According to World Economic Forum, almost 90% of the world’s data has been generated in just the last two years. Directors are not behind. They are leading in the most accelerated information environment in history.
Board packets are heavier than ever, filled with dashboards, compliance reports and market updates. Yet discussions are not necessarily sharper.
The challenge is not diligence. It is vision.
Here is one reality I see often: We tend to overload boards with data. And sometimes filtering is a skill that could be better applied not by cutting information, but by ensuring better, sharper data.
The Ophthalmologist’s Chair
Think of the routine eye exam. You sit in the chair, the frame is placed in front of your eyes and the doctor begins: “Option one? Or option two?” Slowly, clarity emerges. But it rarely comes from a single lens. The prescription is layered, refined and unique to you.
Boards are in that chair today, testing lenses for AI:
Lens One: Efficiency. AI as automation — streamlining processes, reducing costs and producing faster reports. Helpful, but it stops short.
Lens Two: Monitoring. AI as oversight — scanning compliance, detecting fraud and flagging risks in real time. Sharper, but still narrow.
Lens Three: Foresight. AI as strategy — identifying weak signals in regulation, shifts in customer sentiment or early moves by competitors. This is where governance sharpens into anticipation, not just reaction.
Every board member I’ve spoken with in the past year recognizes themselves somewhere between these three lenses. Some are stuck in efficiency, others in risk, but very few have the full prescription in place.
Directors as Lens-Makers
Here is the essential truth: AI does not govern. Boards govern.
AI can sharpen what directors see, but it cannot decide what matters. That clarity comes from directors themselves — through their knowledge, the values they bring and their observations on:
- Strategy. Defining direction and purpose.
- Ethics. Setting boundaries that build trust.
- Regulation. Interpreting guardrails and obligations.
- Risk. Prioritizing exposures that matter most.
- Stakeholders. Understanding the expectations of employees, investors, customers and communities.
Without this input, AI is just noise. With it, AI becomes clarity.
That resonates with what I see in practice: No two boards require the same prescription. Rigidity is the enemy of clarity. Directors need space to adapt the lens to context.
In its December 2024 Board Matters report, EY stressed that boards must build AI literacy and confidence in oversight — not to become technologists, but to exercise informed judgment in a digital age. Similarly, in April 2025, WTW underscored how AI governance must be principle-based and dynamic, tailored to each board’s context.
From Single Lens to Systemic Resilience
Clarity is not just about seeing further. It is about strengthening resilience across the company.
Just as the ophthalmologist layers lenses to complete a prescription, boards must layer resilience across multiple dimensions.
Resilience engineering research has long emphasized that resilience comes not from preventing every failure, but from the ability to respond, monitor, learn and anticipate. Boards bring this thinking into practice by ensuring no single lens is left blurry.
Systemic resilience requires multiple lenses:
- Strategic resilience. Portfolio diversity, geographic spread, supply chain agility, partnerships and principles for decision-making under uncertainty.
- Financial resilience. Strong reserves, sustainable debt, stable anchor shareholders and balanced growth.
- Cultural and human resilience. Adaptability under stress, collective trust and the ability to shift mental models when the world changes.
- Physical and digital resilience. Supply chain redesign, technology modernization, robust cloud architecture and cybersecurity protections.
A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Likewise, a company is only as resilient as the layer most at risk.
I have seen boards that pride themselves on financial strength. But a weak culture can undo all of it in weeks. The weakest link always finds you.
The Governance Gap
The urgency is clear. Reuters reported in August 2024 that Norway’s $1.7 trillion sovereign wealth fund is pressing companies to build AI competence at the board level, signaling investors now see AI oversight as a governance issue.
And the gaps remain wide. A CSIRO/Alphinity study published in 2024 found only around 40% of boards have formal AI ethics expertise or structured AI governance in place. Most remain in Lens One or Lens Two.
This is the inflection point. We don’t have the luxury of waiting until every framework is perfect. Directors must begin the shift now, even if imperfectly. Every director knows the pace of disruption does not slow while frameworks catch up.
The Mindset Shift
Oversight of AI cannot be reduced to dashboards and reports. As Harvard Law scholars noted in October 2023, boards must expand their view beyond strategy and risk to the societal and ethical implications of AI.
This requires a mindset shift. Directors must stop seeing AI as a narrow efficiency tool and begin recognizing it as a transformative force in governance itself.
And let’s be clear: This is not about turning directors into data scientists. It is about sharpening judgment, not replacing it.
Clarity Is a Choice
The ophthalmologist never tells you which lens is clearer. They flip the options, but you decide when the picture is sharp.
The same is true in governance. AI provides sharper lenses, but directors hold the prescription.
The future of governance is not about handing authority to algorithms. It is about using AI to cut through clutter, focus judgment and build systemic resilience.
AI sharpens. Directors lead. And clarity — systemic, ethical and strategic — is the board’s ultimate responsibility.