Sebastian Avercombe · Chief Strategy Officer · Canada

I would ask whether the evidence supports the undertaking being requested.

My contribution to a board

I could contribute a disciplined examination of the inference connecting management's evidence to the commitment it requests. A proposal may contain accurate observations while drawing a stronger conclusion than those observations support. My experience includes identifying that gap and, in the customer-interest case, accepting that I had helped create it. I would want to bring both parts of that record into a board discussion. The contribution should make the reasoning more inspectable, rather than imply that a strategist can decide every specialist question around the proposal.

I would also ask how a strategic choice changes the institution's combined commitments. Nine initiatives can each be defensible while their common demands on accountable leadership remain unresolved. An exit can be appropriate while existing customers continue to require resources. Those questions connect the board's view of direction with the consequences management needs to explain. They do not require directors to take over programme scheduling or individual account decisions. My usefulness would depend on keeping that distinction clear when experience tempts me to move too quickly into execution.

A further contribution would be to examine the alternative that has disappeared from the account. When two regions are deferred, the opportunity cost and basis for reconsideration should remain understandable. When a transaction does not proceed, assessment expense should not vanish from the narrative. I would ask for a comparison that carries the inconvenient consequence on both sides, including the preferred recommendation. That is a proposed contribution grounded in this invented executive record, not evidence that I have already exercised statutory oversight.

Capacity and preferences

Time available: 20 days per year
Current directorships: 0
Sectors: Business banking · Financial services for owner-managed companies · Institutions reconsidering the sequence of their growth commitments
Company type: An established institution with clearly assigned executive and professional authorities
Company stage: An organisation choosing among competing growth opportunities or examining the responsibilities retained after a strategic change

The seat I am pursuing

I would consider a first non-executive appointment where experience of institutional choice adds to expertise already present. A banking or related service organisation examining growth sequence, strategic fit or a change in direction could be relevant. The chair would need to assess whether the questions I bring are useful to that particular board. I could consider participation in a suitably defined strategy or transformation committee, but my executive record does not establish committee-chair competence.

There are no statutory appointments in this fictional chronology. The earlier director title was functional, and executive board presentations are recorded on that limited basis. I would want the distinction retained in any search account. The proposed seat would involve collective oversight and responsibility, with preparation appropriate to the institution. It would not extend my current strategy delegation into another organisation or turn a well-developed public narrative into proof of eligibility.

Committee contribution

Chair and member readiness
Capacity	Committees
Ready to join	A strategy or transformation committee whose established remit fits my experience

Judgement in practice

The acquisition rationale changed when reach was examined

The 2015 proposal concerned 180 advisory-business relationships, of which 112 already matched bank customers. In an executive role I challenged the claim that the total represented new reach. At board level I would ask whether the strategic case distinguishes additional relationships from deeper existing ones, and which evidence supports the proposed benefit. The unmatched sixty-eight should not quietly become a conversion forecast. Nor should a useful strategy question replace valuation, legal or risk advice.

The C$740, 000 diligence expense matters to that discussion. It records a cost of reaching the decision, without proving that continuing would have been better. I would want management to explain the conclusion without either hiding the expense or treating it as a reason to proceed regardless of the evidence. The example demonstrates a question I could help formulate; it does not make me a transaction specialist or establish a quantified loss avoided by the rejected proposal.

A strategic exit did not remove the existing customer population

The 2025 segment review retained 4500 existing accounts after the decision to stop pursuing new business there. Its two-year operating plan included C$3.2 million for support and transition. I would ask a board to distinguish the intended change in future activity from the responsibilities that continued. The expense was a plan for work, not an accounting provision or a claim about what could be charged to customers.

The scrutiny should remain connected to the appropriate authorities. Customer, contract, conduct and risk owners would explain the obligations and proposed treatment; directors would examine whether management's account was sufficient for the decision. I would not interpret the strategic label as permission to close accounts or direct individual outcomes. The case is useful because the continuing expense complicates the headline while making the actual choice clearer. A board should be able to understand that complication before relying on a simplified exit narrative.

My first year on a board

During an initial year I would start by understanding how the institution reaches and revisits its major commitments. I would examine the board's materials, committee responsibilities and the route by which professional advice reaches a decision. I would want to know how management distinguishes an approved strategic direction from the separate authorities needed to carry it out. Familiarity with one bank's planning process would not establish that another organisation works on the same basis.

I would spend time understanding the customer proposition and the financial account supporting it. Company assets, income, expense and delegated authority describe different things, and the board's discussion needs the distinctions relevant to its decisions. I would seek induction from the responsible people rather than infer the business model from a few comparable numbers. Where my knowledge was insufficient, I would identify the learning required instead of allowing confidence in strategy work to conceal the gap.

My initial availability would be twenty days a year, conditional on the real calendar, employer agreement and the demands of the seat. I would examine preparation, committee work and periods of exceptional attention alongside scheduled meetings. I could not responsibly treat that initial estimate as a fixed ceiling. A review with the chair would need to consider whether the contribution was useful and whether the commitment remained realistic, with any change addressed before it became an unspoken limitation.

Conflicts and their management

I would disclose my current employment, relevant advisory relationships, customer connections and personal interests for an institution-specific assessment. A possible competitor, transaction counterpart or connected business could raise questions that a general statement of independence would not answer. The appropriate review would need the actual facts and applicable advice. I would also consider a confidentiality boundary: material encountered through executive work cannot become evidence shared casually with another board or placed on a public website.

I would want a clear process for handling a conflict that arises after appointment, including when to seek advice and step out of a discussion. The need for that process should not be treated as evidence that every potential conflict can be managed acceptably. Some circumstances could make a role unsuitable. This fictional profile therefore states a willingness to undergo assessment, without implying that the current employer has granted permission or that an appointing institution has already reached a conclusion.

My independence statement

An appointing institution would need to examine my employer, advisory, customer and personal connections before reaching any independence conclusion. I would provide the relevant disclosures and seek the permissions required for the particular role. A career in strategy does not settle eligibility or independence.

Board and committee exposure

Presented to the Board or a committee

Westravell Bank

Board

October 2018 — present

Present strategic alternatives, initiative sequencing and the consequences of changing direction as an executive. This exposure does not constitute a statutory directorship.

Governance learning and readiness

IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered

Indian independent-director databank registration is not completed in this fictional record. Any Indian opportunity would require a current assessment of preparation and applicable requirements. No exemption or automatic eligibility is asserted.

I am developing the distinction between sponsoring an executive recommendation and examining it collectively as a director.
Preparation would include the institution’s financial reporting, customer obligations, governance arrangements and the responsibilities of the proposed seat.
I would seek specific induction rather than assume that familiar banking language means another institution has the same authorities or business model.