David Garfield published something in HBR this week that every CEO and board chair should sit with for a minute.
According to the AlixPartners Disruption Index, 72% of CEOs say they find it increasingly difficult to set priorities amid disruptive forces. At the same time, 87% say their boards have the right people and knowledge to help.
That gap — between having the right people and getting the right outcomes — is something I think about constantly. As a board chair, and someone who’s spent the last two years interviewing 100+ board members and studying how directors actually engage with their responsibilities, I see this gap play out all the time. The talent is there. The experience is there. The outcomes don’t match.
Garfield’s explanation makes sense: the traditional structures and customs of boardroom discussion weren’t built for this level of volatility. But his article mostly focuses on what should happen in the boardroom. I think the problem starts earlier. Much earlier.
The Certifying Board
Garfield introduces a concept that hit close to home: the “certifying board.” The board that stays informed about performance, reviews the materials, asks reasonable questions, and approves what management puts in front of it.
That’s not a bad board. But it’s not a board that’s helping the CEO navigate disruption either.
In my experience — both as a chair and from the conversations I’ve had building Aureclar — the certifying board isn’t a choice directors make. It’s what happens when smart, experienced people work within a system that doesn’t give them a way to go deeper.
Here’s what actually happens. A director gets a 200-page board book five days before a meeting. They’re on two or three other boards, running their own business, traveling. They do what anyone would do. They skim the materials, flag a couple questions, and show up hoping the meeting fills in the gaps.
Multiply that across your entire board. Every director in the room has the same surface-level read. And you’re the CEO, hoping this is the meeting where someone challenges your assumptions on the acquisition, or pushes back on the supply chain strategy, or asks the hard question about whether your AI investments are built on solid data.
I’ve had this conversation with dozens of directors. Almost all of them wish they had more time with the materials. Almost none of them feel like the current process sets them up to contribute what they’re capable of.
What Garfield Recommends — and What It Takes
The strongest part of the article is Garfield’s three recommendations. Each one is good. Each one also depends on something most boards don’t have.
Scenario-based thinking instead of straight-line planning. Garfield argues that boards should stop reviewing variances to plan and start debating scenarios. What needs to be true for this future to unfold? How should we prepare for alternatives?
He gives an example of an industrial company where they built an interactive model so directors could explore operating model options in real time instead of flipping through slides. I love this example because it shows what’s possible when directors are genuinely engaged.
But here’s the thing. I’ve watched scenario exercises fall flat because directors were encountering the material for the first time in the meeting. An interactive model is only as good as the thinking directors bring to it. If they haven’t had weeks to absorb the context, think through implications, develop their own perspective — the interactive model is just a fancier slide deck.
The meeting is where different points of view should collide productively. But those points of view have to exist before anyone walks into the room.
Strategic options instead of single bets. Garfield wants boards to take a portfolio approach. More bets, more options, after-action reviews to learn from what worked and what didn’t.
This is one of the hardest things for boards to do well. I’ve seen it up close. A portfolio approach requires memory. Directors need to track how assumptions have evolved across quarters, which experiments are showing signal, how the competitive picture has shifted since you last discussed a particular initiative.
That kind of continuity doesn’t happen on its own. Without it, every meeting becomes a reset. The CEO re-explains context. Directors re-orient. And the portfolio review never gets past the surface. I’ve sat in those meetings. They’re frustrating for everyone.
Staying focused on fundamentals. Garfield highlights three areas: customers, technology, and risk. On each one, he says go beyond the surface metrics. Don’t just look at NPS — ask about the qualitative conversations the CEO is having with customers. Don’t just ask about AI strategy — probe whether the underlying data is solid enough to support it. Don’t just catalog risks — stress-test operational resilience.
This is where preparation matters most. The difference between a good board question and a great one is usually the second question. “What’s our NPS?” is fine. “What are customers telling you about how their own business is changing, and what does that mean for us?” — that’s the one that moves the conversation forward.
But you only ask the second question if you’ve had time to sit with the first one. Directors who’ve been thinking about customer dynamics for weeks show up differently than directors who looked at a dashboard on the plane. Same expertise. Completely different depth.
What Happens Between Meetings
Here’s what I think Garfield’s article points toward without quite saying it: the board meeting isn’t where governance happens. It’s where governance becomes visible.
The real work — the thinking, the question-forming, the assumption-challenging — happens between meetings. Or it should. Right now, almost nothing in the governance infrastructure supports that.
Board portals are document repositories. They’re built for distribution, not engagement. Directors log in when materials arrive, download the PDFs, and don’t come back until the next cycle. There’s no way for directors to build on each other’s thinking between meetings. No way to track evolving context across quarters. Nothing that helps a director move from “I read it” to “I’m ready to challenge it.”
I’ve talked to enough directors to know this isn’t what they want. They want to be more engaged. They just don’t have the tools for it.
The result is what Garfield describes. Boards full of the right people, producing the wrong outcomes. Not because directors are failing. Because the system is failing the directors.
What We’re Building
This is why we built Aureclar.
We think about director preparation as an ongoing process, not a five-day sprint before a meeting. Our framework — the 6 C’s — comes from those 100+ conversations with board members about what actually makes the difference between a director who shows up ready and one who’s catching up:
Consume — absorb materials as they evolve, not just when the board book drops.
Comprehend — move past reading to understanding. What matters here? What changed since last quarter?
Contextualize — connect what’s in the board book to what’s happening in the industry, the competitive landscape, and your own experience as a director.
Challenge — develop the questions that move conversation forward. The second questions, not just the first ones.
Collaborate — build on what other directors are thinking between meetings, so the board shows up with collective perspective, not just individual prep.
Confidence — walk into the room knowing you’ve done the work. Ready to engage at the level the CEO actually needs.
None of this replaces director judgment. That’s the whole point. The 87% of CEOs who say they have the right board aren’t wrong. They’re just missing the infrastructure that lets what their directors know actually reach the boardroom.
One Question for CEOs
Garfield closes by arguing that boards need creativity and resilience. He’s right. But you don’t get those by asking for them. You get them by building the conditions that make them possible.
If you’re a CEO, the question isn’t whether you have the right directors. You probably do. The question is whether you’ve given them a way to stay engaged between meetings, think deeply about the issues, and show up ready to give you their best thinking.
Most boards don’t have that. That’s the gap. And from where I sit — as a chair, and as someone who’s spent two years working on this problem — it’s the one worth closing.
Want to see how the 6 C’s work in practice? Learn more →
Read the original HBR article: Boards Need to Rethink How They Advise CEOs by David Garfield