Boards, like cheeseboards, depend on the mix

I’m no longer a director of The Cheese Wheel, an artisan subscription company I co-founded in 2018. I have found myself wondering whether a well-balanced cheeseboard offers a useful metaphor for a well-balanced board. 

It’s a question that goes to the heart of how boards think about composition, capability and recruitment. 

The context is important, with board workloads increasing globally, driven by regulatory scrutiny, accelerating technology and rising expectations. So, what does a “perfect” board look like today? 

One view might suggest an ever-expanding list: institutional knowledge alongside fresh perspectives; AI, cybersecurity and digital skills; a diverse, equitable and inclusive group; industry-specific experience (with some high-profile examples of poor performance where this has been lacking); sustainability expertise; younger or first-time directors; as well as the traditional ex-CEOs, accountants, lawyers and perhaps family members. Professional services boards may also include a mix of executive and independent directors. 

This often manifests in people who tick multiple boxes, but also sometimes a search for elusive unicorns. In practice, board recruitment becomes more complex and more critical to overall performance. 

Culture eats directors for breakfast 

Search specialist Rhonda Maxwell has observed boards should treat recruitment as a continuous strategic conversation, not something that starts when a vacancy looms. A skills matrix, an honest assessment of the current board against that, and a clear brief remain important – but are not sufficient on their own. 

She cited KPMG research showing 70% of boards find it difficult to identify candidates with both business acumen and the specific skills they require. She also highlighted research from Janine Smith MNZM, CFInstD at Auckland University of Technology (AUT), which found: 

• • The chair’s role and boardroom practice (including atmosphere, quality of debate and decision-making culture) have the greatest impact on performance – recruitment alone will not solve underlying issues  
  • A well-composed board operating in a culture that does not support genuine challenge will underperform a less well-composed board that is open  
  • “Social and value diversity” requires active management to be effective, while “informational and skills diversity” consistently strengthens capability  
  • This reinforces the idea that each new director should change the “DNA” of the board, rather than simply add a specific skill. 

AI vetting 

Recent criticism of a supermarket chain’s use of AI to vet and respond to job candidates has attracted attention. It may be an issue of how AI is used, as recruiters suggest it is already embedded at the initial screening stage. 

But is it being used to assess candidates for board roles? 

Stephen Leavy MInstD, Managing Partner at executive search firm Hobson Leavy, notes that there has been little impact from AI in this context. When a board vacancy arises, the process remains largely traditional, with boards working alongside search firms to identify, approach and assess candidates. 

The situation differs in larger overseas markets such as the United States. With a much larger pool of potential candidates, AI is sometimes used for initial identification and filtering, although decisions are still made by people once a shortlist is developed. 

In New Zealand, the market is relatively small and continues to rely heavily on networks. However, a core challenge in board recruitment remains one of judgement rather than process. 

Time to appoint an AI agent director? 

At times it feels as though there may be more AI agents than people in New Zealand. Some commentators have suggested appointing AI agents as directors. One argument is that this simply formalises the role of a human director already using AI to generate questions and opinions, and extends the use of AI in board processes. 

However, Joshua Nuu-Steele, founder of Ideally, a digital research platform, has argued strongly against this. Drawing on research, he notes that while large language models can produce well-structured and comprehensive responses, they do not reason causally, hold genuine contradictions, or reflect lived experience. 

As he put it, an AI agent has “never made a choice under pressure on a real Tuesday afternoon”. 

What’s changing – and what isn’t? 

Workloads and accountability are increasing, the expected skills mix continues to expand, and there are early signs of AI being used to support efficiency. However, the core process for board appointments in Aotearoa New Zealand remains largely unchanged. 

A well-balanced cheeseboard might include a blue, a washed rind or soft cheese, an aged hard cheese, and something unexpected – perhaps an ashed goat cheese – along with a mix of milk sources, such as cow, sheep, goat or even buffalo. 

It is not about having more cheese, but about having the right combination – and how it works together. 

Boards are not so different. 

Kevin Jenkins CMInstD is a professional director and commentator. He chairs REINZ and NZQA, and serves on the boards of Harrison Grierson, Accessible Properties, WorkSafe and BRANZ.