Author Julie Gilbert

Full article

AI is moving faster than most boards can govern it—and that gap is becoming a real risk.

Today, only about one in four boards regularly discuss AI, yet the data is clear: companies that put AI on every agenda dramatically outperform those that don’t. This isn’t a coincidence—it’s a governance gap.

Think about elite sports. Every great coach has played the game. They’ve felt the pressure, understand the dynamics, and can make real-time decisions because they’ve been “on the floor.” Boardrooms should be no different. Yet many boards are advising on AI transformation without anyone who has actually built or operated AI at scale.

That’s a problem.

AI governance is no longer theoretical. It’s operational. It’s strategic. And it’s immediate. Without real AI operator expertise in the room, boards risk overseeing blind spots instead of strategy.

The challenge isn’t just awareness—it’s capability. Many directors lack the fluency to ask the right questions, let alone challenge assumptions or pressure-test management. Meanwhile, AI is already reshaping industries, compressing margins, creating new competitors, and redefining value.

This is not a technology discussion. It’s a business model discussion.

Boards should be asking:

• Could AI make our core offering obsolete?
• Where does it change our economics—positively or negatively?
• What new risks are we exposed to?
• Who owns AI decisions—and when do they escalate?

Without clear answers, governance breaks down—and risk rises.

At the same time, board composition is evolving too slowly. Turnover is low, but the pace of AI change is exponential. The result: companies anchored in legacy expertise risk drifting toward irrelevance.

AI is becoming a defining factor in strategy, valuation, and competitiveness. It is a growth accelerator—and a risk amplifier.

So the question isn’t whether AI belongs in the boardroom.

The question is whether your board is actually equipped to govern it.

Because in this environment, oversight without operator-level expertise isn’t oversight—it’s exposure.