When was the last time your board changed the direction of the business in a meaningful way, not approved it, not endorsed it, but actually changed it? I ask that because, in March 2024, I walked into a boardroom convinced I was about to impress everyone with my structured thinking, only to discover after two hours that the board had been debating a beautifully prepared report on the wrong problem entirely, and I sat there quietly thinking, “Even Mr. Strategy has been outplayed by politeness today.”
The lesson was immediate. Most boards are not ineffective because they lack intelligence. But because they mistake activity for governance. Think of a busy boda-boda stage in a trading Centre. Every rider is moving, engines running, conversations loud, passengers negotiating, money exchanging hands. It looks like progress. It feels like momentum. But the stage itself is not moving anywhere.
Many boards operate like that stage. Busy, loud, and active yet strategically static. I was facilitating a retreat for a telecom company in Rwanda, a fast-growing firm that had recently lost market share to a more agile competitor. The board was experienced, respected, and deeply engaged. Papers were circulated early, committees were active and compliance was strong.
Yet growth had stalled. During one session, a director leaned forward and said, “Management is not executing well.” The CEO responded calmly, “We are executing the strategy the board approved.” And there it was. The tension no one wanted to name. They were both right. And both wrong.
Where governance quietly fails
Boards often drift into two extremes. Some become operational, interfering in decisions that belong to management, asking about procurement details, staffing issues, and daily performance metrics. Others remain distant, approving strategies without interrogating their assumptions, trusting management without testing their thinking.
In that telecom case, the board had approved a strategy focused on expanding physical retail presence. It made sense on paper. But the market had already shifted to digital channels, mobile apps, and agent networks.
The board had been governing the past while the market moved ahead. I paused the session and asked a question. “If this company were being started today, would you still choose this strategy?” One director finally said, “No, we would go digital first.” That was an aha moment. This is not a regional issue. It is a governance pattern.
Consider how a global technology company like Microsoft reinvented itself. The board did not just oversee performance. It supported a fundamental shift from a traditional software licensing model to cloud computing, even when the old model was still profitable.
Contrast that with companies that held onto legacy models for too long, where boards focused on protecting current earnings instead of shaping future relevance. The difference was not intelligence. It was the willingness of the board to engage in strategy as stewards, not spectators.
The real work of the board is not to review reports. It is to shape direction. Not by running the business, but by asking the questions that force management to confront reality early. The boards that create long-term success do one thing consistently well. They focus on the few decisions that truly matter and ignore the noise.
They do not try to know everything. They insist on knowing what matters. In that telecom board session, I asked the directors to put aside their papers and answer three questions, one by one, out loud.
- First, what is the single biggest threat to our business in the next twelve months?
- Second, what assumption in our current strategy is most likely to be wrong?
- Third, if we were competitors, how would we attack ourselves?
The reactions were immediate. One director said, “Our biggest threat is not competition. It is our own speed.” Another added, “We are assuming customers will keep visiting our shops. That is no longer true.” The CEO sat quietly, then said, “We have been optimizing the wrong model.” That exercise took twenty minutes. It achieved what months of reporting had not. It shifted the board from oversight to insight.
Back to the boda stage. Movement is not progress and noise is not direction. A good board does not add more riders to the stage. It decides where the stage should move and ensures the business has the discipline to get there.
That requires courage. It requires clarity. And it requires the humility to admit when the conversation has been about the wrong things.
A final challenge to you
As I look around this room, I will leave you with three questions to take into your next board meeting. Are we shaping the future of this business, or are we simply reviewing its past? What is the one decision we are avoiding because it is uncomfortable but necessary? If this company were being built today, would we design it the same way?
Answer those honestly, and you will know whether you are truly governing or just attending meetings.
Copyright Summit Consulting Ltd, 2026. All rights reserved.
