The situation
In this instance, there was a growing sense that the board needed to change, although it was difficult to point to anything specific that wasn’t working.
Meetings were happening, decisions were being made, and from the outside it looked as though the structure was in place, but as the business had grown and become more complex, there was a feeling that the board hadn’t kept pace with it.
It wasn’t being described as a problem in direct terms, more that something felt slightly off, without a clear view of what that actually meant or what should be different.
Different people had their own sense of where things could improve, but there wasn’t a shared understanding of what the board was there to do at this stage, or how it should evolve alongside the business.
So the conversation sat in a place where change was recognised, but not yet defined.
What wasn’t obvious
What sat behind it wasn’t about whether the board was functioning or not.
It was more a question of how it had developed over time, and how that development had been shaped by earlier stages of the business rather than its current needs.
The board had grown in a way that felt natural at the time, but without a clear point where its purpose had been revisited or redefined.
That tends to create a situation where discussions move between operational detail and broader topics without a clear distinction, and where contribution varies without that being fully understood.
The difficulty is that none of this presents as a clear issue, which makes it easier to continue as things are, even when the fit is no longer quite right.
What we focused on
Rather than starting with appointments, we spent time understanding how the board actually operated in practice, how discussions were shaped, and what each individual was contributing to those conversations.
That meant speaking to stakeholders individually to understand how they saw the role of the board, where they felt it was adding value, and where it wasn’t quite meeting what the business now required.
From there, the focus moved to defining what the board needed to become, not in abstract terms, but in relation to the next phase of the business and the decisions it would need to support.
As that became clearer, it was possible to move towards a more deliberate view of structure and composition, rather than trying to adjust what was already there.
The outcome
The changes that followed were more considered than reactive.
There was a clearer understanding of the purpose of the board, which made it easier to define roles and introduce new perspectives in a way that added to what was already there.
The impact developed over time. Discussions became more focused, there was greater clarity around the distinction between board and executive responsibilities, and the board began to play a more consistent role in how the business was led.
It moved from something that existed alongside the business to something that was more closely aligned with where the business was going.
The TWYD view
What often holds situations like this back is the assumption that a board will evolve naturally as the business grows, when in reality that evolution tends to reflect where the business has been rather than where it is heading.
Without a clear point where the purpose of the board is revisited, it becomes difficult to change anything in a meaningful way, because there is no agreed view of what “better” looks like.
In this case, progress came from defining that end point first, which made it easier to see what needed to change and how to approach it.
That tends to be the difference. Not recognising that the board needs to evolve, but being clear about what it needs to evolve into.