1

By Dr. Robert Straw, CEO Zurich Campus, China Europe International Business School

In an era marked by volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity (VUCA), the effectiveness of a corporate board depends not only on the technical depth of its members but also on the breadth of their strategic and leadership capabilities. This article argues for recalibrating board composition, particularly in global corporations. It contends that the trend of appointing domain-specific experts to the board—a model likened here to a “Noah’s Ark” of paired expertise—is increasingly ineffective. Instead, the most resilient and high-functioning boards are those led by generalist leaders: former chief executive officers (CEOs), senior executives and operational general managers with track records of strategic oversight and people leadership. I propose a hybrid model that favors generalist board composition, supplemented by specialist consultants as needed, thus maintaining the board’s strategic integrity while ensuring subject-matter rigor.

1. The “Noah’s Ark” problem in boardrooms

Across many global boardrooms today, a familiar pattern has taken hold—a structure that mirrors the Biblical Noah’s Ark. For every critical domain, boards are stacked two by two: two cybersecurity experts, two marketing authorities, two finance veterans, two talent gurus, et cetera. The intent is risk mitigation and representation, ensuring every discipline has a voice. Yet this Noah’s Ark strategy, while symbolically complete, is strategically flawed.

Rather than charting a bold course, these boards often resemble floating zoos of expertise, in which directors are isolated by often outdated specialties and are overly deferential to their functional peers. As each pair narrows its focus to its specific discipline, the board risks losing the cross-functional integration and strategic oversight essential to corporate governance. This leads to fragmented accountability, outdated expertise and authority bias—quite often to the advantage of and/or burden on the chairperson.

Roberta Sydney explicitly critiqued this model. “Generalists—rather than specialists—make for great board directors…to be better prepared to govern in times of uncertainty.” The problem is not that specialists lack value; it’s that the permanence of their board seats can create intellectual silos and stagnation.

The academic literature supports this observation. Yaron Nili and Roy Shapira noted in the Yale Journal on Regulation that appointing specialists may, in fact, reduce the diversity and quality of strategic debate. “Authority bias leads to suppression of diverse viewpoints,” they argued, “particularly when the specialist has been recruited under the premise of exclusivity of knowledge.”

The alternative is to rethink the ark: not as a static collection of experts, but as a vessel guided by navigators—generalist leaders who can synthesize, question and direct. These are individuals who have operated companies, not just departments; who have balanced growth and risk, not just analyzed it; who bring perspective, not just credentials.

In this article, I argue that the future of corporate governance lies not in Noah’s Ark duplication of expertise, but in empowering generalist captains who can integrate functional insights and steer with strategic clarity. Functional experts should remain part of the picture—as consultants, advisory panelists or rotating guest participants—but not permanent fixtures at the helm.

2. The limitations of specialist-dominated boards

2.1 Obsolescence of expertise

Expertise, particularly in rapidly evolving fields such as cybersecurity or digital marketing, has a half-life. A director whose reputation is grounded in achievements from a decade ago may no longer be equipped to handle contemporary challenges in that domain. As Sydney remarked, “Expertise earned in the past can easily become obsolete when not continually tested in real-time environments.”

Nili and Shapira found that directors labeled as specialists often experienced a depreciation of influence over time, especially when their technical knowledge failed to align with emerging trends or technologies. In effect, these directors may inadvertently become liabilities rather than assets.

2.2 Authority bias and groupthink

When boards rely heavily on domain specialists, they risk developing a cognitive dependency on those individuals, leading to authority bias. This creates a boardroom dynamic in which certain directors dominate conversations in their areas of specialized expertise, while other members hesitate to challenge or question their contributions.

As Nili and Shapira noted, “Authority bias leads to suppression of diverse viewpoints, particularly when the specialist has been recruited under the premise of exclusivity of knowledge.”

This contributes to groupthink, which may hinder the board’s ability to critically evaluate, discuss and challenge strategic decisions from a multi-dimensional perspective.

2.3 Fragmented oversight and responsibility silos

A board composed of function-specific experts risks devolving into a confederation of silos. Each director may focus narrowly on his or her area, resulting in an aggregation of perspectives rather than an integrated strategic vision. This is antithetical to the board’s purpose, which is to provide overarching governance and align on long-term value creation.

Moreover, these silos can lead to poor communication and accountability. For example, cybersecurity may be deemed “handled” because a former chief information security officer (CISO) is on the board, but this individual may not be aligned with current best practices or may fail to integrate the issue into a broader risk framework.

2.4 Firms exemplifying the Noah’s Ark-like board composition

According to my framework evaluation, the following companies have (had) boards predominantly composed of domain-specific experts, which may lead to fragmented oversight and a lack of cohesive strategic direction:

1. Credit Suisse Group AG
   • Prior to its acquisition by UBS in 2023, Credit Suisse’s board was heavily populated with specialists in risk management, compliance and technology.
   • The lack of generalist leadership contributed to challenges in strategic oversight and cohesive decision-making. We all know what happened here.
2. Synopsys Inc.
   • The board includes individuals with deep expertise in software, semiconductors and related technical fields.
   • While this brings valuable insights, in my view, the board lacks a sufficient number of generalist leaders with broad operational experience.
3. Ansys Inc.
   • Ansys’s board comprises individuals with substantial experience in the engineering and technology sectors.
   • The composition leans heavily towards technical expertise, potentially limiting broader strategic perspectives.
4. Dell Technologies
   • The board is composed of members with extensive backgrounds in technology and engineering.
   • This concentration of technical expertise may result in a narrower focus on operational and strategic issues.
5. NVIDIA Corporation
   • NVIDIA’s board includes several members with strong technical backgrounds in graphics processing and computing.
   • While beneficial for product development, this may limit diverse strategic viewpoints at the board level.

3. The strategic value of generalist leadership

3.1 Systems thinking and integration

General managers bring a systems-oriented perspective, honed by years of operational leadership, cross-functional collaboration and enterprise accountability. Unlike specialists, they are not confined by functional dogma and are more adept at evaluating trade-offs, interdependencies and strategic timing.

Generalists also tend to excel in scenario planning, a crucial skill in the VUCA landscape. Their exposures to multiple business cycles, regulatory environments and stakeholder contexts equip them to contextualize issues that transcend functional boundaries.

3.2 Leadership and people-management acumen

Boards are not merely technical advisory bodies; they are fiduciary stewards responsible for setting the tone, culture and long-term direction. As such, directors need more than technical knowledge—they require leadership. Generalists who have led large teams and managed significant P&Ls (profits and losses) bring firsthand knowledge of how strategic decisions impact people, performance and profit.

As Roberta Sydney put it, “Great board members are not those with the narrowest expertise but those with the broadest capacity to lead, challenge, and support from a holistic standpoint.”

3.3 Enhanced strategic dialogue and decision-making

Strategic oversight requires directors to ask the right questions, not just provide the right answers. Generalists, with their cross-functional experience, are often better positioned to identify gaps in strategy and explore unintended consequences. They can bridge specialists’ knowledge without becoming trapped in it.

The National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD) has emphasized that effective boards engage in strategic conversations that go beyond operational details. This necessitates board members who can traverse diverse domains and synthesize insights.

3.4 Seven global firms with best-in-class generalist boards

Here are seven “best-in-class” global firms with board compositions that reflect their strong commitments to generalist leadership, strategic breadth and cross-functional oversight. These boards embody the antithesis of the Noah’s Ark model by prioritizing operational experience, enterprise leadership and integrative thinking over siloed technical specialization.

1. Best Buy Co., Inc.

• Why it stands out: Includes seasoned CEOs (Corie Barry, Hubert Joly) and chief financial officers (CFOs) (Karen McLoughlin), blending operational, digital and financial acumen.
• Governance strength: The board is involved in long-range planning and organizational culture, not just functional compliance.

2. Nestlé S.A.

• Why it stands out: Features former CEOs (Paul Bulcke), global executives and experts in nutrition, marketing and ESG (environmental, social and governance).
• Governance strength: Diversity of leadership backgrounds contributes to long-term strategic alignment across global markets. P.S.: There’s not a single Swiss on the board, although it is Swiss-based.

3. Microsoft Corporation

• Why it stands out: Strong mix of tech innovators (Satya Nadella, Reid Hoffman), policy leaders (Penny Pritzker) and investors (Hugh Johnston).
• Governance strength: The board’s composition enables foresight in innovation and adaptability to policy and market shifts.

4. Unilever PLC

• Why it stands out: Board members have held leadership positions across consumer goods, sustainability and emerging markets.
• Governance strength: Emphasizes a purpose-driven strategy with operational execution.

5. Procter & Gamble Co.

• Why it stands out: Broad operational experience across marketing, international business and corporate strategy.
• Governance strength: The board is known for supporting long-term innovation while managing scale and complexity globally.

6. ABB Ltd.

• Why it stands out: Chaired by Peter Voser (former Shell CEO) with board members including industrial CEOs, CFOs and operational leaders (e.g., Atlas Copco, Caterpillar Inc.).
• Governance strength: Industrial and engineering complexity is matched by real-world general-management experience across sectors and geographies.

7. UBS Group AG

• Why it stands out: Although historically more specialized, the current board reflects a shift towards generalist leadership: banking CEOs (Gail Kelly), macroeconomists (William Dudley), policy advisors and digital leaders. This board has learned from the Credit Suisse debacle, ensuring that it moves towards a more generalist approach.
• Governance strength: Increasing emphasis on governance, geopolitical awareness and technology strategy with global integration.

4. The hybrid model: Generalists with consultative experts

A growing number of governance experts advocate a hybrid model in which boards are composed primarily of generalist leaders while subject-matter experts are brought in on an ad hoc or consultative basis. This model preserves the board’s strategic bandwidth while still incorporating the latest expertise in fast-moving domains.

The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance wrote, “Adding a director with a narrow range of expertise may reduce the quality of board discussions on other, more prevalent topics on the agenda. A better approach is to access specialist knowledge via external advisors or advisory boards.”

This approach is not merely theoretical. Many high-performing boards have established external advisory panels or rotate in technical experts for specific strategic reviews or quarterly deep dives. These consultants provide real-time insights without permanently altering the board’s structure or diluting its strategic cohesion.

5. Global governance implications

Global organizations require directors who understand international markets, regulatory systems and geopolitical dynamics. Generalists who have managed operations in multiple regions bring nuanced perspectives that specialists often lack. Their broader worldview is essential in aligning global strategy with local execution.

General managers are more likely to bring experience from multiple sectors, enabling boards to cross-pollinate ideas and practices. In contrast, specialists often have deep but narrow experiences, which can limit innovation or relevance across different contexts.

Generalists tend to be better crisis managers. Having led through downturns, restructurings and transformations, they are equipped to make swift, principled decisions under pressure. Their presence on the board strengthens institutional resilience.

6. Recommendations for board-composition policy

• Prioritize leadership track records in board recruitment.

Search committees and nominating boards should place greater emphasis on operational-leadership experience rather than on recent technical expertise. Candidates should be evaluated on their ability to synthesize, challenge constructively and lead across functions.

• Establish standing advisory councils.

Rather than embedding all needed expertise within the board, organizations should institutionalize external advisory councils composed of domain experts who can be called upon for in-depth consultations.

• Conduct regular composition audits.

Boards should assess their composition annually to ensure alignment with strategic needs, not just with compliance checklists. This includes identifying whether a board has become too narrow in its functional expertise and whether it retains integrative thinkers.

• Educate about governance over expertise.

Board-onboarding programs should stress fiduciary responsibility, enterprise leadership and strategic oversight rather than domain mastery. General governance capabilities should be cultivated and prioritized.

Conclusion

The composition of a board is one of the most powerful levers for corporate performance. In a globalized, fast-changing environment, boards must be able to operate above the fray of specialist silos. The evidence increasingly supports a model that privileges generalist leadership, enriched by specialist insight when needed but not dominated by it.

Don’t fill the ark—staff the bridge: Boards need navigators, not more passengers.

By adopting a generalist-first philosophy in board appointments, global corporations can foster more integrated thinking, sharper strategic oversight and greater institutional resilience. The Noah’s Ark model of expert duplication is outdated; what boards need today are strategic navigators who can steer through complexity—not passengers who specialize in reading one part of the map.

Cop30 nearly went up in smoke – quite literally when a fire broke out in the conference centre. While the official statements talk about the historic success of the negotiations, a closer look at the results reveals a more fractured reality. Mired in geopolitical tensions, there were no clear winners. While some progress was made, the lack of a US delegation left a gaping hole in leadership; one that China was well positioned to take up, but failed to step up on its commitments.

With no one to put pressure on other economies like China and petrostates to take more responsibility, there was a lack of consensus and deep division on key issues. An effort to adopt a plan to phase out fossil fuels was dropped, and there was very little pressure on the shortfall in national climate commitments. The lack of a transition away from fossil fuels nearly derailed negotiations and in the end no mention of fossil fuels was made.

“Despite the disagreements over an explicit plan for the transition away from fossil fuels, the Paris Agreement implicitly mandates this as it is impossible [to] meet its goals without the replacement of dirty energy with clean alternatives across the world,” said Nicholas Stern, chair of the Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics.

Instead, leadership on transitioning away from fossil fuels is happening outside Cop, with the governments of Colombia and the Netherlands announcing their own international conference on the just transition away from fossil fuels, hoping to fill the gap that Cop30 has failed to address.

Still, it wasn’t all doom and gloom. Some measures were passed, including efforts on adaptation, just transition and climate finance. It also succeeded in putting more people impacted by climate change at the heart of the discussions, with a record number of Indigenous Peoples attending.

Adaptation finance to triple by 2035

On adaptation, Cop30 delivered what Stern called “genuine progress” with a pledge to triple the finance goal from US$40bn to $120bn annually by 2035. Yet this five-year delay from the 2030 timeline proposed by climate vulnerable nations leaves frontline communities without the necessary support to “match the escalating needs they are facing now”, said Mohamed Adow of Powershift Africa.

In Belém, parties formalised the Baku Adaptation Roadmap, a 2026-2028 work programme for operationalising adaptation goals, including support for vulnerable nations to develop national adaptation plans. A comprehensive set of 59 voluntary, non-prescriptive indicators to track progress under the Global Goal on Adaptation was also finalised at the summit, representing a significant step forward for transparency and accountability.

But there’s a flaw: no dedicated funding or clear mechanism was introduced to require rich countries to actually deliver adaptation finance. While the summit’s presidency promised adaptation would no longer be secondary to mitigation, the final text merely “urges” rich nations “to increase the trajectory of their collective provision of climate finance for adaptation”.

Consequently, there are fears those most exposed to, and least responsible for, climate impacts will be left to pick up the bill. Mamadou Ndong Toure of Practical Action in Senegal argued that: “Adaptation cannot be built on shrinking commitments; people on the frontline need predictable, accountable support.” Without binding finance, there is a danger adaptation goals remain aspirational.

Groundbreaking just transition mechanism established, but finance gap threatens delivery

Another serious institutional achievement of this year’s Cop was the establishment of the Belém Action Mechanism on Just Transition, following years of civil society pressure. The mechanism commits to providing technical assistance, capacity-building and knowledge sharing to ensure the transition away from fossil fuels supports workers and communities.

The new mechanism provides concrete steps towards implementation and ensures just transition will remain on the agenda at future summits.

Karabo Mokgonyana of Power Shift Africa celebrated the outcome, noting it had “finally grounded just transition in justice” by recognising equity, inclusivity, and the developmental needs of workers and communities, not just sectors or technologies as previous iterations did.

However, its effectiveness depends entirely on implementation. As Friederike Strub of Recourse Finance cautioned: “To make just transition happen we need public finance backing, systemic economic reform, and a clear roadmap to end fossil fuels.”

A critical concern remains that multilateral development banks (MDBs), which are expected to finance just transition projects, continue funding fossil fuels. With 73% of MDB climate finance delivered as loans rather than grants – often tied to austerity conditions – and MDBs actively promoting gas as a “transition fuel,” countries risk being locked into extractive models that directly contradict just transition principles.

Loss and damage fund launches

The final text also included a review of the Warsaw mechanism for loss and damage, the UN’s core policy framework for supporting countries on the frontlines of climate impacts. Financing for loss and damage has long been a fraught topic at previous Cops, with progress painfully slow: about $789m has been pledged to the fund but only around $432m is actually in the fund’s account.

At Cop30, the fund launched its first call for funding requests with US$250m in grants allocated for 2025–2026. Applications open on 15 December, with countries given six months to submit proposals.

Harjeet Singh, global engagement director at the Fossil Fuel Non‑Proliferation Treaty Initiative, argued that while the institutional architecture is now “fit for purpose”, money remains the missing piece: “A system cannot rebuild a home without money. Bureaucratic pledges cannot feed a family whose crops have failed.”

Two-year work programme on climate finance

Climate finance wasn’t one of the main agenda items but it ended up playing a key role during Cop. One of the efforts included the launch of a two-year work programme on climate finance with a focus on article 9 of the Paris Agreement which states that countries “shall provide” climate finance. This usually means public financing, but the $300bn a year goal from last year’s Cop includes public and private finance.

This has caused some debate, as developing countries argue it allows developed countries to meet the goal without increasing their contributions.

Instead, a compromise was reached to include a two-year roadmap on how to implement article 9, including the provision on country obligations which will be co-chaired by representatives from developing and developed countries.

This is part of a larger financing goal to $1.3tn, known as the Baku to Belém roadmap. While the roadmap delayed implementation by five years from 2030 to 2035, it includes practical steps on how to drive investment, said Ani Dasgupta, president and CEO of the World Resources Institute.

“Announcements throughout the week, from risk guarantees to country platforms, showed that these ideas are already moving from concept to implementation,” Dasgupta said.

$6.6bn in funding for Brazil’s Tropical Forest Forever Facility

Despite momentum around Brazil’s Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF), the final outcome did not include a commitment to tackling deforestation. Still, Cop30 president André Aranha Corrêa do Lago said the Brazilian presidency would work on creating roadmaps on deforestation outside of Cop.

The final text did emphasise the importance of halting deforestation by 2030 to meet the Paris Agreement, but earlier drafts to reverse deforestation were left out

Brazil’s TFFF was hailed as a milestone by the Cop30 presidency, after it secured $6.6bn in funding from Germany, Norway, Brazil, Portugal, France and the Netherlands. The aim is to pay countries to keep their tropical forests instead of allowing them to be destroyed. It hopes to secure $25bn in funding to help support 74 tropical forest countries including Brazil and those in the Congo basin.

However, some have questioned how effective the fund will be without binding government rules to stop harmful logging practices, as well as concerns about the financial risk and very little involvement with Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

Critical minerals removed from final text

The removal of all references to critical minerals governance from the final text ranks among the summit’s most consequential failures. Despite vocal support from the African Group of Negotiators and the Alliance of Small Island States, draft language on “social and environmental risks” in mining and “responsible” mineral processing was deleted in final negotiations.

China’s delegation led the opposition, citing a lack of consensus on definitions and potential damage to Chinese business interests, according to observers speaking to Dialogue Earth. Yet the stakes are undeniable. “Minerals are the backbone of the shift away from fossil fuels,” warned Antonio Hill of the Natural Resource Governance Institute. “Leaving their governance out of just-transition planning will undermine efforts to accelerate renewable energies by 2030.”

Beyond Cop’s negotiating rooms, African leaders are charting their own course. At a high-level dialogue held ahead of the G20 summit, senior policymakers outlined a pan-African strategic plan for turning mineral wealth into negotiating power.

Panellists stressed the importance of harmonised, robust ESG standards as well as a home-grown regional green mineral development fund. They also insisted technology transfers – another commitment cut from Cop30’s final text – must be “non-negotiable” for partners relying on the continent’s abundant mineral wealth to drive their own green industrialisation going forward.

Marit Kitaw, former director of the African Union’s Minerals Development Centre who appeared on the panel, framed the challenge in comments on LinkedIn: “Africa holds the mineral ingredients for the global energy transition. The question is: is Africa ready to lead, to bargain, to industrialise, and become a rule-maker?”

“[It’s] maybe the single most important reason for whatever success I’ve had,” he told the renowned Odd Lots podcast this week. “Meaning, it has given me an equanimity to step back, to see the arc, to accept there’s a life cycle.”

Dalio often describes major crises and events in terms of cycles, and he referenced meditation as the thing that lets him step outside himself long enough to see reality clearly, rather than get caught up in headlines. But in the Odd Lots interview, he also made clear what he does with that clarity: He uses it to map out cause-and-effect relationships. 

For Dalio, meditation creates the mental distance he needs to see events—markets, politics, human conflict—as linked chains rather than emotional shocks. That lens is so central to his worldview that he referenced it over and over:

“If you understand the cause-effect relationships … you can be ahead of the game. The causes happen before the effects.”

He talks about politics this way, too. Instead of seeing polarization as chaos, he thinks about the “mechanics” that produce it: incentives, cycles, interest groups, constraints. He isn’t judging them morally; he’s trying to understand how each variable begets the others.

Meditation, he says, is what lets him make that shift away from the instinct to react. 

“You align the subliminal and the intellectual mind … while still feeling the emotions, but being able to look down on them and ask: How does reality work?”

Dalio’s perspective echoes core Buddhist ideas far more than the conventional Wall Street training. In much of Buddhist thought, the world is a web of causes and conditions: pratītyasamutpāda, or dependent origination. Everything arises from something else, and clinging to how we wish things were is what creates suffering, rather than the event itself. Dalio doesn’t use Buddhist language, but he describes almost the same process: Don’t impose your preferences, don’t treat incidents as isolated, and don’t get trapped in your immediate emotional reaction.

On investors who meditate

Dalio isn’t the only investor who sees meditation as part of the job. Ivan Feinseth, another longtime research analyst, has practiced Transcendental Meditation since 1978, when Maharishi Mahesh Yogi—the leader of the movement—visited his New Jersey high school.

The routine Feinseth describes is simple: You sit, breathe, and repeat a mantra until your thoughts stop becoming intrusions and instead flow naturally, to the extent that you can observe them. The effect he describes is almost identical to Dalio’s. 

“It does center you and relax you and calm you,” Feinseth told Fortune. “I get answers to questions … Many times I’m thinking about something and, after I meditate, I’ve found a solution.” 

Sometimes it’s trivial, like realizing his neighbor could fix a garage door with a side-mounted motor that he remembered seeing years ago (“We do have an incredibly accurate memory”). Other times, it’s the structure of a major research report or the right way into a thorny market call.

“Once you start to relax, things become clearer,” he said. “Sometimes the best way to think about something is not thinking about something.”

Few professions blur emotion and logic like investing, Feinseth argued.

“People act emotionally and then use logic to justify an emotional reaction,” he said. Meditation doesn’t remove that dynamic, but it can help keep you from participating in it, especially during selloffs that are obviously out of step with fundamentals.

Research on mindfulness has shown mixed but meaningful effects on investor decision-making. A 2020 thesis on mindfulness and trading found no reduction in overconfidence and even higher anchoring among more mindful traders. However, a research brief from investment firm Addepar argues that mindfulness can interrupt biased, stress-driven reactions by shifting cognition from the amygdala to the prefrontal cortex, creating a pause before acting. 

In practice, mindfulness means noticing a fear response during a selloff without immediately selling; recognizing when a familiar narrative is shaping an investment thesis; or stepping back from recency-driven overconfidence. Meditation doesn’t eliminate biases, but it provides a structure for identifying and disrupting them, the authors argue. 

Dalio, it appears, would agree.

“Whatever success in life I’ve had,” Dalio said, “is more because I know how to deal with what I don’t know, than anything.”