Spencer Stuart’s recent director pulse survey on specialized directors emphasizes the perceived value of well-rounded directors who are favorably positioned to meaningfully weigh in on the increasing number of topics that are deemed to fall within the board’s purview over “issue-expert” or “specialized” directors, who may enhance the board’s oversight in a particular area, but are perceived to be limited in their ability to contribute to board discussions and deliberations across numerous matters outside their expertise.
Based on a survey of 502 directors, of about 1,100 issue-expert directors appointed over the past three years, 45% had financial expertise; 30% had digital/tech expertise; and 23% had cyber expertise, as shown here:
At nearly 20%, “Other” included, e.g., industry or sector expertise, product or innovation background, and/or global experience.
Among the concerns expressed by respondents about issue-expert directors were their tendency to focus the board on their areas of expertise and/or to defer to the balance of the board or be tuned out by other directors on topics outside their areas of expertise.
In lieu of issue-expert directors, respondents identified advisory councils, external consultants, topic-focused committees, director education, and management expertise, as tools boards can consider to attain the desired expertise.