Board effectiveness, governance, and sustainability

Jeffrey Lawrence had spent more than two decades building a company he knew almost as well as he knew himself. He had been its Chief Executive Officer, made difficult decisions, recruited key people, navigated crises and helped position the organisation for growth. After his retirement, the company invited him to join its board. It seemed like a natural progression. Who better to have on the Board than someone who had successfully led the organisation? But Jeffrey soon discovered that there was a difference between knowing the business and knowing how to govern it. At one of his first board meetings, management presented a proposal on a strategic initiative. Jeffrey disagreed. Rather than simply questioning the assumptions, challenging the risks or offering his experience for management’s consideration, he began instructing the executives on what they should do. He called members of the management team, questioned operational decisions and insisted that his preferred approach should prevail. His intention was good. He wanted the company to succeed. But Jeffrey had forgotten something fundamental: his position had changed. He was no longer the CEO. He had moved from executing decisions to providing oversight, from directing people to influencing direction, and from managing the business to governing it. This distinction is at the heart of effective corporate governance. A board is not a shadow management team. Neither is it a collection of retired executives waiting to continue running the organisation from the boardroom. The board’s responsibility is to provide strategic guidance, exercise oversight, challenge management constructively, protect the interests of shareholders and stakeholders, and ensure that the organisation remains sustainable. The G20/OECD Principles of Corporate Governance similarly emphasise the board’s responsibility for strategic guidance, monitoring management performance, overseeing risk and ensuring accountability, while management remains responsible for execution. The difference may appear subtle, but it is fundamental. A board that attempts to manage everything can weaken management. A management team that believes it is beyond scrutiny can weaken governance. The result, in either case, is institutional confusion. An effective board should be able to ask difficult questions: Why are we pursuing this strategy? What assumptions support this investment? What happens if the market changes? What are the risks? Are we developing the people capable of taking this organisation into the future? These are governance questions. The board should challenge management robustly, but the objective should be to improve the quality of management’s decisions, not to demonstrate that directors know more than the executives. This is where diversity of knowledge and experience becomes extremely important. A good board brings together people who see the organisation from different angles: finance, law, technology, operations, human resources, risk, industry, customers, regulation and strategy. The value of the board is not simply the individual brilliance of its members but the quality of the collective conversation. One director may understand the industry deeply. Another may understand technology. Another may have experience in capital markets. Another may see a regulatory risk that everyone else has overlooked. The Chair’s responsibility is to create an environment where these different perspectives can be expressed, tested and synthesised into better decisions. That requires cordiality without complacency and challenge without hostility. A board should be able to disagree without becoming divided. Management should be able to disagree with a director without becoming defensive. The chief executive should feel sufficiently respected to explain why management has taken a particular position, while the board should retain the independence to challenge that position. That balance is essential. There is often an unhealthy perception that the Board must either dominate management or remain completely detached from it. Neither is correct but it is more predominant where board members are solely the owners of the business. The relationship should be one of constructive partnership with clearly defined responsibilities. The Board governs; management manages. The Board provides oversight; management executes. The Board asks whether the organisation is doing the right things and doing them responsibly; Management ensures those things are actually done. When these boundaries are respected, both sides become stronger. The OECD’s governance principles emphasise that effective governance depends on clear accountability, objective judgement, monitoring of management and appropriate oversight of succession planning. This is not about creating distance between the Board and management. It is about creating clarity. This is where my Infinite Stake Theory becomes relevant to the board role. I believe leaders should see themselves as having an infinite stake in the institutions they lead, even when their tenure is finite. The question should not simply be, “What did I achieve while I was there?” It should be: “What did I leave behind that can continue to create value after I have left?” This changes how leaders think about governance. An executive with an infinite stake does not build a business that depends entirely on his personality. He builds systems, develops people and creates institutional memory. Likewise, a Board with an infinite stake does not focus only on the next financial year. It asks whether the organisation will remain relevant, resilient and sustainable five, ten or twenty years from now. This may explain why some organisations appear to have survived leadership changes better than others. Their sustainability is rarely accidental. They have invested in institutional continuity. They have documented processes. They have developed talent. They have strong governance structures. They have an independent challenge. They have succession plans. And, importantly, they have leaders who understand that the organisation belongs to a future that they may never personally experience. To be continued….. Babs Olugbemi, FCCA, is the Chief Vision Officer at Mentoras Leadership Limited and Founder of Positive Growth Africa. He can be reached at [email protected] or 07064176953, or on X @Successbabs. Related News Complexity is expensive: Why simpler organisations often perform better Playing the devil’s advocate: Should Nigeria rethink its refineries? When policy exists but access still fails: The gap between reproductive health policy and practice in Lagos Babs Olugbemi Leadership Share

It seemed like a natural progression. Who better to have on the Board than someone who had successfully led the organisation? But Jeffrey soon discovered that there was a difference between knowing the business and knowing how to govern it. At one of his first board meetings, management presented a proposal on a strategic initiative. Jeffrey disagreed. Rather than simply questioning the assumptions, challenging the risks or offering his experience for management’s consideration, he began instructing the executives on what they should do. He called members of the management team, questioned operational decisions and insisted that his preferred approach should prevail. His intention was good. He wanted the company to succeed. But Jeffrey had forgotten something fundamental: his position had changed. He was no longer the CEO. He had moved from executing decisions to providing oversight, from directing people to influencing direction, and from managing the business to governing it. This distinction is at the heart of effective corporate governance. A board is not a shadow management team. Neither is it a collection of retired executives waiting to continue running the organisation from the boardroom. The board’s responsibility is to provide strategic guidance, exercise oversight, challenge management constructively, protect the interests of shareholders and stakeholders, and ensure that the organisation remains sustainable. The G20/OECD Principles of Corporate Governance similarly emphasise the board’s responsibility for strategic guidance, monitoring management performance, overseeing risk and ensuring accountability, while management remains responsible for execution. The difference may appear subtle, but it is fundamental. A board that attempts to manage everything can weaken management. A management team that believes it is beyond scrutiny can weaken governance. The result, in either case, is institutional confusion. An effective board should be able to ask difficult questions: Why are we pursuing this strategy? What assumptions support this investment? What happens if the market changes? What are the risks? Are we developing the people capable of taking this organisation into the future? These are governance questions. The board should challenge management robustly, but the objective should be to improve the quality of management’s decisions, not to demonstrate that directors know more than the executives. This is where diversity of knowledge and experience becomes extremely important. A good board brings together people who see the organisation from different angles: finance, law, technology, operations, human resources, risk, industry, customers, regulation and strategy. The value of the board is not simply the individual brilliance of its members but the quality of the collective conversation. One director may understand the industry deeply. Another may understand technology. Another may have experience in capital markets. Another may see a regulatory risk that everyone else has overlooked. The Chair’s responsibility is to create an environment where these different perspectives can be expressed, tested and synthesised into better decisions. That requires cordiality without complacency and challenge without hostility. A board should be able to disagree without becoming divided. Management should be able to disagree with a director without becoming defensive. The chief executive should feel sufficiently respected to explain why management has taken a particular position, while the board should retain the independence to challenge that position. That balance is essential. There is often an unhealthy perception that the Board must either dominate management or remain completely detached from it. Neither is correct but it is more predominant where board members are solely the owners of the business. The relationship should be one of constructive partnership with clearly defined responsibilities. The Board governs; management manages. The Board provides oversight; management executes. The Board asks whether the organisation is doing the right things and doing them responsibly; Management ensures those things are actually done. When these boundaries are respected, both sides become stronger. The OECD’s governance principles emphasise that effective governance depends on clear accountability, objective judgement, monitoring of management and appropriate oversight of succession planning. This is not about creating distance between the Board and management. It is about creating clarity. This is where my Infinite Stake Theory becomes relevant to the board role. I believe leaders should see themselves as having an infinite stake in the institutions they lead, even when their tenure is finite. The question should not simply be, “What did I achieve while I was there?” It should be: “What did I leave behind that can continue to create value after I have left?” This changes how leaders think about governance. An executive with an infinite stake does not build a business that depends entirely on his personality. He builds systems, develops people and creates institutional memory. Likewise, a Board with an infinite stake does not focus only on the next financial year. It asks whether the organisation will remain relevant, resilient and sustainable five, ten or twenty years from now. This may explain why some organisations appear to have survived leadership changes better than others. Their sustainability is rarely accidental. They have invested in institutional continuity. They have documented processes. They have developed talent. They have strong governance structures. They have an independent challenge. They have succession plans. And, importantly, they have leaders who understand that the organisation belongs to a future that they may never personally experience. To be continued….. Babs Olugbemi, FCCA, is the Chief Vision Officer at Mentoras Leadership Limited and Founder of Positive Growth Africa. He can be reached at [email protected] or 07064176953, or on X @Successbabs. Related News Complexity is expensive: Why simpler organisations often perform better Playing the devil’s advocate: Should Nigeria rethink its refineries? When policy exists but access still fails: The gap between reproductive health policy and practice in Lagos Babs Olugbemi Leadership Share

At one of his first board meetings, management presented a proposal on a strategic initiative. Jeffrey disagreed. Rather than simply questioning the assumptions, challenging the risks or offering his experience for management’s consideration, he began instructing the executives on what they should do. He called members of the management team, questioned operational decisions and insisted that his preferred approach should prevail. His intention was good. He wanted the company to succeed. But Jeffrey had forgotten something fundamental: his position had changed. He was no longer the CEO. He had moved from executing decisions to providing oversight, from directing people to influencing direction, and from managing the business to governing it. This distinction is at the heart of effective corporate governance. A board is not a shadow management team. Neither is it a collection of retired executives waiting to continue running the organisation from the boardroom. The board’s responsibility is to provide strategic guidance, exercise oversight, challenge management constructively, protect the interests of shareholders and stakeholders, and ensure that the organisation remains sustainable. The G20/OECD Principles of Corporate Governance similarly emphasise the board’s responsibility for strategic guidance, monitoring management performance, overseeing risk and ensuring accountability, while management remains responsible for execution. The difference may appear subtle, but it is fundamental. A board that attempts to manage everything can weaken management. A management team that believes it is beyond scrutiny can weaken governance. The result, in either case, is institutional confusion. An effective board should be able to ask difficult questions: Why are we pursuing this strategy? What assumptions support this investment? What happens if the market changes? What are the risks? Are we developing the people capable of taking this organisation into the future? These are governance questions. The board should challenge management robustly, but the objective should be to improve the quality of management’s decisions, not to demonstrate that directors know more than the executives. This is where diversity of knowledge and experience becomes extremely important. A good board brings together people who see the organisation from different angles: finance, law, technology, operations, human resources, risk, industry, customers, regulation and strategy. The value of the board is not simply the individual brilliance of its members but the quality of the collective conversation. One director may understand the industry deeply. Another may understand technology. Another may have experience in capital markets. Another may see a regulatory risk that everyone else has overlooked. The Chair’s responsibility is to create an environment where these different perspectives can be expressed, tested and synthesised into better decisions. That requires cordiality without complacency and challenge without hostility. A board should be able to disagree without becoming divided. Management should be able to disagree with a director without becoming defensive. The chief executive should feel sufficiently respected to explain why management has taken a particular position, while the board should retain the independence to challenge that position. That balance is essential. There is often an unhealthy perception that the Board must either dominate management or remain completely detached from it. Neither is correct but it is more predominant where board members are solely the owners of the business. The relationship should be one of constructive partnership with clearly defined responsibilities. The Board governs; management manages. The Board provides oversight; management executes. The Board asks whether the organisation is doing the right things and doing them responsibly; Management ensures those things are actually done. When these boundaries are respected, both sides become stronger. The OECD’s governance principles emphasise that effective governance depends on clear accountability, objective judgement, monitoring of management and appropriate oversight of succession planning. This is not about creating distance between the Board and management. It is about creating clarity. This is where my Infinite Stake Theory becomes relevant to the board role. I believe leaders should see themselves as having an infinite stake in the institutions they lead, even when their tenure is finite. The question should not simply be, “What did I achieve while I was there?” It should be: “What did I leave behind that can continue to create value after I have left?” This changes how leaders think about governance. An executive with an infinite stake does not build a business that depends entirely on his personality. He builds systems, develops people and creates institutional memory. Likewise, a Board with an infinite stake does not focus only on the next financial year. It asks whether the organisation will remain relevant, resilient and sustainable five, ten or twenty years from now. This may explain why some organisations appear to have survived leadership changes better than others. Their sustainability is rarely accidental. They have invested in institutional continuity. They have documented processes. They have developed talent. They have strong governance structures. They have an independent challenge. They have succession plans. And, importantly, they have leaders who understand that the organisation belongs to a future that they may never personally experience. To be continued….. Babs Olugbemi, FCCA, is the Chief Vision Officer at Mentoras Leadership Limited and Founder of Positive Growth Africa. He can be reached at [email protected] or 07064176953, or on X @Successbabs. Related News Complexity is expensive: Why simpler organisations often perform better Playing the devil’s advocate: Should Nigeria rethink its refineries? When policy exists but access still fails: The gap between reproductive health policy and practice in Lagos Babs Olugbemi Leadership Share

His intention was good. He wanted the company to succeed. But Jeffrey had forgotten something fundamental: his position had changed. He was no longer the CEO. He had moved from executing decisions to providing oversight, from directing people to influencing direction, and from managing the business to governing it. This distinction is at the heart of effective corporate governance. A board is not a shadow management team. Neither is it a collection of retired executives waiting to continue running the organisation from the boardroom. The board’s responsibility is to provide strategic guidance, exercise oversight, challenge management constructively, protect the interests of shareholders and stakeholders, and ensure that the organisation remains sustainable. The G20/OECD Principles of Corporate Governance similarly emphasise the board’s responsibility for strategic guidance, monitoring management performance, overseeing risk and ensuring accountability, while management remains responsible for execution. The difference may appear subtle, but it is fundamental. A board that attempts to manage everything can weaken management. A management team that believes it is beyond scrutiny can weaken governance. The result, in either case, is institutional confusion. An effective board should be able to ask difficult questions: Why are we pursuing this strategy? What assumptions support this investment? What happens if the market changes? What are the risks? Are we developing the people capable of taking this organisation into the future? These are governance questions. The board should challenge management robustly, but the objective should be to improve the quality of management’s decisions, not to demonstrate that directors know more than the executives. This is where diversity of knowledge and experience becomes extremely important. A good board brings together people who see the organisation from different angles: finance, law, technology, operations, human resources, risk, industry, customers, regulation and strategy. The value of the board is not simply the individual brilliance of its members but the quality of the collective conversation. One director may understand the industry deeply. Another may understand technology. Another may have experience in capital markets. Another may see a regulatory risk that everyone else has overlooked. The Chair’s responsibility is to create an environment where these different perspectives can be expressed, tested and synthesised into better decisions. That requires cordiality without complacency and challenge without hostility. A board should be able to disagree without becoming divided. Management should be able to disagree with a director without becoming defensive. The chief executive should feel sufficiently respected to explain why management has taken a particular position, while the board should retain the independence to challenge that position. That balance is essential. There is often an unhealthy perception that the Board must either dominate management or remain completely detached from it. Neither is correct but it is more predominant where board members are solely the owners of the business. The relationship should be one of constructive partnership with clearly defined responsibilities. The Board governs; management manages. The Board provides oversight; management executes. The Board asks whether the organisation is doing the right things and doing them responsibly; Management ensures those things are actually done. When these boundaries are respected, both sides become stronger. The OECD’s governance principles emphasise that effective governance depends on clear accountability, objective judgement, monitoring of management and appropriate oversight of succession planning. This is not about creating distance between the Board and management. It is about creating clarity. This is where my Infinite Stake Theory becomes relevant to the board role. I believe leaders should see themselves as having an infinite stake in the institutions they lead, even when their tenure is finite. The question should not simply be, “What did I achieve while I was there?” It should be: “What did I leave behind that can continue to create value after I have left?” This changes how leaders think about governance. An executive with an infinite stake does not build a business that depends entirely on his personality. He builds systems, develops people and creates institutional memory. Likewise, a Board with an infinite stake does not focus only on the next financial year. It asks whether the organisation will remain relevant, resilient and sustainable five, ten or twenty years from now. This may explain why some organisations appear to have survived leadership changes better than others. Their sustainability is rarely accidental. They have invested in institutional continuity. They have documented processes. They have developed talent. They have strong governance structures. They have an independent challenge. They have succession plans. And, importantly, they have leaders who understand that the organisation belongs to a future that they may never personally experience. To be continued….. Babs Olugbemi, FCCA, is the Chief Vision Officer at Mentoras Leadership Limited and Founder of Positive Growth Africa. He can be reached at [email protected] or 07064176953, or on X @Successbabs. Related News Complexity is expensive: Why simpler organisations often perform better Playing the devil’s advocate: Should Nigeria rethink its refineries? When policy exists but access still fails: The gap between reproductive health policy and practice in Lagos Babs Olugbemi Leadership Share

He had moved from executing decisions to providing oversight, from directing people to influencing direction, and from managing the business to governing it. This distinction is at the heart of effective corporate governance. A board is not a shadow management team. Neither is it a collection of retired executives waiting to continue running the organisation from the boardroom. The board’s responsibility is to provide strategic guidance, exercise oversight, challenge management constructively, protect the interests of shareholders and stakeholders, and ensure that the organisation remains sustainable. The G20/OECD Principles of Corporate Governance similarly emphasise the board’s responsibility for strategic guidance, monitoring management performance, overseeing risk and ensuring accountability, while management remains responsible for execution. The difference may appear subtle, but it is fundamental. A board that attempts to manage everything can weaken management. A management team that believes it is beyond scrutiny can weaken governance. The result, in either case, is institutional confusion. An effective board should be able to ask difficult questions: Why are we pursuing this strategy? What assumptions support this investment? What happens if the market changes? What are the risks? Are we developing the people capable of taking this organisation into the future? These are governance questions. The board should challenge management robustly, but the objective should be to improve the quality of management’s decisions, not to demonstrate that directors know more than the executives. This is where diversity of knowledge and experience becomes extremely important. A good board brings together people who see the organisation from different angles: finance, law, technology, operations, human resources, risk, industry, customers, regulation and strategy. The value of the board is not simply the individual brilliance of its members but the quality of the collective conversation. One director may understand the industry deeply. Another may understand technology. Another may have experience in capital markets. Another may see a regulatory risk that everyone else has overlooked. The Chair’s responsibility is to create an environment where these different perspectives can be expressed, tested and synthesised into better decisions. That requires cordiality without complacency and challenge without hostility. A board should be able to disagree without becoming divided. Management should be able to disagree with a director without becoming defensive. The chief executive should feel sufficiently respected to explain why management has taken a particular position, while the board should retain the independence to challenge that position. That balance is essential. There is often an unhealthy perception that the Board must either dominate management or remain completely detached from it. Neither is correct but it is more predominant where board members are solely the owners of the business. The relationship should be one of constructive partnership with clearly defined responsibilities. The Board governs; management manages. The Board provides oversight; management executes. The Board asks whether the organisation is doing the right things and doing them responsibly; Management ensures those things are actually done. When these boundaries are respected, both sides become stronger. The OECD’s governance principles emphasise that effective governance depends on clear accountability, objective judgement, monitoring of management and appropriate oversight of succession planning. This is not about creating distance between the Board and management. It is about creating clarity. This is where my Infinite Stake Theory becomes relevant to the board role. I believe leaders should see themselves as having an infinite stake in the institutions they lead, even when their tenure is finite. The question should not simply be, “What did I achieve while I was there?” It should be: “What did I leave behind that can continue to create value after I have left?” This changes how leaders think about governance. An executive with an infinite stake does not build a business that depends entirely on his personality. He builds systems, develops people and creates institutional memory. Likewise, a Board with an infinite stake does not focus only on the next financial year. It asks whether the organisation will remain relevant, resilient and sustainable five, ten or twenty years from now. This may explain why some organisations appear to have survived leadership changes better than others. Their sustainability is rarely accidental. They have invested in institutional continuity. They have documented processes. They have developed talent. They have strong governance structures. They have an independent challenge. They have succession plans. And, importantly, they have leaders who understand that the organisation belongs to a future that they may never personally experience. To be continued….. Babs Olugbemi, FCCA, is the Chief Vision Officer at Mentoras Leadership Limited and Founder of Positive Growth Africa. He can be reached at [email protected] or 07064176953, or on X @Successbabs. Related News Complexity is expensive: Why simpler organisations often perform better Playing the devil’s advocate: Should Nigeria rethink its refineries? When policy exists but access still fails: The gap between reproductive health policy and practice in Lagos Babs Olugbemi Leadership Share

A board is not a shadow management team. Neither is it a collection of retired executives waiting to continue running the organisation from the boardroom. The board’s responsibility is to provide strategic guidance, exercise oversight, challenge management constructively, protect the interests of shareholders and stakeholders, and ensure that the organisation remains sustainable. The G20/OECD Principles of Corporate Governance similarly emphasise the board’s responsibility for strategic guidance, monitoring management performance, overseeing risk and ensuring accountability, while management remains responsible for execution. The difference may appear subtle, but it is fundamental. A board that attempts to manage everything can weaken management. A management team that believes it is beyond scrutiny can weaken governance. The result, in either case, is institutional confusion. An effective board should be able to ask difficult questions: Why are we pursuing this strategy? What assumptions support this investment? What happens if the market changes? What are the risks? Are we developing the people capable of taking this organisation into the future? These are governance questions. The board should challenge management robustly, but the objective should be to improve the quality of management’s decisions, not to demonstrate that directors know more than the executives. This is where diversity of knowledge and experience becomes extremely important. A good board brings together people who see the organisation from different angles: finance, law, technology, operations, human resources, risk, industry, customers, regulation and strategy. The value of the board is not simply the individual brilliance of its members but the quality of the collective conversation. One director may understand the industry deeply. Another may understand technology. Another may have experience in capital markets. Another may see a regulatory risk that everyone else has overlooked. The Chair’s responsibility is to create an environment where these different perspectives can be expressed, tested and synthesised into better decisions. That requires cordiality without complacency and challenge without hostility. A board should be able to disagree without becoming divided. Management should be able to disagree with a director without becoming defensive. The chief executive should feel sufficiently respected to explain why management has taken a particular position, while the board should retain the independence to challenge that position. That balance is essential. There is often an unhealthy perception that the Board must either dominate management or remain completely detached from it. Neither is correct but it is more predominant where board members are solely the owners of the business. The relationship should be one of constructive partnership with clearly defined responsibilities. The Board governs; management manages. The Board provides oversight; management executes. The Board asks whether the organisation is doing the right things and doing them responsibly; Management ensures those things are actually done. When these boundaries are respected, both sides become stronger. The OECD’s governance principles emphasise that effective governance depends on clear accountability, objective judgement, monitoring of management and appropriate oversight of succession planning. This is not about creating distance between the Board and management. It is about creating clarity. This is where my Infinite Stake Theory becomes relevant to the board role. I believe leaders should see themselves as having an infinite stake in the institutions they lead, even when their tenure is finite. The question should not simply be, “What did I achieve while I was there?” It should be: “What did I leave behind that can continue to create value after I have left?” This changes how leaders think about governance. An executive with an infinite stake does not build a business that depends entirely on his personality. He builds systems, develops people and creates institutional memory. Likewise, a Board with an infinite stake does not focus only on the next financial year. It asks whether the organisation will remain relevant, resilient and sustainable five, ten or twenty years from now. This may explain why some organisations appear to have survived leadership changes better than others. Their sustainability is rarely accidental. They have invested in institutional continuity. They have documented processes. They have developed talent. They have strong governance structures. They have an independent challenge. They have succession plans. And, importantly, they have leaders who understand that the organisation belongs to a future that they may never personally experience. To be continued….. Babs Olugbemi, FCCA, is the Chief Vision Officer at Mentoras Leadership Limited and Founder of Positive Growth Africa. He can be reached at [email protected] or 07064176953, or on X @Successbabs. Related News Complexity is expensive: Why simpler organisations often perform better Playing the devil’s advocate: Should Nigeria rethink its refineries? When policy exists but access still fails: The gap between reproductive health policy and practice in Lagos Babs Olugbemi Leadership Share

The G20/OECD Principles of Corporate Governance similarly emphasise the board’s responsibility for strategic guidance, monitoring management performance, overseeing risk and ensuring accountability, while management remains responsible for execution. The difference may appear subtle, but it is fundamental. A board that attempts to manage everything can weaken management. A management team that believes it is beyond scrutiny can weaken governance. The result, in either case, is institutional confusion. An effective board should be able to ask difficult questions: Why are we pursuing this strategy? What assumptions support this investment? What happens if the market changes? What are the risks? Are we developing the people capable of taking this organisation into the future? These are governance questions. The board should challenge management robustly, but the objective should be to improve the quality of management’s decisions, not to demonstrate that directors know more than the executives. This is where diversity of knowledge and experience becomes extremely important. A good board brings together people who see the organisation from different angles: finance, law, technology, operations, human resources, risk, industry, customers, regulation and strategy. The value of the board is not simply the individual brilliance of its members but the quality of the collective conversation. One director may understand the industry deeply. Another may understand technology. Another may have experience in capital markets. Another may see a regulatory risk that everyone else has overlooked. The Chair’s responsibility is to create an environment where these different perspectives can be expressed, tested and synthesised into better decisions. That requires cordiality without complacency and challenge without hostility. A board should be able to disagree without becoming divided. Management should be able to disagree with a director without becoming defensive. The chief executive should feel sufficiently respected to explain why management has taken a particular position, while the board should retain the independence to challenge that position. That balance is essential. There is often an unhealthy perception that the Board must either dominate management or remain completely detached from it. Neither is correct but it is more predominant where board members are solely the owners of the business. The relationship should be one of constructive partnership with clearly defined responsibilities. The Board governs; management manages. The Board provides oversight; management executes. The Board asks whether the organisation is doing the right things and doing them responsibly; Management ensures those things are actually done. When these boundaries are respected, both sides become stronger. The OECD’s governance principles emphasise that effective governance depends on clear accountability, objective judgement, monitoring of management and appropriate oversight of succession planning. This is not about creating distance between the Board and management. It is about creating clarity. This is where my Infinite Stake Theory becomes relevant to the board role. I believe leaders should see themselves as having an infinite stake in the institutions they lead, even when their tenure is finite. The question should not simply be, “What did I achieve while I was there?” It should be: “What did I leave behind that can continue to create value after I have left?” This changes how leaders think about governance. An executive with an infinite stake does not build a business that depends entirely on his personality. He builds systems, develops people and creates institutional memory. Likewise, a Board with an infinite stake does not focus only on the next financial year. It asks whether the organisation will remain relevant, resilient and sustainable five, ten or twenty years from now. This may explain why some organisations appear to have survived leadership changes better than others. Their sustainability is rarely accidental. They have invested in institutional continuity. They have documented processes. They have developed talent. They have strong governance structures. They have an independent challenge. They have succession plans. And, importantly, they have leaders who understand that the organisation belongs to a future that they may never personally experience. To be continued….. Babs Olugbemi, FCCA, is the Chief Vision Officer at Mentoras Leadership Limited and Founder of Positive Growth Africa. He can be reached at [email protected] or 07064176953, or on X @Successbabs. Related News Complexity is expensive: Why simpler organisations often perform better Playing the devil’s advocate: Should Nigeria rethink its refineries? When policy exists but access still fails: The gap between reproductive health policy and practice in Lagos Babs Olugbemi Leadership Share

The difference may appear subtle, but it is fundamental. A board that attempts to manage everything can weaken management. A management team that believes it is beyond scrutiny can weaken governance. The result, in either case, is institutional confusion. An effective board should be able to ask difficult questions: Why are we pursuing this strategy? What assumptions support this investment? What happens if the market changes? What are the risks? Are we developing the people capable of taking this organisation into the future? These are governance questions. The board should challenge management robustly, but the objective should be to improve the quality of management’s decisions, not to demonstrate that directors know more than the executives. This is where diversity of knowledge and experience becomes extremely important. A good board brings together people who see the organisation from different angles: finance, law, technology, operations, human resources, risk, industry, customers, regulation and strategy. The value of the board is not simply the individual brilliance of its members but the quality of the collective conversation. One director may understand the industry deeply. Another may understand technology. Another may have experience in capital markets. Another may see a regulatory risk that everyone else has overlooked. The Chair’s responsibility is to create an environment where these different perspectives can be expressed, tested and synthesised into better decisions. That requires cordiality without complacency and challenge without hostility. A board should be able to disagree without becoming divided. Management should be able to disagree with a director without becoming defensive. The chief executive should feel sufficiently respected to explain why management has taken a particular position, while the board should retain the independence to challenge that position. That balance is essential. There is often an unhealthy perception that the Board must either dominate management or remain completely detached from it. Neither is correct but it is more predominant where board members are solely the owners of the business. The relationship should be one of constructive partnership with clearly defined responsibilities. The Board governs; management manages. The Board provides oversight; management executes. The Board asks whether the organisation is doing the right things and doing them responsibly; Management ensures those things are actually done. When these boundaries are respected, both sides become stronger. The OECD’s governance principles emphasise that effective governance depends on clear accountability, objective judgement, monitoring of management and appropriate oversight of succession planning. This is not about creating distance between the Board and management. It is about creating clarity. This is where my Infinite Stake Theory becomes relevant to the board role. I believe leaders should see themselves as having an infinite stake in the institutions they lead, even when their tenure is finite. The question should not simply be, “What did I achieve while I was there?” It should be: “What did I leave behind that can continue to create value after I have left?” This changes how leaders think about governance. An executive with an infinite stake does not build a business that depends entirely on his personality. He builds systems, develops people and creates institutional memory. Likewise, a Board with an infinite stake does not focus only on the next financial year. It asks whether the organisation will remain relevant, resilient and sustainable five, ten or twenty years from now. This may explain why some organisations appear to have survived leadership changes better than others. Their sustainability is rarely accidental. They have invested in institutional continuity. They have documented processes. They have developed talent. They have strong governance structures. They have an independent challenge. They have succession plans. And, importantly, they have leaders who understand that the organisation belongs to a future that they may never personally experience. To be continued….. Babs Olugbemi, FCCA, is the Chief Vision Officer at Mentoras Leadership Limited and Founder of Positive Growth Africa. He can be reached at [email protected] or 07064176953, or on X @Successbabs. Related News Complexity is expensive: Why simpler organisations often perform better Playing the devil’s advocate: Should Nigeria rethink its refineries? When policy exists but access still fails: The gap between reproductive health policy and practice in Lagos Babs Olugbemi Leadership Share

A board that attempts to manage everything can weaken management. A management team that believes it is beyond scrutiny can weaken governance. The result, in either case, is institutional confusion. An effective board should be able to ask difficult questions: Why are we pursuing this strategy? What assumptions support this investment? What happens if the market changes? What are the risks? Are we developing the people capable of taking this organisation into the future? These are governance questions. The board should challenge management robustly, but the objective should be to improve the quality of management’s decisions, not to demonstrate that directors know more than the executives. This is where diversity of knowledge and experience becomes extremely important. A good board brings together people who see the organisation from different angles: finance, law, technology, operations, human resources, risk, industry, customers, regulation and strategy. The value of the board is not simply the individual brilliance of its members but the quality of the collective conversation. One director may understand the industry deeply. Another may understand technology. Another may have experience in capital markets. Another may see a regulatory risk that everyone else has overlooked. The Chair’s responsibility is to create an environment where these different perspectives can be expressed, tested and synthesised into better decisions. That requires cordiality without complacency and challenge without hostility. A board should be able to disagree without becoming divided. Management should be able to disagree with a director without becoming defensive. The chief executive should feel sufficiently respected to explain why management has taken a particular position, while the board should retain the independence to challenge that position. That balance is essential. There is often an unhealthy perception that the Board must either dominate management or remain completely detached from it. Neither is correct but it is more predominant where board members are solely the owners of the business. The relationship should be one of constructive partnership with clearly defined responsibilities. The Board governs; management manages. The Board provides oversight; management executes. The Board asks whether the organisation is doing the right things and doing them responsibly; Management ensures those things are actually done. When these boundaries are respected, both sides become stronger. The OECD’s governance principles emphasise that effective governance depends on clear accountability, objective judgement, monitoring of management and appropriate oversight of succession planning. This is not about creating distance between the Board and management. It is about creating clarity. This is where my Infinite Stake Theory becomes relevant to the board role. I believe leaders should see themselves as having an infinite stake in the institutions they lead, even when their tenure is finite. The question should not simply be, “What did I achieve while I was there?” It should be: “What did I leave behind that can continue to create value after I have left?” This changes how leaders think about governance. An executive with an infinite stake does not build a business that depends entirely on his personality. He builds systems, develops people and creates institutional memory. Likewise, a Board with an infinite stake does not focus only on the next financial year. It asks whether the organisation will remain relevant, resilient and sustainable five, ten or twenty years from now. This may explain why some organisations appear to have survived leadership changes better than others. Their sustainability is rarely accidental. They have invested in institutional continuity. They have documented processes. They have developed talent. They have strong governance structures. They have an independent challenge. They have succession plans. And, importantly, they have leaders who understand that the organisation belongs to a future that they may never personally experience. To be continued….. Babs Olugbemi, FCCA, is the Chief Vision Officer at Mentoras Leadership Limited and Founder of Positive Growth Africa. He can be reached at [email protected] or 07064176953, or on X @Successbabs. Related News Complexity is expensive: Why simpler organisations often perform better Playing the devil’s advocate: Should Nigeria rethink its refineries? When policy exists but access still fails: The gap between reproductive health policy and practice in Lagos Babs Olugbemi Leadership Share

An effective board should be able to ask difficult questions: Why are we pursuing this strategy? What assumptions support this investment? What happens if the market changes? What are the risks? Are we developing the people capable of taking this organisation into the future? These are governance questions. The board should challenge management robustly, but the objective should be to improve the quality of management’s decisions, not to demonstrate that directors know more than the executives. This is where diversity of knowledge and experience becomes extremely important. A good board brings together people who see the organisation from different angles: finance, law, technology, operations, human resources, risk, industry, customers, regulation and strategy. The value of the board is not simply the individual brilliance of its members but the quality of the collective conversation. One director may understand the industry deeply. Another may understand technology. Another may have experience in capital markets. Another may see a regulatory risk that everyone else has overlooked. The Chair’s responsibility is to create an environment where these different perspectives can be expressed, tested and synthesised into better decisions. That requires cordiality without complacency and challenge without hostility. A board should be able to disagree without becoming divided. Management should be able to disagree with a director without becoming defensive. The chief executive should feel sufficiently respected to explain why management has taken a particular position, while the board should retain the independence to challenge that position. That balance is essential. There is often an unhealthy perception that the Board must either dominate management or remain completely detached from it. Neither is correct but it is more predominant where board members are solely the owners of the business. The relationship should be one of constructive partnership with clearly defined responsibilities. The Board governs; management manages. The Board provides oversight; management executes. The Board asks whether the organisation is doing the right things and doing them responsibly; Management ensures those things are actually done. When these boundaries are respected, both sides become stronger. The OECD’s governance principles emphasise that effective governance depends on clear accountability, objective judgement, monitoring of management and appropriate oversight of succession planning. This is not about creating distance between the Board and management. It is about creating clarity. This is where my Infinite Stake Theory becomes relevant to the board role. I believe leaders should see themselves as having an infinite stake in the institutions they lead, even when their tenure is finite. The question should not simply be, “What did I achieve while I was there?” It should be: “What did I leave behind that can continue to create value after I have left?” This changes how leaders think about governance. An executive with an infinite stake does not build a business that depends entirely on his personality. He builds systems, develops people and creates institutional memory. Likewise, a Board with an infinite stake does not focus only on the next financial year. It asks whether the organisation will remain relevant, resilient and sustainable five, ten or twenty years from now. This may explain why some organisations appear to have survived leadership changes better than others. Their sustainability is rarely accidental. They have invested in institutional continuity. They have documented processes. They have developed talent. They have strong governance structures. They have an independent challenge. They have succession plans. And, importantly, they have leaders who understand that the organisation belongs to a future that they may never personally experience. To be continued….. Babs Olugbemi, FCCA, is the Chief Vision Officer at Mentoras Leadership Limited and Founder of Positive Growth Africa. He can be reached at [email protected] or 07064176953, or on X @Successbabs. Related News Complexity is expensive: Why simpler organisations often perform better Playing the devil’s advocate: Should Nigeria rethink its refineries? When policy exists but access still fails: The gap between reproductive health policy and practice in Lagos Babs Olugbemi Leadership Share

The board should challenge management robustly, but the objective should be to improve the quality of management’s decisions, not to demonstrate that directors know more than the executives. This is where diversity of knowledge and experience becomes extremely important. A good board brings together people who see the organisation from different angles: finance, law, technology, operations, human resources, risk, industry, customers, regulation and strategy. The value of the board is not simply the individual brilliance of its members but the quality of the collective conversation. One director may understand the industry deeply. Another may understand technology. Another may have experience in capital markets. Another may see a regulatory risk that everyone else has overlooked. The Chair’s responsibility is to create an environment where these different perspectives can be expressed, tested and synthesised into better decisions. That requires cordiality without complacency and challenge without hostility. A board should be able to disagree without becoming divided. Management should be able to disagree with a director without becoming defensive. The chief executive should feel sufficiently respected to explain why management has taken a particular position, while the board should retain the independence to challenge that position. That balance is essential. There is often an unhealthy perception that the Board must either dominate management or remain completely detached from it. Neither is correct but it is more predominant where board members are solely the owners of the business. The relationship should be one of constructive partnership with clearly defined responsibilities. The Board governs; management manages. The Board provides oversight; management executes. The Board asks whether the organisation is doing the right things and doing them responsibly; Management ensures those things are actually done. When these boundaries are respected, both sides become stronger. The OECD’s governance principles emphasise that effective governance depends on clear accountability, objective judgement, monitoring of management and appropriate oversight of succession planning. This is not about creating distance between the Board and management. It is about creating clarity. This is where my Infinite Stake Theory becomes relevant to the board role. I believe leaders should see themselves as having an infinite stake in the institutions they lead, even when their tenure is finite. The question should not simply be, “What did I achieve while I was there?” It should be: “What did I leave behind that can continue to create value after I have left?” This changes how leaders think about governance. An executive with an infinite stake does not build a business that depends entirely on his personality. He builds systems, develops people and creates institutional memory. Likewise, a Board with an infinite stake does not focus only on the next financial year. It asks whether the organisation will remain relevant, resilient and sustainable five, ten or twenty years from now. This may explain why some organisations appear to have survived leadership changes better than others. Their sustainability is rarely accidental. They have invested in institutional continuity. They have documented processes. They have developed talent. They have strong governance structures. They have an independent challenge. They have succession plans. And, importantly, they have leaders who understand that the organisation belongs to a future that they may never personally experience. To be continued….. Babs Olugbemi, FCCA, is the Chief Vision Officer at Mentoras Leadership Limited and Founder of Positive Growth Africa. He can be reached at [email protected] or 07064176953, or on X @Successbabs. Related News Complexity is expensive: Why simpler organisations often perform better Playing the devil’s advocate: Should Nigeria rethink its refineries? When policy exists but access still fails: The gap between reproductive health policy and practice in Lagos Babs Olugbemi Leadership Share

A good board brings together people who see the organisation from different angles: finance, law, technology, operations, human resources, risk, industry, customers, regulation and strategy. The value of the board is not simply the individual brilliance of its members but the quality of the collective conversation. One director may understand the industry deeply. Another may understand technology. Another may have experience in capital markets. Another may see a regulatory risk that everyone else has overlooked. The Chair’s responsibility is to create an environment where these different perspectives can be expressed, tested and synthesised into better decisions. That requires cordiality without complacency and challenge without hostility. A board should be able to disagree without becoming divided. Management should be able to disagree with a director without becoming defensive. The chief executive should feel sufficiently respected to explain why management has taken a particular position, while the board should retain the independence to challenge that position. That balance is essential. There is often an unhealthy perception that the Board must either dominate management or remain completely detached from it. Neither is correct but it is more predominant where board members are solely the owners of the business. The relationship should be one of constructive partnership with clearly defined responsibilities. The Board governs; management manages. The Board provides oversight; management executes. The Board asks whether the organisation is doing the right things and doing them responsibly; Management ensures those things are actually done. When these boundaries are respected, both sides become stronger. The OECD’s governance principles emphasise that effective governance depends on clear accountability, objective judgement, monitoring of management and appropriate oversight of succession planning. This is not about creating distance between the Board and management. It is about creating clarity. This is where my Infinite Stake Theory becomes relevant to the board role. I believe leaders should see themselves as having an infinite stake in the institutions they lead, even when their tenure is finite. The question should not simply be, “What did I achieve while I was there?” It should be: “What did I leave behind that can continue to create value after I have left?” This changes how leaders think about governance. An executive with an infinite stake does not build a business that depends entirely on his personality. He builds systems, develops people and creates institutional memory. Likewise, a Board with an infinite stake does not focus only on the next financial year. It asks whether the organisation will remain relevant, resilient and sustainable five, ten or twenty years from now. This may explain why some organisations appear to have survived leadership changes better than others. Their sustainability is rarely accidental. They have invested in institutional continuity. They have documented processes. They have developed talent. They have strong governance structures. They have an independent challenge. They have succession plans. And, importantly, they have leaders who understand that the organisation belongs to a future that they may never personally experience. To be continued….. Babs Olugbemi, FCCA, is the Chief Vision Officer at Mentoras Leadership Limited and Founder of Positive Growth Africa. He can be reached at [email protected] or 07064176953, or on X @Successbabs. Related News Complexity is expensive: Why simpler organisations often perform better Playing the devil’s advocate: Should Nigeria rethink its refineries? When policy exists but access still fails: The gap between reproductive health policy and practice in Lagos Babs Olugbemi Leadership Share

One director may understand the industry deeply. Another may understand technology. Another may have experience in capital markets. Another may see a regulatory risk that everyone else has overlooked. The Chair’s responsibility is to create an environment where these different perspectives can be expressed, tested and synthesised into better decisions. That requires cordiality without complacency and challenge without hostility. A board should be able to disagree without becoming divided. Management should be able to disagree with a director without becoming defensive. The chief executive should feel sufficiently respected to explain why management has taken a particular position, while the board should retain the independence to challenge that position. That balance is essential. There is often an unhealthy perception that the Board must either dominate management or remain completely detached from it. Neither is correct but it is more predominant where board members are solely the owners of the business. The relationship should be one of constructive partnership with clearly defined responsibilities. The Board governs; management manages. The Board provides oversight; management executes. The Board asks whether the organisation is doing the right things and doing them responsibly; Management ensures those things are actually done. When these boundaries are respected, both sides become stronger. The OECD’s governance principles emphasise that effective governance depends on clear accountability, objective judgement, monitoring of management and appropriate oversight of succession planning. This is not about creating distance between the Board and management. It is about creating clarity. This is where my Infinite Stake Theory becomes relevant to the board role. I believe leaders should see themselves as having an infinite stake in the institutions they lead, even when their tenure is finite. The question should not simply be, “What did I achieve while I was there?” It should be: “What did I leave behind that can continue to create value after I have left?” This changes how leaders think about governance. An executive with an infinite stake does not build a business that depends entirely on his personality. He builds systems, develops people and creates institutional memory. Likewise, a Board with an infinite stake does not focus only on the next financial year. It asks whether the organisation will remain relevant, resilient and sustainable five, ten or twenty years from now. This may explain why some organisations appear to have survived leadership changes better than others. Their sustainability is rarely accidental. They have invested in institutional continuity. They have documented processes. They have developed talent. They have strong governance structures. They have an independent challenge. They have succession plans. And, importantly, they have leaders who understand that the organisation belongs to a future that they may never personally experience. To be continued….. Babs Olugbemi, FCCA, is the Chief Vision Officer at Mentoras Leadership Limited and Founder of Positive Growth Africa. He can be reached at [email protected] or 07064176953, or on X @Successbabs. Related News Complexity is expensive: Why simpler organisations often perform better Playing the devil’s advocate: Should Nigeria rethink its refineries? When policy exists but access still fails: The gap between reproductive health policy and practice in Lagos Babs Olugbemi Leadership Share

A board should be able to disagree without becoming divided. Management should be able to disagree with a director without becoming defensive. The chief executive should feel sufficiently respected to explain why management has taken a particular position, while the board should retain the independence to challenge that position. That balance is essential. There is often an unhealthy perception that the Board must either dominate management or remain completely detached from it. Neither is correct but it is more predominant where board members are solely the owners of the business. The relationship should be one of constructive partnership with clearly defined responsibilities. The Board governs; management manages. The Board provides oversight; management executes. The Board asks whether the organisation is doing the right things and doing them responsibly; Management ensures those things are actually done. When these boundaries are respected, both sides become stronger. The OECD’s governance principles emphasise that effective governance depends on clear accountability, objective judgement, monitoring of management and appropriate oversight of succession planning. This is not about creating distance between the Board and management. It is about creating clarity. This is where my Infinite Stake Theory becomes relevant to the board role. I believe leaders should see themselves as having an infinite stake in the institutions they lead, even when their tenure is finite. The question should not simply be, “What did I achieve while I was there?” It should be: “What did I leave behind that can continue to create value after I have left?” This changes how leaders think about governance. An executive with an infinite stake does not build a business that depends entirely on his personality. He builds systems, develops people and creates institutional memory. Likewise, a Board with an infinite stake does not focus only on the next financial year. It asks whether the organisation will remain relevant, resilient and sustainable five, ten or twenty years from now. This may explain why some organisations appear to have survived leadership changes better than others. Their sustainability is rarely accidental. They have invested in institutional continuity. They have documented processes. They have developed talent. They have strong governance structures. They have an independent challenge. They have succession plans. And, importantly, they have leaders who understand that the organisation belongs to a future that they may never personally experience. To be continued….. Babs Olugbemi, FCCA, is the Chief Vision Officer at Mentoras Leadership Limited and Founder of Positive Growth Africa. He can be reached at [email protected] or 07064176953, or on X @Successbabs. Related News Complexity is expensive: Why simpler organisations often perform better Playing the devil’s advocate: Should Nigeria rethink its refineries? When policy exists but access still fails: The gap between reproductive health policy and practice in Lagos Babs Olugbemi Leadership Share

That balance is essential. There is often an unhealthy perception that the Board must either dominate management or remain completely detached from it. Neither is correct but it is more predominant where board members are solely the owners of the business. The relationship should be one of constructive partnership with clearly defined responsibilities. The Board governs; management manages. The Board provides oversight; management executes. The Board asks whether the organisation is doing the right things and doing them responsibly; Management ensures those things are actually done. When these boundaries are respected, both sides become stronger. The OECD’s governance principles emphasise that effective governance depends on clear accountability, objective judgement, monitoring of management and appropriate oversight of succession planning. This is not about creating distance between the Board and management. It is about creating clarity. This is where my Infinite Stake Theory becomes relevant to the board role. I believe leaders should see themselves as having an infinite stake in the institutions they lead, even when their tenure is finite. The question should not simply be, “What did I achieve while I was there?” It should be: “What did I leave behind that can continue to create value after I have left?” This changes how leaders think about governance. An executive with an infinite stake does not build a business that depends entirely on his personality. He builds systems, develops people and creates institutional memory. Likewise, a Board with an infinite stake does not focus only on the next financial year. It asks whether the organisation will remain relevant, resilient and sustainable five, ten or twenty years from now. This may explain why some organisations appear to have survived leadership changes better than others. Their sustainability is rarely accidental. They have invested in institutional continuity. They have documented processes. They have developed talent. They have strong governance structures. They have an independent challenge. They have succession plans. And, importantly, they have leaders who understand that the organisation belongs to a future that they may never personally experience. To be continued….. Babs Olugbemi, FCCA, is the Chief Vision Officer at Mentoras Leadership Limited and Founder of Positive Growth Africa. He can be reached at [email protected] or 07064176953, or on X @Successbabs. Related News Complexity is expensive: Why simpler organisations often perform better Playing the devil’s advocate: Should Nigeria rethink its refineries? When policy exists but access still fails: The gap between reproductive health policy and practice in Lagos Babs Olugbemi Leadership Share

The relationship should be one of constructive partnership with clearly defined responsibilities. The Board governs; management manages. The Board provides oversight; management executes. The Board asks whether the organisation is doing the right things and doing them responsibly; Management ensures those things are actually done. When these boundaries are respected, both sides become stronger. The OECD’s governance principles emphasise that effective governance depends on clear accountability, objective judgement, monitoring of management and appropriate oversight of succession planning. This is not about creating distance between the Board and management. It is about creating clarity. This is where my Infinite Stake Theory becomes relevant to the board role. I believe leaders should see themselves as having an infinite stake in the institutions they lead, even when their tenure is finite. The question should not simply be, “What did I achieve while I was there?” It should be: “What did I leave behind that can continue to create value after I have left?” This changes how leaders think about governance. An executive with an infinite stake does not build a business that depends entirely on his personality. He builds systems, develops people and creates institutional memory. Likewise, a Board with an infinite stake does not focus only on the next financial year. It asks whether the organisation will remain relevant, resilient and sustainable five, ten or twenty years from now. This may explain why some organisations appear to have survived leadership changes better than others. Their sustainability is rarely accidental. They have invested in institutional continuity. They have documented processes. They have developed talent. They have strong governance structures. They have an independent challenge. They have succession plans. And, importantly, they have leaders who understand that the organisation belongs to a future that they may never personally experience. To be continued….. Babs Olugbemi, FCCA, is the Chief Vision Officer at Mentoras Leadership Limited and Founder of Positive Growth Africa. He can be reached at [email protected] or 07064176953, or on X @Successbabs. Related News Complexity is expensive: Why simpler organisations often perform better Playing the devil’s advocate: Should Nigeria rethink its refineries? When policy exists but access still fails: The gap between reproductive health policy and practice in Lagos Babs Olugbemi Leadership Share

The OECD’s governance principles emphasise that effective governance depends on clear accountability, objective judgement, monitoring of management and appropriate oversight of succession planning. This is not about creating distance between the Board and management. It is about creating clarity. This is where my Infinite Stake Theory becomes relevant to the board role. I believe leaders should see themselves as having an infinite stake in the institutions they lead, even when their tenure is finite. The question should not simply be, “What did I achieve while I was there?” It should be: “What did I leave behind that can continue to create value after I have left?” This changes how leaders think about governance. An executive with an infinite stake does not build a business that depends entirely on his personality. He builds systems, develops people and creates institutional memory. Likewise, a Board with an infinite stake does not focus only on the next financial year. It asks whether the organisation will remain relevant, resilient and sustainable five, ten or twenty years from now. This may explain why some organisations appear to have survived leadership changes better than others. Their sustainability is rarely accidental. They have invested in institutional continuity. They have documented processes. They have developed talent. They have strong governance structures. They have an independent challenge. They have succession plans. And, importantly, they have leaders who understand that the organisation belongs to a future that they may never personally experience. To be continued….. Babs Olugbemi, FCCA, is the Chief Vision Officer at Mentoras Leadership Limited and Founder of Positive Growth Africa. He can be reached at [email protected] or 07064176953, or on X @Successbabs. Related News Complexity is expensive: Why simpler organisations often perform better Playing the devil’s advocate: Should Nigeria rethink its refineries? When policy exists but access still fails: The gap between reproductive health policy and practice in Lagos Babs Olugbemi Leadership Share

This is where my Infinite Stake Theory becomes relevant to the board role. I believe leaders should see themselves as having an infinite stake in the institutions they lead, even when their tenure is finite. The question should not simply be, “What did I achieve while I was there?” It should be: “What did I leave behind that can continue to create value after I have left?” This changes how leaders think about governance. An executive with an infinite stake does not build a business that depends entirely on his personality. He builds systems, develops people and creates institutional memory. Likewise, a Board with an infinite stake does not focus only on the next financial year. It asks whether the organisation will remain relevant, resilient and sustainable five, ten or twenty years from now. This may explain why some organisations appear to have survived leadership changes better than others. Their sustainability is rarely accidental. They have invested in institutional continuity. They have documented processes. They have developed talent. They have strong governance structures. They have an independent challenge. They have succession plans. And, importantly, they have leaders who understand that the organisation belongs to a future that they may never personally experience. To be continued….. Babs Olugbemi, FCCA, is the Chief Vision Officer at Mentoras Leadership Limited and Founder of Positive Growth Africa. He can be reached at [email protected] or 07064176953, or on X @Successbabs. Related News Complexity is expensive: Why simpler organisations often perform better Playing the devil’s advocate: Should Nigeria rethink its refineries? When policy exists but access still fails: The gap between reproductive health policy and practice in Lagos Babs Olugbemi Leadership Share

This changes how leaders think about governance. An executive with an infinite stake does not build a business that depends entirely on his personality. He builds systems, develops people and creates institutional memory. Likewise, a Board with an infinite stake does not focus only on the next financial year. It asks whether the organisation will remain relevant, resilient and sustainable five, ten or twenty years from now. This may explain why some organisations appear to have survived leadership changes better than others. Their sustainability is rarely accidental. They have invested in institutional continuity. They have documented processes. They have developed talent. They have strong governance structures. They have an independent challenge. They have succession plans. And, importantly, they have leaders who understand that the organisation belongs to a future that they may never personally experience. To be continued….. Babs Olugbemi, FCCA, is the Chief Vision Officer at Mentoras Leadership Limited and Founder of Positive Growth Africa. He can be reached at [email protected] or 07064176953, or on X @Successbabs. Related News Complexity is expensive: Why simpler organisations often perform better Playing the devil’s advocate: Should Nigeria rethink its refineries? When policy exists but access still fails: The gap between reproductive health policy and practice in Lagos Babs Olugbemi Leadership Share

Likewise, a Board with an infinite stake does not focus only on the next financial year. It asks whether the organisation will remain relevant, resilient and sustainable five, ten or twenty years from now. This may explain why some organisations appear to have survived leadership changes better than others. Their sustainability is rarely accidental. They have invested in institutional continuity. They have documented processes. They have developed talent. They have strong governance structures. They have an independent challenge. They have succession plans. And, importantly, they have leaders who understand that the organisation belongs to a future that they may never personally experience. To be continued….. Babs Olugbemi, FCCA, is the Chief Vision Officer at Mentoras Leadership Limited and Founder of Positive Growth Africa. He can be reached at [email protected] or 07064176953, or on X @Successbabs. Related News Complexity is expensive: Why simpler organisations often perform better Playing the devil’s advocate: Should Nigeria rethink its refineries? When policy exists but access still fails: The gap between reproductive health policy and practice in Lagos Babs Olugbemi Leadership Share

They have invested in institutional continuity. They have documented processes. They have developed talent. They have strong governance structures. They have an independent challenge. They have succession plans. And, importantly, they have leaders who understand that the organisation belongs to a future that they may never personally experience. To be continued….. Babs Olugbemi, FCCA, is the Chief Vision Officer at Mentoras Leadership Limited and Founder of Positive Growth Africa. He can be reached at [email protected] or 07064176953, or on X @Successbabs. Related News Complexity is expensive: Why simpler organisations often perform better Playing the devil’s advocate: Should Nigeria rethink its refineries? When policy exists but access still fails: The gap between reproductive health policy and practice in Lagos Babs Olugbemi Leadership Share

To be continued….. Babs Olugbemi, FCCA, is the Chief Vision Officer at Mentoras Leadership Limited and Founder of Positive Growth Africa. He can be reached at [email protected] or 07064176953, or on X @Successbabs. Related News Complexity is expensive: Why simpler organisations often perform better Playing the devil’s advocate: Should Nigeria rethink its refineries? When policy exists but access still fails: The gap between reproductive health policy and practice in Lagos Babs Olugbemi Leadership Share

Babs Olugbemi, FCCA, is the Chief Vision Officer at Mentoras Leadership Limited and Founder of Positive Growth Africa. He can be reached at [email protected] or 07064176953, or on X @Successbabs. Related News Complexity is expensive: Why simpler organisations often perform better Playing the devil’s advocate: Should Nigeria rethink its refineries? When policy exists but access still fails: The gap between reproductive health policy and practice in Lagos Babs Olugbemi Leadership Share