Directors flag gaps in board expertise: PwC

Board competence is becoming a live issue. The share of directors who believe a peer's insufficient expertise warrants removal nearly doubled year-on-year, according to a PwC survey – a shift that signals serious discomfort with capability gaps at the top table.

This matters beyond boardroom politics. Expertise deficits directly affect governance quality: climate transition planning, financial risk oversight, ESG accountability. If boards lack specialists in these areas, they cannot credibly challenge management or set strategic direction.

The survey doesn't detail which expertise areas directors flagged most – energy transition, cybersecurity, supply chain resilience – but the breadth of concern is notable. It suggests boards are moving beyond ritualistic diversity metrics (age, gender, nationality) toward functional capability assessment.

This creates practical pressure. Boards must either upskill sitting directors rapidly, recruit specialists, or restructure committee composition to concentrate expertise where it matters. Each option has trade-offs: retaining underperformers damages board culture; rotating out experienced members risks institutional knowledge loss; heavy recruitment cycles may exclude strong internal candidates.

The underlying tension is unresolved: most boards operate by seniority and tenure rather than demonstrated mastery in critical domains. Until recruitment and renewal processes explicitly weight technical depth – and compensation structures reward it – expertise gaps will persist.

What capability blind spots are boards most likely to tolerate?