The Better Boards Podcast Series

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.

Send us Fan Mail
Selecting the Chair: Governance Lessons from the US and the UK
Chair succession is handled differently in the US and the UK. However, both approaches have merit, and there are key principles that matter regardless of geography. 
In this podcast, Dr Sabine Dembkowski, Founder and Managing Partner, is joined by Susan Skerritt. Susan is a Non-Executive Independent Director on the boards of Citibank Europe PLC, Tanger, Inc., and IG Group PLC. She previously served on the boards of Royal Bank of Canada US Group Holdings, Community Financial Systems, Inc., VEREIT, and Falcon Trade Group. Before her Board career, she had a successful 35-year financial career and served as the Chairman, CEO, and President of Deutsche Bank Trust Company in the US. 
“Procedural differences reflect genuinely different governance philosophies.“
 
To Susan, the differences between the US and UK approaches reflect the differing philosophies at play. The US model is rooted in the idea that Boards are best positioned to govern themselves. So, the Board Chair is almost always selected from existing Directors, with the process managed internally. The Chair and CEO roles are often combined, and there is a deep resistance to “governance by checklist” regulations.
 
The UK model places greater weight on structural independence and investor accountability. The current code was built after corporate failures in the 80s and 90s and holds that self-governance without structural safeguards is insufficient. There are term limits, rules about external candidates, and separate CEO and Chair roles. It’s not wholly prescriptive, but “comply or explain” dominates.
 
“The strengths of one approach tend to illuminate the weaknesses of the other.”
 
In the US, Susan sees that internal candidates, who already know the company, its strategy, culture, and management team, can reduce transition risk. This is valuable in fast-moving situations and reduces search costs. Plus, internal candidates have established relationships and a track record with management that foster trust and candour from the start. The downsides are insularity, cultures of deference, and a lack of external benchmarking.
 
In the UK, those potential downsides are addressed. The formal process carries a mandate for independence from the new Chair and searches a wide talent pool for the best candidate to meet a carefully vetted list of needs. However, there’s a risk the search becomes an expensive, time-consuming theatre. There’s also transition risk if the new Chair can’t fully integrate with the company culture.
 
“Regardless of which governance tradition we're working within, there are three principles that matter.”
 
To Susan, three principles matter most. First, Boards should know what they need and not reach for what they’ve always had. The most common failure in Chair succession is a default to continuity. 
 
Second, process quality matters as much as outcome. Susan views this as the UK’s greatest contribution to the global governance conversation. A well-designed search process is rigorous, transparent, and defensible. It surfaces assumptions, creates a record, and signals to shareholders that the Board is taking the decision seriously. 
 
Third, succession planning is not an event. It's an ongoing discipline. Effective boards keep succession on the live agenda, actively managed and not derailed by unexpected departures. 
 
The three top takeaways from our conversation are:
 
1.    Structure matters, but it isn’t everything. The issue is always whether the Board is exercising genuine, independent judgment.
2.   The US and UK models are converging and getting better for it. 
3.   Chair succession is a government bellwether. 
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.