My governance playlist – Kate Ivicheva

Kate Ivicheva MInstD

Ahuriri Napier-based Kate Ivicheva MInstD is a director of Asseterra Ltd and has expertise in asset-intensive organisations across public and private sectors, including strategic asset management, long-term planning, investment prioritisation, independent review and assurance. She is a committee member of the Asset Management Council New Zealand Chapter and contributes to ISO Technical Committees.  

Kate moved to New Zealand from Far East Russia in early 2019 and says being bilingual and cross-cultural has informed how she works through complexity and bridge the gap between ‘intent’ and context. From a young age, she was exposed to conversations about critical infrastructure, society’s reliance on it and the need to look after it responsibly. That informed her understanding of the need for strong design, maintenance and governance because when the pressure hits, failure is real.  

This week she offers insights from a podcast and a TV series that highlight the importance of being intentional as a director and looking for the story behind the story. 

What is the name of the governance or business book (or other media) that inspires your thinking as a director? 

I don’t have one single book I default to. While the IoD’s Four Pillars is my North Star and technical go-to, I’m more of a listener and a visual thinker. I prefer examples that show how governance plays out in real decisions.

Lately, I’ve been using a high and low pairing to keep my thinking sharp. I look at the TV series Billions as a lens on boardroom culture and people dynamics. It’s a dramatised setting, but also a strong study of human ego, power, and what happens when performance and values start pulling in different directions. It’s a reminder that governance is not only about reading board papers, but also about what is happening in the room.

I pair them with the NACD BoardVision podcast, specifically the episode Making Room for Disruption. It has helped me consider how boards stay open to disruption while protecting decision confidence and core values. The real work is connecting those dots, watching the dynamics and applying the right discipline to guide them. 

How would you describe the style of storytelling?

The two are very different, which is why they work for me.

Billions is fast-paced and driven by the story. It focuses on the heat of the moment and those behaviours that aren’t always visible on a balance sheet. It’s a study in subtext – what people do when the stakes are high, rather than what ends up recorded in the minutes.

Making Room for Disruption is calmer and more deliberate. It treats disruption as a condition to govern through, not a crisis to react to. The series shows me the messy human side of business and the podcast provides a clearer governance lens.

What drew you to these stories, and what resonated the most? 

They capture the tension between formal frameworks and the human reality of how decisions are made.

Billions shows how quickly incentives and power dynamics can bend decision-making, especially when performance is rewarded but accountability is uneven. Information can be curated, norms shift and people start justifying what they would not normally accept.

These patterns are remarkably similar across contexts. Whether it’s a commercial board or a community trust, you still see the same underlying mechanics: ego, influence and information gaps.

The NACD episode provides a counterpoint. It speaks to how boards can make room for disruption without defaulting to chaos, keeping innovation moving while maintaining sound judgement and direction. It speaks to a current challenge: how to stay open to new ideas without losing the discipline that keeps the organisation safe.

What have you taken away from the podcast and TV series that continues to influence your board roles?  

It has changed how I listen and how I probe in board and committee settings. I am more intentional about looking for the story behind the story by asking about trade-offs, uncertainty and dissenting views that did not make it into the final paper.

It has also reinforced the importance of alignment and clear intent. Management needs to move at pace, so governance must provide direction that enables confident execution. This requires discipline – being bold while keeping a sharp eye on culture and early signals.

It’s a way to step out of the boardroom’s echo chamber. When you spend your day looking at the same types of papers and problems, your thinking can become linear. I use podcasts and even drama as a form of cognitive cross-training. They force me to look at governance and leadership from a different angle, which keeps my perspective fresh and my questions sharp.

When you’re not reading about governance, what kind of books do you enjoy? 

I spend a lot of time working with complex information, so I enjoy technical books about data and infrastructure when I want to go deep. To switch gears, I turn to fiction that explores ethics and human behaviour. Dostoevsky has always been a favourite for the way he makes you sit with moral complexity. My most recent read was To Kill a Mockingbird, while The Master and Margarita is one I would happily reread. One side of the shelf helps me understand what is happening in a business, while the other keeps me curious about people. 

What governance issues are top of mind for you, and why?

The issue most top of mind is decision weight under constraint. In asset-intensive organisations, boards are asked to make bigger calls with less slack, balancing ageing infrastructure and tighter funding against rising stakeholder expectations. The risk is not just making the wrong move but making a decision that cannot be explained or delivered.

Closely linked is the need for a genuine line of sight from service outcomes to risk, cost over time, and the assumptions that sit underneath the long-term picture. When that connection is visible, choices become explicit and prioritisation becomes coherent.  

What has surprised you most about yourself – and others – while serving on boards?  

While I do not currently sit on external boards, I see the same governance dynamics consistently in board and committee settings. What has surprised me most is how much governance outcomes are shaped by the discipline of the questions and the framing of the decision. I have also come to appreciate the invisible work that sits behind strong governance: creating a shared view of what matters so the conversation stays focused and aligned. When that shared view is strong, challenge becomes more constructive, priorities hold and follow-through improves.

What would you like to see more of at the board table – and why?

I would like to see more board-level focus on asset governance for long-lived infrastructure and asset portfolios. Asset governance is strongest when asset management is treated as a business discipline. This is where strategy, stewardship and value creation meet: the outcomes to enable, what “good” looks like for reliability and resilience, and the principles that keep investment decisions consistent over time.  

Having clear oversight of portfolio health and lifecycle settings helps keep renewal and maintenance timely and intentional, alongside growth and targeted upgrades. This supports stewardship at the board table and gives management a clear basis for planning and execution. 

If you have a podcast, book, film or something else you’d like to review that informs or inspires your thinking about the multi-faceted world of boards, business and governance contact sonia.yee@iod.org.nz