The Better Boards Podcast Series

Send us Fan Mail
Is understanding the human performance of boards the missing dimension in board effectiveness? Drawing on insights from human factors research, this podcast discusses how communication, leadership, authority, cognitive bias, and group dynamics influence the quality of board decisions, and what directors can do differently.
In this podcast, Dr Sabine Dembkowski, Founder and Managing Partner, is joined by Simon Laffin. Simon has over 35 years of board experience as a chair, non-executive director, and adviser. He has chaired Care REIT plc, Assura plc, Flybe Group plc, and Hozelock Group. He served as a non-executive director of companies including Dentsu Group Inc., Aegis Group plc, Mitchells & Butlers plc, and Northern Rock plc, where he joined the board as part of the rescue team following the run on the bank.
“We ask the wrong questions about failure.“
When a failure occurs, Simon notes a rush to point fingers or change the rules. However, to achieve better results, human factors must be changed. This means investments and coaching around an organisation’s human capabilities, limitations, performance, and behaviour, particularly behaviour under stress. 
“When I've looked at company failures over the last few hundred years, two things come out very strongly.”
To Simon, there are two key factors. One is leadership. Boards yearn for an ideal leader, but leadership is a situational quality that depends heavily on the team around the leader. The second factor is overconfidence. Successful companies can cross the line from justified confidence to arrogance, which fosters complacency and leads boards to miss warning signs, resulting in failure or scandal.
“We are not saying you should blame people for that. We're saying that is how humans work.”
When failures happen, boards want a scapegoat, or to blame a person vs the framework that enabled the seeds of failure to flourish. Instead, by giving more time and space to understanding human behaviour patterns, boards can develop resilience and resistance to instinctive patterns and biases. For example, Simon advocates rigorous 360-degree feedback systems and pre-mortems for risky scenarios to bring uncomfortable issues to the forefront. This helps boards catch gaps and guard against overconfidence.
“When you do a board evaluation, boards should be thinking about their own decisions.”
In Simon’s experience and studies, too few boards reflect on their own decision-making processes. When things go well, and especially when things go badly, improvement only happens when boards understand the human behaviours that led to the adoption of a certain strategy or the tolerance of a red flag. He advocates for zero tolerance for ethics violations or conflicts of interest, careful examination of incentive structures, and moving risk assessments from the back of the business case to the forefront of the discussion. 
The three top takeaways from our conversation for effective boards are:
1.      Governance tells us who should make decisions and how the board should operate, but human factors explain how those decisions are actually made. 
2.     Better boards don't eliminate uncertainty, risk, and human error, but they understand and manage them. 
3.     The next evolution in board effectiveness will come from combining good governance with a better understanding of human performance.
Better Boards goes beyond box‑ticking. We bring together chairs, directors and governance leaders who want board effectiveness grounded in independent research and external benchmarks. Our proprietary, peer‑reviewed methodology shows how your board truly compares across all dimensions of effective boards.
If you would like to join the community, experience our research‑based approach to board evaluations, explore ways to work with us, or share ideas for The Better Boards Podcast, we would be glad to hear from you at info@better-boards.com.

Send us Fan Mail
Cybersecurity is a top risk for organisations, yet many boards feel poorly informed. At the same time, executive teams feel they are reporting into a void. The reasons behind this ongoing disconnect bear close examination. 
In this podcast, Dr Sabine Dembkowski, Founder and Managing Partner of Better Boards, is joined by Dr Maya Bundt. Maya is a board Director and cyber risk expert based in Zurich. She serves as a Non-Executive Director on the boards of listed Swiss companies and is President of the Steering Committee for Switzerland’s National Cyber Strategy. She also co-leads the International Cybersecurity Board Reporting Study and Framework, teaches cybersecurity, and serves on the boards of several universities.
“It’s a cold handshake.“
For Maya, a warm handshake happens when cyber is on the board meeting agenda. The CISO (or other IT representative) comes to talk with the board. The board hears, understands, and can actively discuss the cyber issues and cyber risks. That’s what warmth means. 
 Unfortunately, most often it’s a cold handshake. When Maya’s group interviewed 67 board members across three countries in 2025, only 31% believed they received the right information to assess risks and make informed decisions. The 2026 survey results are trending even lower, with only 23% comfortable with their data. 
 “Boards and management speak a different language.”
 To Maya, a big part of the problem is structural. There is no standard format for a good cyber report or for what board members should see. Without that infrastructure in place, directors feel uneasy.
“There has to be someone on the board who knows a little bit more and can drive the discussion a little bit further than the basics.”
Maya strongly believes that a best practice for boards is to have someone on the board who can lead cybersecurity discussions from an informed position. After all, boards are expected to be experts in other critical areas like finance, so why not cybersecurity as well? It’s a real gap, and therefore a real opportunity for many firms to build a competitive advantage.
 Maya also recommends that organisations do regular training with their boards. Outside speakers and presentations are helpful. Crisis simulations can also help clarify roles, responsibilities, and responses needed, keeping board members current on governance procedures and realistic risk scenarios.
“A good report starts with the risk and risk appetite.”
Beyond training, the structure of the reports matters for boards. Maya feels a good report starts with risk levels and risk appetites. This should also be put in context of world events, the industry, and the firm’s position. Budget, key regulations, operational frameworks, the present-day situation, and a forward outlook are also recommended for a good report.
Between training and reports, boards should also work to build a strong relationship with their CISO or cyber risk team lead. A 10-minute presentation during a meeting is not enough time to build the trust and rapport needed to shepherd an organisation safely through cyber risk. Boards must make an effort to build a two-way, plain-language conversation grounded in trust to keep things aligned and ensure warm handshakes at meetings and during any crisis events.
The three top takeaways from our conversation for effective boards are:
1.      A warm handshake has two halves: governance and reporting. 
2.     The problem is universal, and it is not about budget. 
3.     Warming the handshake is a leadership task for the board, not something to delegate to the technology function.
Better Boards goes beyond box‑ticking. We bring together chairs, directors and governance leaders who want board effectiveness grounded in independent research and external benchmarks. Our proprietary, peer‑reviewed methodology shows how your board truly compares across all dimensions of effective boards.
If you would like to join the community, experience our research‑based approach to board evaluations, explore ways to work with us, or share ideas for The Better Boards Podcast, we would be glad to hear from you at info@better-boards.com.

Send us Fan Mail
Rapid global change has created an unprecedented landscape. Many Boards have fallen into a reactive mode. A new research report from FGS Global highlights the challenges and offers insights to help boards govern with confidence again. 
In this podcast, Dr Sabine Dembkowski, Founder and Managing Partner, is joined by Dorothy Burwell. Dorothy is Global Head of Board Advisory at FGS Global, a board director herself at Post Holdings and Pennon PLC, and co-author of A Hard Job Getting Harder: The Board's Role in a Rewired World. Drawing on interviews with board directors and General Counsels in North America, the UK, and Europe, Dorothy brings both the data and lived experience to this conversation. What she found is sobering and actionable.
“It is impossible to govern when you are flying blind.“
One of the most striking points in the new research is that more than 50% of Boards receive no real-time data updates between meetings. This creates practical challenges for Boards in terms of both intelligence and credibility. Management will not take recommendations from an out-of-date Board seriously, nor can Boards react well using stale information. As a result, smart Boards are building adaptive capacity to obtain fresher data and insights without sacrificing the deep expertise and judgment of experienced members.
“When you have to put everything together in a pretty, pretty bow and wrap it up for the board meeting, it's disruptive.”
Board members are often advised “nose out, fingers out” when it comes to operations. Management teams can find it intrusive to need to pull up to deliver reports and data packets to the Board, especially in a time-sensitive crisis. However, the best Boards blend rigorous accountability with psychological safety to have authentic discussions of business challenges and needs. These conversations and data sharing happen between and around formal meetings, so that Boards can have more meaningful official sessions and offer more impactful support in crisis scenarios.
“Our biggest job is to help management prioritise.”
For Dorothy, the most important duty of a Board is to make it easier for management to identify and respond to risk and change with the right levels of urgency and prioritisation. To do this, she recommends a 2x2 decision matrix modelled from emergency medicine’s best practices.
In this matrix, Boards look at issues across two dimensions. The first asks if the change is evolutionary or revolutionary. Evolutionary change is sustained and gradual, while revolutionary change is disruptive and destructive. The second dimension asks if the change or issue is uniform or fragmented. This considers whether there will be equal impact or whether selected areas will be more intensely impacted.
Once Boards understand where the issue falls in the matrix, they can work out the tangible ways to support management. For example, does a geopolitical risk require an adjustment of protocol over time, or an immediate halt to in-market activities? This approach clarifies conversations and nourishes ongoing transparency about priorities and impact
The three top takeaways from our conversation for effective boardss are:
1.      The power of the question is no longer enough. You need continual dialogue to build trust and relationships as the foundation of meaningful governance.
2.     If your decision architecture within your Board is not clear and well-practised or does not enable you to rapidly prioritise between issues, it’s time to have a rethink.
3.     Don’t be afraid to question whether you need to unlearn some of your assumptions and build new ones based on experiences rooted in the current environment.
Better Boards goes beyond box‑ticking. We bring together chairs, directors and governance leaders who want board effectiveness grounded in independent research and external benchmarks. Our proprietary, peer‑reviewed methodology shows how your board truly compares across all dimensions of effective boards.
If you would like to join the community, experience our research‑based approach to board evaluations, explore ways to work with us, or share ideas for The Better Boards Podcast, we would be glad to hear from you at info@better-boards.com.

Send us Fan Mail
New research suggests the biggest leadership risk right now may not be bad leaders — it’s “good” ones. In fact, good leaders are both the problem and the solution: they already have the fundamentals, but they haven’t adapted to what employees need from leaders today.
A study of 2,206 U.S. employees, conducted by The Grossman Group with The Harris Poll, found that 54% rated their senior leader as “good.” Yet those same employees report three consistent gaps: they don’t feel valued as individuals, they don’t feel heard, and they don’t believe their leaders help them reach their full potential.
“Good” leadership was built for stable times. But we don’t live in stable times. Today’s uncertainties—economic volatility, AI disruptions, geopolitical conflicts, and constant organisational change—create relentless instability. These pressures are widening the gap between “exceptional” and “good” leaders and what employees now expect in the workplace. This means your “good” leaders are your most dangerous blind spot, putting the whole company at risk. If you fail to move leaders from “good” to “exceptional,” employees will disengage. You will steadily lose trust, talent, and relevance. You will fall behind your more adaptive competitors. 
In this podcast, Dr Sabine Dembkowski, Founder and Managing Partner of Better Boards, is joined by David Grossman. David is the Founder and CEO of The Grossman Group, which helps Fortune 1000 companies lead with heart and drive strategic results by transforming how they communicate, operate, and inspire their people. 
Boards are happy with leaders who get results. Indeed, some 54 per cent of employees rate their leaders as good. Unfortunately, boards that accept “good” results miss the potential for exceptional outcomes. 
David notes most good leaders were trained for stable times. That’s not the present environment. Their employees note that good leaders appreciate results, answer questions, and solve problems. It’s operationally good, but voluntary turnover rates and innovation speeds indicate a big underlying gap.
“The blind spot is all about appreciating those who work for you.”
In David’s experience, the difference is in how a leader treats and inspires workers. Good leaders see results; great leaders see people. Yet research reveals just 16 per cent feel their leaders value them as people, only 19 per cent feel heard, and a mere 14 per cent say they are reaching their full potential at work. Under good leaders, people will report feeling invisible as human beings. Under great leaders, the metrics for being valued, heard, and seen will be double or more. 
“The discipline is knowing which are crystal balls, the ones you cannot drop without permanent damage, and which are rubber balls, the ones that bounce back.”
David compares leaders to balls. Crystal balls are what most organisations have – fragile leadership structures that collapse in a crisis. The goal is rubber balls – resilient, adaptable leaders who inspire their teams to excellence in all situations. 
To make the shift, David recommends boards move from a performance vs. underperformance view to a three-tier lens of what’s exceptional, good, or outdated. This captures both inspirational ability and goal performance.
“The most important thing boards can measure, based on what I've actually seen move the needle, is how well their leaders address the three blind spots.”
Leaders who make their people feel seen, heard, and valued make the difference. Good leaders routinely overestimate how comfortable their teams are with speaking up on issues. David notes independent perspectives, from skip-level reviews to third-party surveys, can uncover this gap.
Another vital investment is in heart-focused attributes. Out of the top 10 qualities of exceptional leaders, nine are heart-based skills. These include fostering a positive work culture, building trust, and communicating transparently. All are trainable skills, including gratitude, the number one differentiator of exceptional leaders.
The three top takeaways from our conversation for effective boards are:
1.      Good leaders are both the problem today and the solution.
2.     The gap between good and exceptional is a training gap and belongs on the risk register. 
3.     Put leadership quality on the standing agenda. 
Better Boards goes beyond box‑ticking. We bring together chairs, directors and governance leaders who want board effectiveness grounded in independent research and external benchmarks. Our proprietary, peer‑reviewed methodology shows how your board truly compares across all dimensions of effective boards.
If you would like to join the community, experience our research‑based approach to board evaluations, explore ways to work with us, or share ideas for The Better Boards Podcast, we would be glad to hear from you at info@better-boards.com.

Send us Fan Mail
While we often think in terms of large, listed corporations, family firms account for some 70% of global GDP and 60% of global employment. They are key drivers of innovation, entrepreneurship, and long-term value creation, and effective governance of family firms warrants serious attention. 
In this podcast, Dr Sabine Dembkowski, Founder and Managing Partner, is joined by Prof. Dr. Philipp Hoog. Philipp is a Partner at BBE Handelsberatung, a leading German consultancy specialising in the retail sector, and Honorary Professor of Strategic Management at CBS International Business School in Cologne. He advises family-owned and founder-led businesses and investors on strategy, governance, transformation, and succession, with a particular focus on the role of advisory and supervisory boards in navigating disruption in retail. Philipp combines academic insight with hands-on experience from numerous board-related mandates and projects. He also serves as President of the EBS Alumni Association, representing graduates of EBS Universität für Wirtschaft und Recht.
“In family business, it's not just the business sitting at the table, but also the family and the ownership, often embodied in the same people.“
Philipp notes that many of the world’s most successful companies are family-owned. Mars, Walmart, Aldi, Lidl, Peters Sports, and Samsung, to name a few. This makes governance more complex and personal, since any strategic advice must also consider family dynamics and generational concerns.
“The role of an advisory board in family businesses is something like a balancing act.”
For Philipp, advisory boards need to provide advice and control while considering the family interests. This can mean serving as a sparring partner, driving succession conversations, or diffusing emotional conflicts. At times, this requires a greater time commitment and investment in understanding the relationships than you would see at a non-family firm, to give appropriate advice and remain mindful of the dynamics.
“Boards, especially in family businesses, work well when there are three things in place.”
In Philipp’s experience, family boards need three things. The first is clear role separation, so family members understand when they are acting as shareholders vs family members or external stakeholders. The second is timely professional information about the business, ideally through structured reporting. The third is regularly scheduled, well-structured board meetings. To Philipp, three to four quality meetings per year, plus a strategy retreat, is ideal.
“A good advisory board doesn't restrict entrepreneurial freedom; it expands it.”
Philipp sees boards operating under two distinct models in family businesses. One is as an early warning system and strategic challenger. Another model is a board that oversees the company and monitors overall governance issues. 
A critical question is whether the company is playing to win or playing not to lose. Family-owned businesses can be reluctant to share authority and control, but a good board offers structure and support. Indeed, since family businesses often think in generations rather than quarters, partnering with board members who share the entrepreneurial DNA and bring a governance structure can be the key to more stable long-term growth. 
The three top takeaways from our conversation for effective boards are:
1.      Governance is not a luxury. It is a success factor, especially for family businesses. 
2.     Family ownership and business must be clearly separated in roles, in bodies, and in decisions. This creates professional governance. 
3.     The right board makes the difference. 
Better Boards goes beyond box‑ticking. We bring together chairs, directors and governance leaders who want board effectiveness grounded in independent research and external benchmarks. Our proprietary, peer‑reviewed methodology shows how your board truly compares across all dimensions of effective boards.
If you would like to join the community, experience our research‑based approach to board evaluations, explore ways to work with us, or share ideas for The Better Boards Podcast, we would be glad to hear from you at info@better-boards.com.