Boards at the Right Altitude: Governing for Growth in Uncertainty

Uncertainty remains the backdrop. In Denver, a small group of public company CEOs and board directors joined Egon Zehnder to examine how effective boards lead when volatility is the norm. The conversation centered on insights from our recent global CEO Response survey of 1,235 CEOs, which puts a fine point on the type of leadership needed: 92% of CEOs say adaptability is imperative. The discussion focused on how boards help develop and foster that necessary capacity—consistently, and at the right altitude. During our three hours together, we discussed the value of adaptability, impact of AI, Chair-CEO relationships and effective board meetings

In Egon Zehnder’s Global CEO Survey, nearly all CEOs report they are leading differently by embracing and adapting to uncertainty amid persistent geopolitical and economic volatility. While leaders around the table agreed, they described the current situations as a recognized cycle, though this time louder and more relentless. Geopolitics, economic crosscurrents, talent pressure, market disruption, and the adoption curve of AI continue to collide. Several contrasted today’s ambiguity with the pandemic: Covid rewarded operational excellence; now, the variables are messier and multidimensional. Public board conversations are spending more time on the people agenda, talent pipelines and succession, while private equity leaders put AI squarely at the top of the operating agenda for portfolio CEOs.

The discussion surfaced wide variance in AI maturity across sectors. Software heavy businesses are feeling cost and talent pressure as they scale. Industrial and services leaders framed automation as a way to offset attrition rather than displace frontline roles outright. Financial services executives anticipate early gains in customer quality, while companies with a long history in machine learning see new power in personalization. A practical question kept returning: Where should AI capability live—on the board, via advisory structures, or both—and who owns the data that enables it? While PE leaders shared the expectation that every portfolio company CEO have a plan, public companies took a different and tailored approach. Directors described several workable patterns for adding AI knowledge to their boards. Some chairs are adding an advisory director with specialist depth to provide relevant guidance without over-boarding the core. Others emphasized the Nomination Chair’s role in curating AI as a distinct competence while ensuring decision rights remain clear: management leads use case selection and execution; the board aligns capital, risk guardrails, and learning cadence. 

Asked who they turn to when navigating uncertainty, our CEO survey revealed an intriguing pattern: senior leadership teams first (75%), then other CEOs (43%), followed by the board (28%) and the chair (23%). Leaders cited the “evaluation” dynamic with their own boards and a preference to tap individual directors for targeted counsel rather than convene the full board.  

Closing the gap starts with role clarity before the pressure builds. Chairs and CEOs who agree on which decisions require a conversation, how they prefer to exchange information, and what escalation looks like under time pressure (e.g., activism, M&A) create productive tension without drifting into power struggles. Several participants noted that complex choices move faster when the chair curates small, time-bound subcommittees to concentrate expertise and preserve full board altitude. Practically, the CEO engages the board earlier as a strategic partner. 

Directors were candid about meeting hygiene. Agenda hijacks and shallow contributions that lack depth drain value. And overlong presentation decks are not helpful, and many directors set a hard upper bound near a hundred pages, with shorter, audience specific versions increasingly crafted with AI.

Boards that reclaim time for strategy tend to open with brief context and consequence—what’s changed since the last meeting and what matters now, before moving into the decisions that require debate. Several directors have found that consistent templates across quarters reduce friction for directors who engage episodically, and tight appendices prevent the agenda from collapsing under the weight of “just in case” materials.

If adaptability is the leadership baseline, what does it demand of governance? Three themes stood out in Denver:

• Curate relevancy, not just experience. Many CEOs will continue to consult peer CEOs first because they are “in the flow.” Boards can narrow that gap by maintaining their own currency—through targeted education on AI and adjacent technologies, periodic external briefings, and lived operating experience in the mix, so counsel keeps pace with the business.
• Be explicit about roles in special situations. Before activists, acquisitions, or divestitures enter the frame, agree on who does what, when the board steps in, and how subcommittees will be formed and sunset. Clarity lowers temperature and speeds decisions when the window is narrow.
• Treat time as a strategic asset. The chair stewards altitude: keep the discussion above operations, reserve time for the CEO’s most pressing issues, and debrief promptly to tune pacing and depth for the next meeting. Directors emphasized that when conversations drift into tactics, the cost isn’t only time; it’s confidence.

Denver underscored a simple equation: In high volatility, boards that invest in their own relevancy, codify how they engage, and use time intentionally become accelerants for the CEO—on both growth and risk. As Egon Zehnder’s Global CEO Survey reminds us, adaptability is decisive; governance gives it structure.