As AI changes how meetings are prepared, captured and followed up, attention has understandably focused on efficiency. New technology can reduce the administrative workload associated with agendas, minutes, decisions and actions but more efficient processes do not automatically lead to more effective governance.
The quality of a meeting still depends on its purpose, the people around the table and the culture in which discussion takes place.
During Scriba’s recent Leading Meetings in the Age of AI webinar, Sir David Carter, former National Schools Commissioner for England, drew on three decades of experience across the sector to consider what creates a meeting culture that delivers better outcomes.
As part of the session, Sir David reflected on an example from his time as a trust CEO. At the beginning of every academic year, the Trust Chair asked him to write down five questions that he would feel uncomfortable being asked by the board.
The questions were placed in an envelope and then, over the course of the year, the Chair would choose two or three to ask.
The purpose was to identify the issues where greater scrutiny could make the greatest difference and to encourage an environment where challenge was welcomed. The questions could focus on anything from outcomes for disadvantaged pupils to recruitment and retention issues or areas where the trust’s strategy was not delivering the intended results. By asking the CEO to identify them, the approach recognised that leadership teams will instinctively know where the most difficult (and often most important) conversations need to take place. It also reframed challenge as a shared responsibility.
Good governance is not necessarily about asking more questions. It is about creating the trust, clarity and confidence needed to ask the questions that matter.
In this article, we explore five questions arising from Sir David’s reflections and insights. Together they provide a framework for Chairs, senior leadership teams and board members to consider how meetings can remain connected to an organisation’s purpose, make effective use of the people around the table and create the right conditions for constructive challenge.
1. Does the board understand the wider strategy?
Effective governance begins with a shared understanding of why an organisation exists and what it is seeking to achieve. Sir David described this through five connected elements: mission, vision, strategy, execution and evaluation.
Mission defines the organisation’s purpose. Vision sets out what it wants to achieve over the next three to five years. Strategy identifies the priorities that will move it towards that vision. Execution considers whether commitments have been delivered, while evaluation asks what has been learnt and what should happen next.
This framework can help boards connect individual agenda items for discussion to the organisation’s wider purpose.
Mission and vision should not be statements that are agreed once and then assumed to be understood indefinitely. Boards change, new members join and organisational priorities evolve. Revisiting purpose can help maintain a shared understanding of why decisions matter. This could be done by starting meetings with a practical example of the organisation’s mission in action. For example, for a trust focused on improving outcomes for a particular cohort of students, this might involve sharing evidence or a case study of what action is being taken and the impact on those students.
2. Does the Chair understand the people around the table?
People join boards for different reasons and bring different levels of experience, motivation and available time.
Some contribute specialist professional knowledge. Others bring experience as parents or members of their local communities. Some have spent their careers in education, while others may have had little direct involvement with schools before joining the board. Understanding these differences is an important part of the Chair’s role.
Skills audits can identify expertise and highlight potential gaps. However, they do not always capture the full range of personal and professional experience people bring, nor do they reveal how engaged they feel.
In the webinar, Sir David highlighted the value of individual conversations between Chairs and board members. These might explore how the trustee or governor believes the board is performing, what the priorities should be and whether there are opportunities to contribute that have not yet been available. They can also help Chairs understand whether board members have the capacity to take on more responsibility or whether the demands of the role have become greater than expected.
This is particularly important when some boards may meet only a handful of times each year. Formal meetings provide limited opportunities to build relationships and understand individual motivations. The effectiveness of a board meeting may therefore depend, in part, on the conversations that happen between meetings.
3. Is the board operating as a high-performing team?
A board can include experienced and capable individuals without necessarily operating as an effective team. Drawing on Patrick Lencioni’s The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, Sir David identified five factors that can limit collective performance: an absence of trust, fear of conflict, lack of commitment, avoidance of accountability and inattention to team performance.
Each has relevance to organisations where strong governance is central to effective decision-making.
Board members may be reluctant to admit that they do not understand a report, a technical term or an acronym used in discussions. For those joining from outside a particular sector, the extensive use of acronyms and specialist language can create barriers to participation.
In this context, being willing to say, “I do not understand,” can be valuable. It may identify information that has not been communicated clearly or reveal assumptions about what everyone around the table already knows. However, people will only acknowledge uncertainty when the culture allows them to do so.
Trust also affects how boards approach disagreement. A board where everybody agrees is not necessarily a high-performing board. Apparent consensus may reflect “artificial harmony”, where difficult issues remain unspoken because maintaining agreement feels easier than confronting underperformance.
Constructive disagreement should not become personal or adversarial, but effective boards need sufficient trust to examine difficult evidence, challenge assumptions and discuss areas where outcomes are below expectations.
4. Does challenge elevate rather than deflate?
Holding executive leaders to account is a central responsibility of a board. Effective challenge, however, is not about catching people out but rather its purpose is to test assumptions, identify risk and support better decisions.
As Sir David observed, challenge can be supportive and offering support can sometimes be challenging.
As part of effective challenge, boards must maintain the boundary between strategic oversight and operational delivery. To do this they need sufficient information to understand performance and assess risk, but too much focus on detail can draw board members into decisions that belong to executive leaders.
The board’s role is not necessarily to determine the operational response. It is to consider what the evidence indicates about progress towards strategic priorities and seek assurance that concerns are being addressed.
Effective accountability should also extend beyond the CEO. Senior leaders, for example those with responsibility for HR or finance, should have opportunities to present evidence and answer questions relating to their areas of responsibility and to be brought into board level discussions. This provides boards with direct access to specialist expertise while supporting the development of future organisational leaders.
5. Does the board evaluate its own impact?
Boards routinely review organisational performance but they may spend less time evaluating the difference they have made.
Sir David proposed four questions to support this process:
- Which children will be able to say that their lives changed because they attended one of our schools and which children will not?
The question moves discussion beyond whether processes have been completed and towards whether the organisation is fulfilling its purpose for all pupils. It encourages boards to consider not only where they are making a difference, but where outcomes, opportunities or experiences may remain unequal.
- What are the top three priorities for the board for the next three years and why are they so important?
This question tests whether the board has a clear and shared understanding of its strategic priorities. Trustees should be able to explain what matters most, why those areas have been prioritised and how they support the organisation’s wider mission.
However, strategic clarity should not become rigidity. A strategy must provide direction while remaining responsive to changes in policy, leadership and the wider context in which schools and trusts operate. The aim is not to change direction whenever circumstances shift, but to ensure that priorities remain relevant, purposeful and focused on delivering the best outcomes for pupils.
- If a prospective trustee asked where the board had made the greatest difference, what would the answer be?
This question asks boards to look beyond activity and evaluate their impact. It is relatively easy to describe the work a board has completed: meetings attended, reports reviewed, policies approved and decisions made. It can be more difficult to explain what changed as a result.
The answer should not be superficial or limited to governance processes. Instead, boards should be able to identify where their oversight, challenge and decision-making have contributed to stronger schools and better outcomes for children.
This might include improving outcomes for disadvantaged pupils, addressing underperformance or helping the organisation become more resilient. The impact may not always be attributable to a single decision, but the board should understand how its work has supported the organisation’s wider mission.
- What would happen if the CEO resigned?
Leadership succession is a significant strategic risk for any organisation. Successful CEOs are regularly approached about new opportunities and at some point, the right role may arise and even a long-serving or highly effective leader may decide that it is time to move on. Boards should understand how a change in leadership would be managed rather than waiting for a resignation to create urgency. Is there a clear succession plan? Does the organisation have leaders with the experience and capacity to step into more senior roles? Would the board automatically recruit externally, or could an internal candidate provide continuity while taking the organisation in its next direction?
The answer may also depend on the organisation’s size, context and longer-term strategy. For a smaller organisation, a CEO’s departure could prompt wider questions about future sustainability, partnership or potential growth.
Together, these questions encourage boards to consider purpose, priorities, impact and future resilience. They also reinforce a central message from the webinar: effective governance is shaped not only by the information presented or the processes followed, but by the culture created around the board table.
Our thanks to Sir David Carter for sharing his experience and insights during the webinar, and to everyone who joined the discussion.