“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.” – Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian (2001)
What “Useful” Actually Means
Every founder with a board of directors, advisory, or other trusted external sounding board tends to describe the relationship in similar terms. Useful. Helpful. Good to have around. The tone is warm, the language is comfortable, and it usually happens just after a meeting where everyone left broadly satisfied.
That is not necessarily a problem – many of these relationships are genuinely valuable. But are they really useful, and for what, precisely? Emotional reassurance, commercial wisdom, pattern recognition, independent challenge, strategic restraint – all of these are different things, and they produce different outcomes. The word covers all of them. Which is why it tells you so little about whether the relationship is actually working in the way that matters most. The distinction, in most cases, comes down to whether the relationship is providing genuine independent oversight or simply a more comfortable version of what the founder already thinks.
There is a considerable difference between reassurance and challenge, even though the two can look remarkably similar around a boardroom table. One leaves decisions feeling more comfortable. The other improves the quality of the decision itself. While both may produce agreement at the end of a meeting, they arrive there through very different processes.
Over the years, I have noticed that growing businesses tend to acquire governance gradually rather than formally. A founder begins speaking regularly to a trusted accountant. A former executive from another company is invited into occasional strategic discussions. An experienced non-executive director joins the business after an acquisition, investment round, or period of expansion. What begins informally slowly becomes part of how important decisions are processed.
What is striking is how many SME founders still assume that boards belong somewhere further along the journey. Governance is often associated with listed companies, institutional shareholders, compliance requirements, or businesses large enough to justify the overhead. Smaller companies, particularly founder-led ones, frequently view it as unnecessary structure for problems they do not yet have.
In practice, many of the businesses carrying the greatest concentration of risk are precisely the ones operating without meaningful independent perspective, and the cost of not having it tends to be invisible for a long time before it becomes obvious.
The Question Many Founders Don’t Address Early Enough
The founder running a growing business of 30+ people typically carries a concentration of load that would look remarkable from the outside if anyone stopped to map it. Strategy, risk, key relationships, hiring judgement, final decisions on everything consequential, and a great deal that is not consequential at all. That concentration is partly a function of how the business was built – the founder was there first, knew the most, moved the fastest. It made sense at the start.
What changes as the business grows is not usually the founder’s capability. It is the density and consequence of what they are carrying. Decisions become larger. The cost of a misjudgement compounds. And the people around the founder – however capable they are – have a natural reluctance to say things that might be unwelcome, because their own positions are bound up in the outcome.
This is not a character flaw in the team. It is simply how organisations work when authority sits in one place. Employees read the room. They present polished versions of reality. They raise problems that are easy to resolve and hold back the ones that feel awkward to raise. The organisation gradually shapes itself around the founder’s judgement, often without anyone consciously intending it to happen. That is one reason independent perspective becomes more valuable as businesses grow, not less.
Founder dependency concentrates risk in ways that are rarely visible until a consequential decision goes wrong. Independent oversight at this stage does not need to be elaborate to be effective. What it needs to do is introduce a perspective that is genuinely external to the founder’s frame of reference – someone with no political stake in the outcome, no employment relationship to protect, and enough relevant experience to know when the questions being asked are the right ones.
Beyond that, the right people around the table bring expertise and experience that the founder may simply not yet have, in areas where the business increasingly needs it. The value of that, even for businesses of modest size, is structural rather than advisory. It changes how the business thinks, not just what it decides.
The question is not simply whether a business has a board, but whether anyone around the founder is genuinely positioned to improve the quality of consequential decisions.
The Spectrum, and Where Most Boards Sit
This is where the distinction between support and oversight starts to matter.
Support has enormous value. Every founder carries periods of uncertainty, fatigue, and pressure that are largely invisible to the organisation around them. Trusted advisors who provide perspective, steadiness, and reassurance can make an enormous difference during difficult phases of growth. The problem begins when reassurance starts masquerading as governance.
Boards and advisory relationships tend to exist along a broad spectrum. At one end is a board of directors with genuinely independent members – people who have no financial dependency on the founder’s goodwill, no appetite to simply confirm what is already decided, and enough relevant experience to ask the questions that might slow a process down. At the other end is no independent oversight at all: just the founder, the team, and whatever internal counsel is available.
In between is where most SMEs find themselves, and it is a large and varied middle ground. The trusted accountant who attends quarterly and provides financial context but rarely challenges direction. The non-executive director who was invited in for the credibility they add to external conversations and has settled into a comfortable rhythm of gentle endorsement. The advisory board that meets twice a year, hears about what has been achieved, and offers broadly supportive observations. The board that functions, in practice, as a reporting occasion rather than a governance structure.
None of this is incompetence. It is drift. The natural pressure of a relationship over time is towards comfort. Advisors who challenge too consistently can begin to feel obstructive. Founders who grow accustomed to validation stop presenting the real problems and start presenting the managed version. Meetings that used to feel slightly uncomfortable – in a productive way – gradually become easier to attend and less useful to have.
The structure can look entirely healthy from the outside. Meetings are held, papers circulated, attendance maintained. What is harder to see is whether the quality of thinking inside those meetings has slowly shifted – from genuine examination to comfortable confirmation. The real measure is not whether a formal or advisory board structure exists. It is whether the decisions that come out of it are genuinely better than the ones that would have been made without it.
What Genuine Challenge Actually Looks Like
There are moments in a business where the quality of independent judgement either shows itself or does not, and I have seen this particularly clearly around periods of expansion.
A proposed acquisition that looks strategically obvious from inside the business. A senior hire that everyone seems enthusiastic about. A decision to move into a new market that fits the operational capability but stretches attention well beyond its current limits. A moment where momentum has built up behind a direction and the founder is more certain than uncertain.
These are the moments where an experienced, independent perspective contributes something that almost no one inside the business can provide. Not because the external voice is more intelligent or better informed about the business itself. But because they are seeing it differently – without the accumulated assumptions, the sunk-cost reasoning, the relationship dynamics, or the confidence that comes from having been right about similar decisions before.
What this looks like in practice is often subtle. It is the question that reframes a risk the founder had already categorised as manageable. It is the observation that a particular complexity is accumulating faster than the structure can absorb. It is the willingness to say, without agenda, that the business is about to do something it will find harder to undo than it currently appears.
When such relationships genuinely improve decisions, three qualities tend to be present. The first is independence – genuine independence from the founder’s existing frame of reference, not just formal independence in terms of shareholding or employment. The second is candour: the willingness to say things that may be uncomfortable, without a political agenda in either direction. The third is relevance – experience that is useful for where the business is going and the pressures it is likely to encounter next, not simply experience of where it has been.
That final point matters more than many founders initially realise. Businesses often appoint advisors based on past success, reputation, or personal compatibility. Those qualities matter, but governance becomes far more valuable when the external perspective has direct relevance to the next stage of organisational complexity rather than simply validating the current stage.
The most valuable advisory relationships are rarely built on prestige or network. The priority is finding people who will see things you cannot currently see, say them clearly enough to be useful, and hold that position even when the founder’s confidence in their own judgement is high. That last part is the hardest. It is also the part that matters most.
What This Often Looks Like in a Growing SME
Most businesses at this scale do not need a large formal board structure, and most are not yet ready for one. The governance overhead of a fully constituted board of directors – the papers, the schedules, the formality of process – can feel disproportionate when the business is still compact enough to be led from the centre.
What they do need, although many do not yet have, is something more modest but considerably more valuable: structured independent judgement entering the business consistently enough to influence the decisions that matter.
In practice, this takes different forms. Sometimes it is a small advisory board with operational credibility – two or three people who meet regularly, see the actual numbers, and have earned the right to say difficult things. Sometimes it is a single experienced non-executive director with deep sector knowledge and no stake in the outcome. Sometimes it is an external advisor brought into strategic conversations early enough to shape them, rather than being briefed after the direction has already been set.
The form matters less than the function. What distinguishes the arrangements that work is not how they are constituted, but what the founder permits inside them: the willingness to expose real uncertainty rather than polished confidence, to leave a meeting with a different view than the one held going in, and to let the quality of the discussion do work that internal conversation cannot.
Whichever form the arrangement takes, it is worth noting that most countries have a director organisation whose purpose is to support governance development in businesses of all sizes through published resources, directorship training, and practical guidance. The IoD in the UK, the IoDSA in South Africa, the NACD in the United States – and equivalents across the globe, many accessible through the Global Network of Director Institutes – are such organisations. A founder who takes that seriously early is building on a foundation rather than retrofitting one later.
This is also where the commercial dimension of governance becomes visible, and it is not a small thing. Businesses with independent oversight structures feel different to investors, lenders, acquirers, and senior hires. Not because of the optics of the arrangement, but because of what the arrangement signals: that judgement in this business does not reside entirely in one person, that consequential decisions are examined from more than one angle, that the business has a structural maturity that goes beyond the founder’s individual capability.
The FRC’s UK Corporate Governance Code makes a similar observation about listed companies – that effective boards improve the quality of decision-making precisely because they introduce perspectives the executive team cannot supply from within itself. The principle scales downward more readily than most founders assume.
In many respects, this is simply another stage in the same broader transition explored in pieces such as those on founder dependency and when a leadership transition might become necessary. As businesses grow, the challenge is rarely just operational scale. It is whether decision-making itself has evolved beyond the founder’s personal capacity to absorb everything alone.
The Boards That Become Dangerous
Perhaps the most uncomfortable governance risk, however, is not the absence of boards altogether, but the board that appears to function well while rarely changing anything important.
The openly dysfunctional board – the one where members are absent, disengaged, or openly conflicted – is a governance problem that tends to become visible and get addressed. The more common problem is subtler and more durable. It is the board that feels constructive, supportive, collegial, and appropriately experienced. Meetings run smoothly, consensus forms easily, and relationships remain positive. The founder feels assured that strong governance exists because intelligent people have discussed important matters thoroughly.
What happens inside these arrangements, gradually, is that alignment gets mistaken for effectiveness. Consensus becomes the signal that things are working. Important assumptions pass through the agenda without serious examination. The governance structure remains entirely intact. What has weakened is the independent oversight inside it, and that weakening is almost impossible to see from the inside, because the meetings still feel good.
Over time, a formal board, advisory board or other governance relationship in this condition does something more significant than simply failing to add value. It begins to confirm a picture of the business that may not be accurate. The founder’s framing becomes the dominant framing. Risks that might be uncomfortable are not discussed. Decisions that should be examined more slowly move forward with the endorsement of people who are no longer positioned – or, perhaps, no longer inclined – to resist them.
Governance becomes meaningful precisely at the point where someone around the table is prepared to see things differently from the founder, and to say so clearly enough that the decision itself improves because of it. Without that, the structure is present, but the substance has gone.
A board that only agrees is not a governance asset – it is a comfort arrangement operating inside a governance structure that has stopped doing its job. And it may already be shaping the business – and its future – more than the founder realises.
The question worth considering is not whether the board is functioning, but if nobody around the table regularly sees the business differently from the founder, what exactly is the structure there to do?
If you enjoyed this article you can subscribe here to receive future articles.
—
0 Comments