Make the alternative visible before asking for approval

I distinguish the board's responsibility to oversee from management's responsibility to decide and execute. That boundary does not make the board passive. It makes the questions more consequential. Directors should understand the choices management is making, the evidence supporting them and the conditions that would require a different response. They should also know which decisions have effectively been made before a proposal reaches the board, through customer commitments, hiring or expenditure. A formal approval process is less useful when the practical alternatives have already disappeared.

As chief executive and an executive director, I have an obligation to make those alternatives visible. I do not regard a well-presented recommendation as sufficient. A material paper should explain the option we rejected, the cost of our preferred course and the assumptions that matter most. In the deposit programme, that meant showing the expected funding expense associated with diversification. In the connected-credit programme, it meant admitting that a gradual transition would retain concentration for longer. Directors were entitled to examine those choices rather than receive only the proposed benefit.

I want committee reporting to preserve the connection between measures and action. A risk committee may receive a concentration figure, an audit committee a control finding and the full board a growth plan. If those papers describe the same dependency without acknowledging it, the structure of governance can fragment the institution's understanding. I ask executive owners to identify those connections and agree where the decision belongs. More committees do not automatically create more oversight. Clear ownership and an intelligible account of unresolved matters are more useful than repeated presentations of similar information.

The quality of challenge depends partly on what happens after a director asks an awkward question. If management responds defensively or floods the next pack with detail, the question may be technically answered and practically discouraged. I try to establish what decision the director is testing and what evidence would be useful. Sometimes the answer is that we do not yet know. I prefer that admission with a defined next step to a confident response assembled from information that does not address the concern. Uncertainty should have an owner and a review date, not merely a reassuring adjective.

I also expect the board to understand where management has accepted a residual limitation. Our payment exercise corrected particular weaknesses but did not test every possible disruption. Reporting a successful repeat without that boundary would invite directors to infer more assurance than the evidence supported. We therefore describe the conditions, the observers, the unresolved dependencies and the work still required. This is not an argument for endless testing before making a decision. It is an argument for being precise about the basis on which the decision is made.

Succession is another area where the board and chief executive need different but connected views. I am responsible for developing leaders and ensuring that important operating knowledge does not sit with one person. The board must assess whether the executive succession process is credible, including for my own role. I want that discussion to include the work each candidate has actually owned, the decisions they have made under disagreement and the experience they still need. A list of promising names is not a succession plan if no one is creating the assignments through which readiness can be tested.

In an external board role, I would bring these habits without assuming that another institution should copy our arrangements. I would first understand its ownership, maturity, obligations and information quality. I would work through the chair and committees, respect management's authority and seek specialist advice where my experience is insufficient. I would disclose conflicts early and reconsider an appointment if repeated exclusions prevented meaningful participation. The contribution I want to make is a disciplined examination of promises, dependencies and accountability. It should help a board make a clearer decision, not turn the boardroom into an extension of my executive office.