Why it’s Hard for CEOs and Boards to Talk Strategy

Although strategy oversight should be part of a Board’s remit, many NEDs say Boards and CEOs simply talk past each other, if they talk seriously about it at all. Whether it’s because of congested agendas, lack of expertise, or a misunderstanding of what strategy is and who is responsible for it, these barriers are surmountable.

CEOs and Boards don’t necessarily have a common view about what strategy is. To simplify it, “strategy is really about how to scale,” said one Middle East-based NED, certainly in fast-growth markets and that “Boards must then assess the risk factors that stand in the way.”

Roger Martin, former Dean of Rotman School of Management, has recently argued that “far too few general managers know enough about strategy  and that has to change.” The essential point is that “strategy entails imagining future possibilities and choosing the one for which the most compelling argument can be made. Imagination is neither taught nor encouraged in formal business education.” Therefore, as he previously noted, executives may well fear that getting those decisions wrong will wreck their careers. This may also be why Boards and CEOs seem reluctant to engage in genuine honest dialogue. Instead, ‘strategy’ simply slides into what is really just ‘planning.’

Planning feels more comfortable because, focussing on costs that can be calculated, is more controllable. Boards are presented with what is really an operational plan, setting out where and how to allocate financial and human capital. “It is akin to a to-do list with a timescale attached,” commented an Odgers connection. Some CEOs may think that the details are not even worth sharing with the Board.

Strategy should instead focus on revenue, the hard and unpredictable task of winning customers. This involves constant adaptation, refinement and flexibility as external business conditions shift. CEOs may want to discuss the “what” and the “how,” but Boards also need to be asking and getting answers to the “why” questions. They have to question the key growth drivers and underlying assumptions in the plan.

Following the Plot Lines

In their efforts to move conversations toward less comfortable questions, here is what Boards should keep in mind:

1. Catch me if you can. Board agendas are often dominated by regulation and compliance issues. Unlike strategy, these are concrete with definitive consequences. Resolving these may feel like progress is being made, as it is. But too much attention can become a diversion for avoiding harder strategic conversations. That said, regulatory oversight is also a strategic issue. A company’s approach to compliance can be reframed as a competitive advantage that underscores its ‘license to operate’ in different markets.
2. Apollo 13. Identifying specific Board members with deep knowledge of strategy won’t always help. All NEDs should have some understanding of the company’s overall direction, as strategy feeds into everything that Boards already discuss including regulations, risk and pay. “The problem is that no-one is joining the dots,” said a NED expert. NEDs should also be capable of grasping certain key topics.Australia’s State of the Boardroom 2026 report, for example, identifies financial acumen, risk, sustainability, technology and AI literacy as baseline competencies. Many Boards, particularly in mid-market, public and for-purpose sectors, don’t have this blend of expertise, let alone the time to engage; and those who do, tend to work in silos or lack the big-picture perspective. Bringing in profiles with only tangential relevance can weaken the Board, as a NED explained: “If members cannot engage in the core topics, the discussion loses flow and effectiveness.”
3. Hidden figures. The Board can only truly scrutinise strategy if they have accurate, timely data. The Board of one large international bank, for example, reported receiving important information too late to analyse, while key data was buried in overly-detailed papers. This made it next to impossible for NEDs to engage in an informed dialogue. Such information should highlight salient strategic points.
4. Silent witness. As outlined by one Board member: “Independent non-executives bring something structurally scarce: distance from both the day-to-day and the sector. That distance is what allows genuinely strategic thinking.” Psychological safety in Board meetings is a prized attribute and it allows diverse views to be aired. There can be no serious discussion of strategy if a poorly run meeting discourages NEDs from speaking their mind. Board effectiveness requires a nuanced balance between, rigour, efficiency and openness. But if NEDs feel unable to challenge management thinking or even agree strategic priorities, there can be no meaningful conversation about strategy.
5. Other people’s money. Sometimes strategy can be agreed quickly. But when pay and bonuses are linked to achieving certain milestones, there is the inevitable temptation to measure strategy in ways that trigger the largest or fastest pay-outs. This can be especially risky if the CEO’s tenure is likely to be short, favouring short-term rewards over long term growth. Pay is part of strategy too.
6. The Chair. The Chair is central to whether strategy is meaningfully discussed or quietly avoided. Beyond formal governance, the Chair shapes the agenda, calibrates the balance between oversight and forward-looking debate, and creates the conditions for constructive challenge. This includes managing executive defensiveness, ensuring all voices are heard, and keeping the discussion focused on the critical ‘why’ behind decisions. Where this leadership is absent, even well-composed Boards can default to compliance and reporting.

A Board that does not protect time, space and cognitive diversity for strategy is, in practice, not governing the future of the organisation.