Reevaluating board composition

Reevaluating board composition: The case for generalist leadership in global corporate governance

In an era marked by volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (VUCA), the effectiveness of a corporate board depends not only on the technical depth of its members but on the breadth of their strategic and leadership capabilities. This short article argues for a recalibration of how boards are composed, particularly in global corporations. It contends that the trend of appointing domain-specific experts to the board —a model likened here to a “Noah’s Ark” of paired expertise — is increasingly ineffective. Instead, the most resilient and high-functioning boards are those led by generalist leaders: former CEOs, senior executives, and operational general managers with a track record of strategic oversight and people leadership. I propose a hybrid model that favors generalist board composition, supplemented by specialist consultants as needed, thus maintaining the board’s strategic integrity while ensuring subject matter rigor.

Across many global boardrooms today, a familiar pattern has taken hold — a structure that mirrors the biblical Noah’s Ark. For every critical domain, boards are stacking two-by-two: two cybersecurity experts, two marketing authorities, two finance veterans, two talent gurus, et cetera. The intent is risk mitigation and representation, ensuring every discipline has a voice. Yet this Noah’s Ark strategy, while symbolically complete, is strategically flawed.

Rather than charting a bold course, these boards often resemble floating zoos of expertise, where directors are isolated by often outdated specialty and overly deferential to their functional peers. As each pair narrows its focus to its specific discipline, the board risks losing the cross-functional integration and strategic oversight essential to corporate governance. This leads to fragmented accountability, outdated expertise, and authority bias – quite often to the advantage and/or burden of/on the chairperson.

Sydney (2020) critiques this model explicitly: “Generalists — rather than specialists—make for great board directors… to be better prepared to govern in times of uncertainty.” The problem is not that specialists lack value; it’s that the permanence of their seat on the board can create intellectual silos and stagnation.

The academic literature supports this observation. Nili and Shapira (2024) note in the Yale Journal on Regulation that appointing specialists may in fact reduce the diversity and quality of strategic debate. “Authority bias leads to suppression of diverse viewpoints,” they argue, “particularly when the specialist has been recruited under the premise of exclusivity of knowledge.”

The alternative is to rethink the Ark: not as a static collection of experts, but as a vessel guided by navigators — generalist leaders who can synthesise, question, and direct. These are individuals who have operated companies, not just departments. Who have balanced growth and risk, not just analysed it. Who bring perspective, not just credentials.

In this paper, I argue that the future of corporate governance lies not in Noah’s Ark duplication of expertise, but in empowering generalist captains who can integrate functional insights and steer with strategic clarity. Functional experts should remain part of the picture—as consultants, advisory panellists, or rotating guest participants—but not permanent fixtures at the helm.

Expertise, particularly in rapidly evolving fields such as cybersecurity or digital marketing, has a half-life. A director whose reputation is grounded in their achievements from a decade ago may no longer be equipped to handle contemporary challenges in that domain. As Sydney (2020) remarks, “Expertise earned in the past can easily become obsolete when not continually tested in real-time environments.”

Nili and Shapira (2024) found that directors labelled as specialists often experience a depreciation of influence over time, especially when their technical knowledge fails to align with emerging trends or technologies. In effect, these directors may inadvertently become liabilities rather than assets.

When boards rely heavily on domain specialists, they risk developing a cognitive dependency on those individuals, leading to authority bias. This creates a boardroom dynamic where certain directors dominate conversations within their area of specialty, and other members hesitate to challenge or even question their inputs.

As Nili and Shapira (2024) note, “Authority bias leads to suppression of diverse viewpoints, particularly when the specialist has been recruited under the premise of exclusivity of knowledge.”

This contributes to groupthink which might hinder the board’s ability to critically evaluate, discuss and challenge strategic decisions from a multi-dimensional perspective.

A board composed of function-specific experts risks devolving into a confederation of silos. Each director may focus narrowly on their area, resulting in an aggregation of perspectives rather than an integrated strategic vision. This is antithetical to the purpose of a board, which is to provide overarching governance and align on long-term value creation.

Moreover, these silos can lead to poor communication and accountability. For instance, cybersecurity may be deemed “handled” because a former CISO is on the board, but this individual may not be aligned with current best practices or may fail to integrate the issue into a broader risk framework.

According to my framework evaluation, the following companies have (had) boards predominantly composed of domain-specific experts, which may lead to fragmented oversight and a lack of cohesive strategic direction:

1. Credit Suisse Group AG
   • Prior to its acquisition by UBS in 2023, Credit Suisse’s board was heavily populated with specialists in risk management, compliance, and technology.
   • The lack of generalist leadership contributed to challenges in strategic oversight and cohesive decision-making. We all know what happened here.
2. Synopsys Inc.
   • The board includes individuals with deep expertise in software, semiconductors, and related technical fields.
   • While this brings valuable insights, in my view, the board lacks a sufficient number of generalist leaders with broad operational experience.
3. Ansys Inc.
   • Ansys’ board comprises individuals with substantial experience in engineering and technology sectors.
   • The composition leans heavily towards technical expertise, potentially limiting broader strategic perspectives.
4. Dell Technologies
   • The board is composed of members with extensive backgrounds in technology and engineering.
   • This concentration of technical expertise may result in a narrower focus on operational and strategic issues.
5. NVIDIA Corporation
   • NVIDIA’s board includes several members with strong technical backgrounds in graphics processing and computing.
   • While beneficial for product development, this may limit diverse strategic viewpoints at the board level.

General managers bring a systems-oriented perspective, honed by years of operational leadership, cross-functional collaboration, and enterprise accountability. Unlike specialists, they are not confined by functional dogma and are more adept at evaluating trade-offs, interdependencies, and strategic timing.

Generalists also tend to excel in scenario planning, a crucial skill in the VUCA landscape. Their exposure to multiple business cycles, regulatory environments, and stakeholder contexts makes them capable of contextualising issues that transcend functional boundaries.

Boards are not merely technical advisory bodies; they are fiduciary stewards responsible for setting tone, culture, and long-term direction. As such, directors need more than technical knowledge—they require leadership. Generalists who have led large teams and managed large P&Ls bring firsthand knowledge of how strategic decisions impact people, performance, and profit.

As Roberta Sydney (2020) puts it: “Great board members are not those with the narrowest expertise but those with the broadest capacity to lead, challenge, and support from a holistic standpoint.”

Strategic oversight requires directors to ask the right questions, not just provide the right answers. Generalists, with their cross-functional experience, are often better positioned to identify gaps in strategy and explore unintended consequences. They can bridge the knowledge of specialists without being trapped in it.

The National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD) emphasises that effective boards engage in strategic conversations that go beyond operational details. This necessitates board members who can traverse diverse domains and synthesise insights.

Here are seven “best-in-class” global firms whose board compositions reflect a strong commitment to generalist leadership, strategic breadth, and cross-functional oversight. These boards embody the antithesis of the “Noah’s Ark” model by prioritising operational experience, enterprise leadership, and integrative thinking over siloed technical specialisation.

1. Best Buy Co., Inc.

• Why it stands out: Includes seasoned CEOs (Corie Barry, Hubert Joly) and CFOs (Karen McLoughlin), blending operational, digital, and financial acumen.
• Governance strength: The board is involved in long-range planning and organisational culture, not just functional compliance.

2. Nestlé S.A.

• Why it stands out: Features former CEOs (Paul Bulcke), global executives, and experts in nutrition, marketing, and ESG.
• Governance strength: Diversity of leadership backgrounds contributes to long-term strategic alignment across global markets. PS: Not a single Swiss in the board although it is Swiss based.

3. Microsoft Corporation

• Why it stands out: Strong mix of tech innovators (Satya Nadella, Reid Hoffman), policy leaders (Penny Pritzker), and investors (Hugh Johnston).
• Governance strength: The board’s composition enables foresight in innovation and adaptability to policy and market shifts.

4. Unilever PLC

• Why it stands out: Board members have held leadership positions across consumer goods, sustainability, and emerging markets.
• Governance strength: Emphasises purpose-driven strategy with operational execution.

5. Procter & Gamble Co.

• Why it stands out: Broad operational experience across marketing, international business, and corporate strategy.
• Governance strength: The board is known for supporting long-term innovation while managing scale and complexity globally.

6. ABB Ltd.

• Why it stands out: Chaired by Peter Voser (former Shell CEO) with board members including industrial CEOs, CFOs, and operational leaders (e.g., Atlas Copco, Caterpillar).
• Governance strength: Industrial and engineering complexity is matched by real-world general management experience across sectors and geographies.

7. UBS Group AG

• Why it stands out: Though historically more specialised, the current board reflects a shift toward generalist leadership: banking CEOs (Gail Kelly), macroeconomists (William Dudley), policy advisors, and digital leaders. This board has learned from the CS debacle and is ensuring that is moves toward a more generalist approach.

Governance strength: Increasing emphasis on governance, geopolitical awareness, and technology strategy with global integration.

A growing number of governance experts advocate for a hybrid model in which boards are composed primarily of generalist leaders while subject matter experts are brought in on an ad hoc or consultative basis. This model preserves the strategic bandwidth of the board while still incorporating the latest expertise in fast-moving domains.

The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance (2024) writes, “Adding a director with a narrow range of expertise may reduce the quality of board discussions on other, more prevalent topics on the agenda. A better approach is to access specialist knowledge via external advisors or advisory boards.”

This approach is not merely theoretical. Many high-performing boards have established external advisory panels or rotate in technical experts for particular strategic reviews or quarterly deep dives. These consultants provide real-time insights without permanently altering the board’s structure or diluting its strategic cohesion.

Global organisations require directors who understand international markets, regulatory systems, and geopolitical dynamics. Generalists who have managed operations in multiple regions bring nuanced perspectives that specialists often lack. Their broader worldview is essential in aligning global strategy with local execution.

General managers are more likely to bring experience from multiple sectors, enabling boards to cross-pollinate ideas and practices. In contrast, specialists often have deep but narrow experience, which can limit innovation or relevance across different contexts.

Generalists tend to be better crisis managers. Having led through downturns, restructurings, and transformations, they are equipped to make swift, principled decisions under pressure. Their presence on a board strengthens institutional resilience.

• Prioritise Leadership Track Record in Board Recruitment

Search committees and nominating boards should place greater emphasis on operational leadership experience rather than recent technical expertise. Candidates should be evaluated on their ability to synthesise, challenge constructively, and lead across functions.

• Establish Standing Advisory Councils

Rather than embedding all needed expertise within the board, organisations should institutionalise external advisory councils composed of domain experts who can be called upon for in-depth consultations.

• Conduct Regular Composition Audits

Boards should assess their composition annually to ensure alignment with strategic needs, not just compliance checklists. This includes identifying whether a board has become too narrow in its functional expertise and whether it retains integrative thinkers.

• Educate on Governance Over Expertise

Board onboarding programs should stress fiduciary responsibility, enterprise leadership, and strategic oversight rather than domain mastery. General governance capability should be cultivated and prioritised.

The composition of a board is one of the most powerful levers for corporate performance. In a globalized, fast-changing environment, boards must be able to operate above the fray of specialist silos. The evidence increasingly supports a model that privileges generalist leadership, enriched by specialist insight when needed but not dominated by it.

Don’t fill the Ark—staff the Bridge: Boards need navigators, not more passengers.

By adopting a generalist-first philosophy in board appointments, global corporations can foster more integrated thinking, sharper strategic oversight, and greater institutional resilience. The Noah’s Ark model of expert duplication is outdated; what boards need today are strategic navigators who can steer through complexity, not passengers who specialise in reading one part of the map.

• Sydney, R. G. (2020). Specialists, Generalists, and Private Company Board Composition. NACD Directorship. Retrieved from https://www.nacdonline.org/insights/content.cfm?ItemNumber=69073
• Nili, Y., & Shapira, R. (2024). Specialist Directors. Yale Journal on Regulation, 41, 652. Retrieved from https://www.yalejreg.com/wp-content/uploads/07.-Nili-Shapira-Article.-Print.pdf
• Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance. (2024). Specialist Directors. Retrieved from https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2024/01/09/specialist-directors/
• NACD. (2023). Boardroom Blueprint: Strategic Governance in Disruptive Times. National Association of Corporate Directors. Retrieved from https://www.nacdonline.org
• Govenda. (2024). Board Composition and Evaluation: Best Practices. Retrieved from https://www.govenda.com/blog/board-composition-and-evaluation/