity early in the process, both about expectations and boundaries.
Moving Beyond Delegation
Historically, chair appointments have often been delegated to a small committee or working group. While this can be an efficient and entirely appropriate approach, it can sometimes create a degree of distance between the process and the wider board.
Where the full board has limited opportunity to engage before an appointment is confirmed, there can be a risk that some trustees feel less connected to a decision that will shape the board for years to come. Boards may also find, partway through a process, that there is less alignment than initially assumed — not necessarily on candidates, but on what is needed from the role itself.
Broader engagement does not need to slow things down. Thoughtful involvement can strengthen collective ownership and, ultimately, the quality of the decision.
Governance, Not Recruitment
Appointing a chair is not the same as appointing staff. It is a governance decision, made by trustees, about the leadership of the board itself. This distinction can be helpful in shaping how the process is designed and who leads it.
Professional recruitment experience can add real value. Alongside this, governance experience helps ensure that decisions are taken in the right place, with appropriate independence and collective oversight.
The Role of the Senior Leader
The senior leader’s involvement is both important and sensitive. The chair will typically be their closest working partner and, in many respects, their line manager. It is therefore entirely appropriate for the senior leader to contribute to the process. Their insight can be valuable — particularly in helping to shape understanding of the organisation’s context, priorities and leadership needs.
At the same time, it is helpful for that contribution to sit alongside the wider appointment process, rather than directing it. The appointment itself remains a trustee decision, with collective responsibility resting with the board. Positioning the senior leader as one contributor among others — rather than as leading or shaping the process — helps maintain clarity of roles and supports confidence in the independence of the outcome.
Where roles and boundaries are clearly understood, the process is more likely to feel balanced, transparent and appropriately governed.
Creating Space for Trustee Voice
Strong governance depends on participation. Trustees benefit from opportunities to contribute to the development of the role description and person specification — not necessarily through complex processes, but through simple, inclusive mechanisms such as short consultations or feedback requests.
What matters is not complexity, but inclusion. Practical considerations also play a part. Scheduling discussions with regard to trustee availability, sharing papers in good time and allowing space for considered input all signal that trustee voice is valued.
Listening — and Responding
In well-functioning boards, trustees’ voices are not only invited — they are heard. Not every perspective will shape the final outcome. But where feedback is offered, it benefits from being considered carefully and acknowledged thoughtfully.
Where this does not happen, there is a risk that confidence can begin to erode — not only in the outcome, but in the governance processes that support it. This is not simply about process. It is about trust.
A Matter of Trust and Confidence
There is no single model for appointing a chair. Effective processes, however, often share common characteristics: clarity of purpose, transparency of approach and meaningful engagement.
Ultimately, a chair appointment is not only about identifying the right candidate. It is also about the confidence a board has in how that decision has been reached.
A Job Well Done
When done well, the process of appointing a chair does more than identify a candidate. It can strengthen the board itself. Collective voice and experience enhance the key governance requirement of collective responsibility — a foundation of strong governance practice.
And as anyone involved in trusteeship will know, good governance rarely happens by accident. It is shaped through intention, reflection and the way people choose to work together.
Proactive Governance: What Happens Between External Reviews?
Many boards undertake periodic external governance reviews — often every three, four or even five years. These reviews can be extremely valuable, providing independent insight into how governance arrangements are working and where improvements might be made.
But good governance does not only happen every few years.
Between those formal review points lies the day-to-day reality of board life. Decisions are taken, risks evolve, new trustees join and regulatory expectations continue to develop.
Which raises an important question for boards: How do we ensure our governance practice remains current between formal reviews?
Good governance is rarely static. Regulatory expectations evolve, sector practices develop and the organisations boards serve continue to change. Strong boards therefore take time to reflect on their governance practice as part of their ongoing work.
They ask themselves:
How well are we discharging our fiduciary duties?
Are our governance processes still serving the organisation effectively?
Are we keeping pace with emerging expectations of boards and trustees?
The key question is often not whether a board reflects on its governance, but how that reflection takes place.
Sometimes this takes the form of a short discussion at the end of a meeting or an annual board self-assessment. These can be useful prompts. Some boards, however, choose to take a slightly more structured approach — identifying clear criteria, gathering evidence and undertaking an honest assessment of how well governance processes are working in practice.
This does not need to be burdensome. However, it can help ensure that reflection moves beyond general discussion and supports meaningful learning and practical improvement.
Another important consideration is how boards remain aware of developments in governance more broadly.
External reviews provide one perspective. Clerks and governance professionals often attend sector events and brief boards on developments. Trustees may also bring insights from other organisations or sectors in which they serve. All of these can provide valuable perspectives.
Regular updates and sector briefings can also help boards remain informed. Many regulators and professional bodies provide accessible guidance and updates, including organisations such as the Charity Commission, Companies House, the Chartered Governance Institute and the National Governance Association. Law firms, governance specialists and sector organisations also frequently share updates and host webinars exploring emerging governance themes.
These resources are widely available and often free to access. For trustees and governors, they provide a practical way of staying connected to developments in governance practice.
Ultimately, proactive governance is less about formal processes and more about mindset.
Boards that periodically pause to reflect on how they govern — not only when prompted by external review — often find that small adjustments can make a meaningful difference over time.
So, when reviewing the board’s governance planner for the coming year, it may be worth asking a simple question: When will we next take time to reflect on how we undertake our governance?
And if that moment is not yet scheduled, perhaps the governance planner is the right place to begin.
Tea for Two (or Three or Four): Why Informal Connection Strengthens Governance
Tea for Two (or Three or Four): Why Informal Connection Strengthens Governance
In most organisations, relationships are not built solely in formal meetings. They are shaped in quieter conversations — over coffee, after events or during shared travel. These moments are not a substitute for governance structures, but they can contribute to the trust that underpins effective oversight.
The same is true for boards. Trustees and non-executives often meet only a limited number of times each year. They may come from very different professional backgrounds — finance, education, law, engineering or healthcare. What unites them is a shared fiduciary duty and commitment to the organisation they serve. But shared purpose alone does not automatically create trust. And trust plays an important role in effective governance.
Formal Governance. Informal Connection. Both Have a Place.
Board decisions must always sit firmly within formal structures: properly convened meetings, documented agendas, recorded minutes and transparent processes.
Informal conversations should never replace, pre-empt or influence formal decision-making. However, recognising the importance of structure does not require eliminating appropriate opportunities for informal connection.
Healthy boards often understand that governance integrity is not weakened by professional social interaction between non-executives. When approached thoughtfully, it can support the conditions in which effective governance takes place.
Why Informal Connection Can Matter
Research into board dynamics, including work by Professor Andrew Kakabadse in Conflict and Tension in the Boardroom, highlights the importance of social connection in supporting effective board relationships.
Appropriate informal interaction can:
Build mutual respect
Encourage courteous boardroom behaviour
Strengthen cohesion and belonging
Support the quality of debate
Contribute to leadership development within the board
When trustees have had the opportunity to build professional rapport outside the constraints of a timed agenda, disagreement can feel less personal and discussion more constructive. Psychological safety may increase — and with it, the confidence to ask thoughtful and sometimes challenging questions.
Tea for two — or three or four — is not about softening governance. It is about supporting the relational foundations that allow robust governance to operate well.
Doing It Well
As with all aspects of governance, clarity of purpose and good judgement matter.
Good practice typically includes:
Ensuring invitations are inclusive
Being transparent about arrangements
Avoiding discussion of live governance matters
Keeping the purpose focused on connection and professional development
Handled appropriately, informal time does not dilute governance integrity. It can reinforce it by strengthening mutual understanding and trust.
Strong boards are built on structure. They are sustained by relationships. And relationships, more often than not, begin with something simple — like taking the time to connect.
Reference
Kakabadse, A., Kakabadse, N. and Barratt, R. (2017). Conflict and Tension in the Boardroom. Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators (ICSA), University of Reading. Available at: https://centaur.reading.ac.uk/93068/
AI Governance for Boards: A Practical Framework for Responsible Oversight
AI Governance for Boards: A Practical Framework for Responsible Oversight
Artificial Intelligence is no longer emerging technology. It is already embedded in everyday tools — drafting reports, analysing data, automating processes and supporting decision-making. For boards, the question has shifted. It is no longer: “Should we use AI?” It is: “How do we govern it responsibly?”
AI governance is not about technical expertise. It’s about structured, proportionate oversight.
And at its heart, effective oversight depends on something more fundamental: disciplined curiosity. Boards that govern AI well are not those that understand algorithms. They are those that ask better questions.
AI Governance begins with curiosity
In earlier reflections on governance, we’ve explored the importance of questioning — and how strong boards build assurance not through assumption, but through thoughtful enquiry. AI governance is no different. Responsible oversight begins with asking:
Why are we adopting AI in this area?
What organisational problem are we solving?
What risks might this introduce?
What assumptions are we making?
Curiosity, in this context, is not scepticism for its own sake. It is disciplined enquiry. Without it, AI can quietly embed itself into processes without strategic consideration. With it, AI becomes intentional, proportionate and aligned.
Purpose: Avoiding reactive adoption
AI adopted reactively — driven by external pressure or technological enthusiasm — can create confusion and exposure. AI adopted intentionally can strengthen resilience and performance. The board’s role is to ensure AI use is deliberate and strategically aligned. That requires the confidence to pause and ask:
Are we clear on the purpose?
Is this proportionate to our scale and capacity?
How does this support long-term sustainability?
Curiosity protects strategy.
Guardrails: Preventing operational rift
One of the risks in any governance domain is drift — where boards move either too far into operations, or too far away from oversight. AI can heighten that risk. A board-approved AI policy should clarify:
Where AI use is appropriate, such as:
Administrative drafting
Research support
Data analysis (where compliant)
Where additional safeguards may be required, including:
Automated processes affecting individuals
Use involving sensitive personal data
Public-facing outputs without review
Guardrails ensure AI enhances governance rather than blurring its boundaries. Curiosity asks not only “Can we?” but “Should we?”
Risk Integration: Strengthening assurance through enquiry
AI risk management should sit within existing governance structures. Boards should consider whether AI-related risks are appropriately reflected in the risk register, including:
Bias and fairness
Accuracy and reliability
Cybersecurity and data exposure
Regulatory compliance
Reputational impact
But effective oversight goes beyond listing risks. Strong boards do not rely solely on what is reported. They triangulate. They probe. They seek understanding. AI governance demands the same discipline. Oversight should be reviewed periodically — not treated as a one-off digital initiative.
Accountability: AI supports questions — it does not replace them
One principle underpins responsible AI governance: AI can support decisions. It cannot replace accountability. AI can also be used to generate governance questions.
Boards are increasingly exploring how AI tools might:
Suggest lines of enquiry before meetings
Identify potential blind spots
Challenge assumptions in board papers
Used thoughtfully, AI can enhance preparation. But it does not replace judgement. AI-generated questions are only valuable when filtered through experience, context and responsibility. Boards may therefore need to strengthen their own confidence in asking the right questions — particularly as digital oversight becomes more prominent. The role of the board is not to outsource its curiosity. It is to strengthen it.
Ethics: Proportionate and values-led oversight
Regulation continues to evolve. In the meantime, boards must lead with values. Many organisations are adopting AI principles centred on:
Transparency
Fairness
Accountability
Proportionality
Respect for human dignity
These principles should reflect the scale and nature of AI use within the organisation. Ethical clarity is not separate from curiosity. It is the product of it.
From curiosity to confidence
Effective governance is not about control alone. It is about informed oversight. Boards should ensure:
Senior leaders understand both opportunity and risk
Staff receive guidance on appropriate AI use
Clear routes exist to raise concerns
AI usage and impact are reported periodically
Trustees themselves are confident in their knowledge and questioning skills
Open conversation reduces uncertainty. Disciplined enquiry builds confidence.
Governance in the Age of AI
AI presents real opportunity — improving productivity, insight and innovation. But opportunity and responsibility travel together. Boards do not need to become technologists. They do need to remain curious, intentional and proportionate.
In an era of increasing complexity, disciplined curiosity remains one of the board’s most valuable governance tools. AI does not change that principle. If anything, it makes it more important.
Asking Better Questions: The Heart of Good Governance
Great governance starts with great questions
Exceptional leaders know they don’t know everything. In fact, that’s often what makes them exceptional. They’re comfortable saying, “This isn’t my area of expertise,” and they make sure they have the right people around them to fill those gaps. That’s how they build a genuinely rounded, 360-degree view of their role.
At the heart of this is something I wrote about recently - curiosity. The willingness to admit you don’t yet know enough — and the confidence to go and find out — is what separates surface-level oversight from meaningful leadership. The same is true for boards.
When governance slips into operations
But what happens when boards aren’t fully aware of where their collective knowledge gaps might be?
One common outcome is what’s often described as ‘operational governance’. That’s when boards gradually drift into the detail of delivery, focusing heavily on the what and the how, instead of staying anchored in the why.
It’s an easy and very human drift — especially when trustees care deeply about the organisation’s work and want to be helpful.
Now, don’t get this wrong — delivery absolutely matters. But deciding what delivery looks like and how it happens is the job of leadership teams and staff. Governance sits somewhere else. Trustees are there to focus on the rationale behind decisions, alignment with strategy and whether the organisation is living its values in practice. Their role is to reassure themselves that the thinking is sound and the direction is right.
Why this matters more than we think
When boards lose sight of this distinction, the risks are real — and often unintended. Trustees can find themselves stepping into executive territory, blurring lines of accountability and slowing decision-making. Meetings can become filled with operational updates, while bigger strategic or cultural warning signs don’t get the space they need.
Over time, that can create frustration on both sides of the board–exec relationship. More importantly, it can mean missed opportunities for the board to add the most value — steering the organisation thoughtfully through complexity and change.
Why trustees drift into the detail
So why does this happen? Often, it comes down to confidence. Strategy can feel abstract. It’s less tangible than service numbers, budgets or delivery timelines. Operational detail feels safer because it’s concrete and measurable.
Trustees may worry about getting it wrong or asking questions they feel they should already know the answers to. So, it’s natural to lean into the areas that feel easier to grasp.
And now, increasingly, some trustees are turning to AI to help them prepare for meetings by generating ‘good governance questions’. That can be a proactive step — and a sign that people want to do their role well. At the same time, it can sometimes reflect uncertainty about what meaningful governance challenge really looks like in practice. AI can be a helpful starting point, but it can’t replace the judgement that comes from understanding your organisation’s purpose, context and values.
Why questioning is a core trustee skill
This is where training in questioning — not just governance theory — really matters.
Some organisations are now offering support specifically focused on the art of trustee questioning. This isn’t about scripting people or ‘leading the witness’. It’s about helping trustees feel confident and capable enough to engage with complex issues, even when they sit outside their professional background.
Because being able to question well isn’t just a nice extra — it’s part of the role. Trustees are collectively responsible for the long-term direction, sustainability and integrity of their organisations. If a board can’t ask strategic, values-based questions, it can’t fully deliver on that responsibility.
Shifting from operational to governance questions
Sometimes, the shift from operational to governance thinking is as simple as reframing the question.
Instead of asking … why did service uptake drop by 12% in Q2?
Try … what does this trend tell us about whether our model is still meeting the needs we designed it for?
Instead of asking … why are staff overtime costs rising?
Try … what does this suggest about the sustainability of our delivery model and workforce wellbeing?
Instead of asking … how quickly can this project be delivered?
Try … how does this initiative advance our strategic priorities — and what might we be choosing not to do as a result?
The first type of question leans into performance management. The second leans into strategic assurance. Both matter — but they sit in different places in an organisation.
We already do this in other areas
We already accept this idea in other contexts. When recruiting a new trustee, it’s completely normal to ask HR to help shape interview questions. No one says that undermines the board’s authority — it helps the board make better decisions. Supporting trustees to develop stronger questioning skills is no different.
AI is a great example of why this matters right now. Many trustees are trying to understand what artificial intelligence means for their organisations. But how can you govern something you don’t yet fully understand? The answer isn’t to avoid the topic or stay at surface level. It’s to get curious. To seek out learning, talk to people with expertise and build enough understanding to ask thoughtful, strategic questions.
Curiosity is a governance strength
In a fast-moving and complex world, trustees don’t need to have all the answers. But they do need to know how to ask the right questions.
Strong governance doesn’t come from boards trying to know everything. It comes from trustees who are confident enough to admit what they don’t know, curious enough to explore it and skilled enough to ask the questions that really matter — while staying firmly focused on the why at the heart of their role.
Why Curiosity Matters in Governance
Curiosity helps governors build understanding, trust and meaningful connection with the organisations and people they serve
“Curiosity killed the cat” is a familiar phrase, often offered as a warning. But in governance, the opposite is far more risky. Without curiosity — without the confidence to ask questions, seek evidence and look beyond what is presented on paper — governors may miss the very things they are there to oversee.
Curiosity in this context is not about suspicion or micromanagement. It is about being inquisitive — wanting to understand more deeply how an organisation really functions. It values the ‘show me’ alongside the what and the why. In governance, this mindset is often expressed through triangulation.
Board papers should clearly cover the what, why, when and how. Triangulation goes a step further. It means finding opportunities to see first-hand how what you are being told translates into day-to-day practice. Boards naturally rely on the information they are given, and site visits or direct engagement can enrich that picture. This is not about mistrust; it is about strengthening understanding and assurance.
There are many reasons why visits and direct engagement do not always take place. Governors may feel uncertain about their own knowledge or unsure how far to probe areas outside their professional background. In some settings, visits are seen as unnecessary or are handled informally. While these perspectives are understandable, they do not remove the value of seeing an organisation in action and connecting governance decisions to lived experience.
This emphasis on curiosity is strongly echoed in the Institute of Directors’ business paper NEDs reimagined: A post-Higgs review of the role and contribution of non-executive directors (2026). The report makes a clear case that modern boards need to move from periodic oversight to active, informed, adaptive stewardship. It argues that non-executives benefit from being “more engaged and curious” and “more present in the business”.
Crucially, the report does not position curiosity as a combative posture. In its section titled Curiosity comes first (p8), it notes that discussions about non-executive effectiveness often centre on challenge — but that challenge works best when paired with emotional intelligence, curiosity and engagement, with chairs encouraging collaboration and thoughtful dialogue. That is exactly the spirit in which curiosity strengthens governance: not as a ‘gotcha’, but as a way of building shared understanding, trust and better decisions.
Visits are not only a way to triangulate information; they can also help governors understand how staff are feeling and how organisational culture is experienced in practice. In environments where openness is actively encouraged, conversations about challenge, pressure and morale are more visible. Curiosity, when expressed with care and respect, tends to be welcomed because people are proud of their work and want others to understand it fully.
Governors can benefit from opportunities to visit and become a recognised face — not ever-present, but familiar enough to feel connected rather than unknown. Asking questions, observing practice and listening to those working within the organisation all help build trust and shared understanding.
In governance, curiosity is not something to be feared. When exercised thoughtfully and respectfully, it strengthens relationships, deepens understanding and ultimately supports the people and communities that organisations exist to serve.
So, allow yourself to ask questions, make visits where appropriate and stay inquisitive about the organisation you are helping to steward. Curiosity, handled well, is not a risk to governance — it is one of its greatest strengths.
Reference
Institute of Directors (IoD) (2026). NEDs reimagined: A post-Higgs review of the role and contribution of non-executive directors. IoD Business Paper.