Having served on several boards over the years, I have observed patterns that shape how effectively boards make decisions. One recurring theme is the overreliance on experts. Shareholders and other appointing authorities often default to nominating individuals primarily on the basis of their technical expertise, such as finance, law, human resources, or engineering, believing such expertise automatically translates into effective board performance. My experience suggests otherwise.
Expertise is overrated in the boardroom
In theory, expertise promises sound technical guidance and deeper analysis of complex matters. In practice, however, good board members rarely rely heavily on their professional expertise during board deliberations.
What distinguishes them is not their mastery of a specific subject but their ability to think critically, exercise sound judgment, and engage constructively with complex issues across the entire organisation. They bring leadership, reasoning, and curiosity to every discussion, not just those that fall within their so-called areas of expertise.
By contrast, some members who join boards as “the expert” contribute little value either within or beyond their domain. Their interventions are narrow, defensive, and often lack curiosity.
They might clarify a regulation or explain an accounting principle, but rarely do they help the board arrive at deeper insights or more robust decisions. This raises an uncomfortable question: what is the point of appointing an expert if their expertise neither sharpens the board’s understanding nor strengthens its collective judgment?
Boards thrive on collective intelligence, the ability to integrate diverse perspectives into coherent, actionable insights. When a board relies too heavily on one person’s credentials, it risks substituting dialogue with deference and curiosity with compliance.
Why boards should avoid defaulting
One of the most common and damaging habits in boardrooms is the tendency to defer to an expert whenever a topic arises. For example, when a financial issue is discussed, the chair might turn to the finance member and say, “You are the finance person, tell us what you think.” Once the expert has spoken, the discussion often stops there. Other members, especially those without a financial background, may hesitate to ask questions or challenge assumptions for fear of appearing ignorant.
This practice shuts down inquiry and narrows the scope of discussion. It undermines the very essence of board governance, which depends on collective reasoning and multiple lenses of scrutiny. A board’s value lies not in the specialised knowledge of a few but in the ability of all members to interrogate ideas, ask probing questions, and synthesise different points of view.
Effective boards understand that non-experts often raise the most revealing questions. The person who is not steeped in financial or legal jargon may ask, “Why are we assuming this?” or “What would this mean for customers or employees?” Such questions force everyone to step back and think more broadly about strategic implications. The fresh or naïve question often exposes hidden assumptions that insiders take for granted.
By defaulting to the expert, boards also unintentionally suppress psychological safety, the willingness of members to speak up without fear of embarrassment or ridicule. Once that safety erodes, so does creativity and oversight. Members begin to self-censor, and the board’s collective capacity for insight diminishes.
Value of productive disagreement
Good decisions rarely emerge from quick consensus. They are forged through constructive disagreement; a disciplined process of testing ideas, weighing evidence, and exploring alternatives. Productive disagreement is not about being difficult or contrarian; it is about ensuring decisions are stress-tested before implementation. When board members engage in thoughtful disagreements, they help prevent groupthink and expose blind spots that could undermine the organisation later.
Unfortunately, many boards confuse disagreement with disunity. Chairs and members sometimes view differing opinions as disruptive or disrespectful, rather than as opportunities for learning. The instinct to “keep harmony” leads to premature consensus and a false sense of alignment. In such settings, boards often congratulate themselves for efficiency while overlooking the deeper flaws in their reasoning.
Yet history shows the best-governed organisations welcome debate. They value dissent not as defiance but as diligence. As Peter Drucker once observed, “If you want to make good decisions, you must encourage disagreement.” Constructive tension, handled with respect and intellectual humility, is the engine of sound governance.
Traits of a good board member
A good board member is first and foremost a good thinker. They listen deeply, ask thoughtful questions, and are unafraid to challenge even their own assumptions. They see beyond their domain and understand that governance is an integrative act; connecting finance to strategy, strategy to people, and people to performance. Their role is not to dominate discussions but to enrich them.
This does not mean expertise has no place on boards. It means expertise must serve the board, not silence it. The best experts translate their technical insights into implications that the rest of the board can understand. They make complex issues understandable and invite others into the conversation. In doing so, they elevate the collective intelligence of the board rather than narrowing it.
Boards should therefore select members for their judgment, integrity, and ability to think systemically, not merely for the letters after their names. The modern governance challenge demands leaders who can integrate, not just specialise.
Building better boards
To build boards that think, not just comply, chairs must set the tone. They should actively invite diverse perspectives and ensure discussions remain open even after an expert has spoken. Every agenda item should be an opportunity for exploration, not affirmation. Chairs should also model curiosity; asking clarifying questions, encouraging follow-ups, and framing disagreement as part of responsible oversight.
Ultimately, the strength of a board lies not in how many experts sit around the table but in how effectively those individuals think together. Expertise informs; judgment transforms. Boards that succeed are those that foster inquiry, embrace constructive disagreement, and resist the comfort of deference.
Good governance is not about having all the answers. It is about asking the right questions and being brave enough to challenge even the experts.
Nguwi is an occupational psychologist, data scientist, speaker and managing consultant at Industrial Psychology Consultants (Pvt) Ltd, a management and HR consulting firm. — Linkedin: Memory Nguwi, Mobile: 0772 356 361, mnguwi@ipcconsultants.com or visit ipcconsultants.com.
