Are boards getting the strategic challenge they need?

PwC's September 2026 Annual Corporate Directors Survey found that 81% of respondents believed their boards could challenge management's corporate strategy more effectively.

It's an interesting finding from people whose responsibilities already include doing exactly that.

And having worked with businesses on senior appointments for many years, I suspect most experienced directors would recognise how difficult that responsibility can be.

Management teams spend every day dealing with the detail of the business. They understand the history behind decisions, the compromises already made and the practical difficulties of delivering what has been agreed. Board members bring experience from elsewhere, but they're inevitably working with a different level of information.

PwC's research points to several areas directors believe could improve, including clearer measures of strategic progress, greater consideration of alternative approaches and better information from management.

In fact, 82% of directors identified opportunities to improve the materials provided to their boards.

But the findings also got us thinking about the people around the table, and whether boards are making the best use of the experience available to them.

When everything demands the board's attention

Research published by Teneo in October 2026, based on interviews with 42 directors across the UK, US and Canada, found that expanding responsibilities around technology, regulation and risk were putting pressure on the time available for strategic discussion.

These are all matters that deserve board attention. But as the agenda grows, how much time remains to properly examine where the business is heading?

It's a difficult balance, particularly when directors are expected to provide oversight across areas that are becoming increasingly specialised.

And it raises a question about what boards need from the people sitting around the table.

How much expertise can we expect from one director?

Teneo's research found that the average US director was credited with 3.5 areas of expertise in 2026, compared with fewer than three in 2010, with similar increases in the UK and Canada.

AI brings the question of expertise into particularly sharp focus. Even directors with substantial technology experience are working in a field where capabilities, commercial applications and risks are developing rapidly.

As boards take responsibility for decisions involving increasingly specialised areas, how should they determine what expertise needs to sit around the table, what can be drawn from management and when independent advice is required?

What does the next director need to bring?

PwC's survey also found that 81% of directors considered alignment with board culture and ways of working very important when evaluating prospective directors.

That's understandable. Directors need to trust one another, work through disagreements and maintain productive relationships with management.

But it's worth considering what that means when a board already has established relationships and considerable shared experience.

When we're talking about a new board appointment, I always think it's worth asking: what are we missing around the table? Not just in terms of skills, but experience, perspective and different ways of thinking.

Sometimes the most valuable person around the board table isn't the one who agrees with everyone. It's the person who's prepared to ask the difficult question that nobody else is asking.

That ability to challenge constructively is particularly important when a board is considering decisions that could shape the organisation's future.

Will the next appointment add something the board needs, or reinforce capabilities it already has?

The answer will depend on the organisation, its strategy and the experience of its existing directors.

We've explored how organisations can examine senior appointment requirements and assess the wider talent market in our article, When Does a Hire Become an Executive Search?

For boards, there's an additional consideration around how each appointment contributes to the collective ability to question and assess the decisions ahead.

Looking beyond the next board meeting

What makes PwC's findings particularly interesting is that directors themselves recognise opportunities to improve strategic challenge, at a time when their responsibilities continue to expand.

The quality of information, the time available for discussion and the experience around the table all play a part.

And as businesses change, so do the demands placed on their boards.

One thing I often come back to in conversations with clients is whether they're hiring for the business they have today, or the business they're trying to become.

It's a question that feels particularly relevant to board succession planning.

A director appointed five years ago may still bring enormous value, but the organisation could now be facing decisions that require different experience or perspectives.

That makes succession planning an important part of the conversation.

What will the business need its board to contribute over the next few years, and does the current composition give it the breadth of experience to do so?

It's a question worth asking before the next vacancy arises.

For more than two decades, Denholm has worked alongside businesses as their leadership teams, structures and board requirements have changed. That understanding helps us bring context to senior appointments and the decisions behind them.

If you're considering a board appointment or reviewing your senior leadership requirements, we'd welcome the conversation.

Explore our Executive Search services, call us on 03303 359 818 or email connect@denholmassociates.com.