Asking Better Questions: The Heart of Good Governance

Great governance starts with great questions

Exceptional leaders know they don’t know everything. In fact, that’s often what makes them exceptional. They’re comfortable saying, “This isn’t my area of expertise,” and they make sure they have the right people around them to fill those gaps. That’s how they build a genuinely rounded, 360-degree view of their role.

At the heart of this is something I wrote about recently - curiosity. The willingness to admit you don’t yet know enough — and the confidence to go and find out — is what separates surface-level oversight from meaningful leadership. The same is true for boards.

When governance slips into operations

But what happens when boards aren’t fully aware of where their collective knowledge gaps might be?

One common outcome is what’s often described as ‘operational governance’. That’s when boards gradually drift into the detail of delivery, focusing heavily on the what and the how, instead of staying anchored in the why.

It’s an easy and very human drift — especially when trustees care deeply about the organisation’s work and want to be helpful.

Now, don’t get this wrong — delivery absolutely matters. But deciding what delivery looks like and how it happens is the job of leadership teams and staff. Governance sits somewhere else. Trustees are there to focus on the rationale behind decisions, alignment with strategy and whether the organisation is living its values in practice. Their role is to reassure themselves that the thinking is sound and the direction is right.

Why this matters more than we think

When boards lose sight of this distinction, the risks are real — and often unintended. Trustees can find themselves stepping into executive territory, blurring lines of accountability and slowing decision-making. Meetings can become filled with operational updates, while bigger strategic or cultural warning signs don’t get the space they need.

Over time, that can create frustration on both sides of the board–exec relationship. More importantly, it can mean missed opportunities for the board to add the most value — steering the organisation thoughtfully through complexity and change.

Why trustees drift into the detail

So why does this happen? Often, it comes down to confidence. Strategy can feel abstract. It’s less tangible than service numbers, budgets or delivery timelines. Operational detail feels safer because it’s concrete and measurable.

Trustees may worry about getting it wrong or asking questions they feel they should already know the answers to. So, it’s natural to lean into the areas that feel easier to grasp.

And now, increasingly, some trustees are turning to AI to help them prepare for meetings by generating ‘good governance questions’. That can be a proactive step — and a sign that people want to do their role well. At the same time, it can sometimes reflect uncertainty about what meaningful governance challenge really looks like in practice. AI can be a helpful starting point, but it can’t replace the judgement that comes from understanding your organisation’s purpose, context and values.

Why questioning is a core trustee skill

This is where training in questioning — not just governance theory — really matters.

Some organisations are now offering support specifically focused on the art of trustee questioning. This isn’t about scripting people or ‘leading the witness’. It’s about helping trustees feel confident and capable enough to engage with complex issues, even when they sit outside their professional background.

Because being able to question well isn’t just a nice extra — it’s part of the role. Trustees are collectively responsible for the long-term direction, sustainability and integrity of their organisations. If a board can’t ask strategic, values-based questions, it can’t fully deliver on that responsibility.

Shifting from operational to governance questions

Sometimes, the shift from operational to governance thinking is as simple as reframing the question.

Instead of asking … why did service uptake drop by 12% in Q2?

Try … what does this trend tell us about whether our model is still meeting the needs we designed it for?

Instead of asking … why are staff overtime costs rising?

Try … what does this suggest about the sustainability of our delivery model and workforce wellbeing?

Instead of asking … how quickly can this project be delivered?

Try … how does this initiative advance our strategic priorities — and what might we be choosing not to do as a result?

The first type of question leans into performance management. The second leans into strategic assurance. Both matter — but they sit in different places in an organisation.

We already do this in other areas

We already accept this idea in other contexts. When recruiting a new trustee, it’s completely normal to ask HR to help shape interview questions. No one says that undermines the board’s authority — it helps the board make better decisions. Supporting trustees to develop stronger questioning skills is no different.

AI is a great example of why this matters right now. Many trustees are trying to understand what artificial intelligence means for their organisations. But how can you govern something you don’t yet fully understand? The answer isn’t to avoid the topic or stay at surface level. It’s to get curious. To seek out learning, talk to people with expertise and build enough understanding to ask thoughtful, strategic questions.

Curiosity is a governance strength

In a fast-moving and complex world, trustees don’t need to have all the answers. But they do need to know how to ask the right questions.

Strong governance doesn’t come from boards trying to know everything. It comes from trustees who are confident enough to admit what they don’t know, curious enough to explore it and skilled enough to ask the questions that really matter — while staying firmly focused on the why at the heart of their role.

Why Curiosity Matters in Governance

Curiosity helps governors build understanding, trust and meaningful connection with the organisations and people they serve

“Curiosity killed the cat” is a familiar phrase, often offered as a warning. But in governance, the opposite is far more risky. Without curiosity — without the confidence to ask questions, seek evidence and look beyond what is presented on paper — governors may miss the very things they are there to oversee.

Curiosity in this context is not about suspicion or micromanagement. It is about being inquisitive — wanting to understand more deeply how an organisation really functions. It values the ‘show me’ alongside the what and the why. In governance, this mindset is often expressed through triangulation.

Board papers should clearly cover the what, why, when and how. Triangulation goes a step further. It means finding opportunities to see first-hand how what you are being told translates into day-to-day practice. Boards naturally rely on the information they are given, and site visits or direct engagement can enrich that picture. This is not about mistrust; it is about strengthening understanding and assurance.

There are many reasons why visits and direct engagement do not always take place. Governors may feel uncertain about their own knowledge or unsure how far to probe areas outside their professional background. In some settings, visits are seen as unnecessary or are handled informally. While these perspectives are understandable, they do not remove the value of seeing an organisation in action and connecting governance decisions to lived experience.

This emphasis on curiosity is strongly echoed in the Institute of Directors’ business paper NEDs reimagined: A post-Higgs review of the role and contribution of non-executive directors (2026). The report makes a clear case that modern boards need to move from periodic oversight to active, informed, adaptive stewardship. It argues that non-executives benefit from being “more engaged and curious” and “more present in the business”.

Crucially, the report does not position curiosity as a combative posture. In its section titled Curiosity comes first (p8), it notes that discussions about non-executive effectiveness often centre on challenge — but that challenge works best when paired with emotional intelligence, curiosity and engagement, with chairs encouraging collaboration and thoughtful dialogue. That is exactly the spirit in which curiosity strengthens governance: not as a ‘gotcha’, but as a way of building shared understanding, trust and better decisions.

Visits are not only a way to triangulate information; they can also help governors understand how staff are feeling and how organisational culture is experienced in practice. In environments where openness is actively encouraged, conversations about challenge, pressure and morale are more visible. Curiosity, when expressed with care and respect, tends to be welcomed because people are proud of their work and want others to understand it fully.

Governors can benefit from opportunities to visit and become a recognised face — not ever-present, but familiar enough to feel connected rather than unknown. Asking questions, observing practice and listening to those working within the organisation all help build trust and shared understanding.

In governance, curiosity is not something to be feared. When exercised thoughtfully and respectfully, it strengthens relationships, deepens understanding and ultimately supports the people and communities that organisations exist to serve.

So, allow yourself to ask questions, make visits where appropriate and stay inquisitive about the organisation you are helping to steward. Curiosity, handled well, is not a risk to governance — it is one of its greatest strengths.

Reference
Institute of Directors (IoD) (2026). NEDs reimagined: A post-Higgs review of the role and contribution of non-executive directors. IoD Business Paper.