By Tina Nunno
Boards increasingly see artificial intelligence as central to future shareholder value. Yet a growing gap is emerging between board ambition and operational reality. This article examines how AI is reshaping board governance, why traditional reporting falls short, and how executives can structure AI discussions around value, risk and strategic impact.
Artificial intelligence (AI) has moved decisively into the boardroom. For many directors, it now represents the most important investment theme shaping future competitiveness, resilience and shareholder value. According to Gartner’s 2026 Board of Directors Survey, 57% of board members rank AI as a top-three investment priority for the next two years, ahead of M&A, workforce investment and cybersecurity.
Yet despite this enthusiasm, conversations about AI are becoming more strained rather than more effective. Executives are pressed for faster progress, clearer returns and bolder ambition, often before organisations have resolved foundational challenges around data, skills, governance and risk. The result is a growing disconnect: AI features prominently on board agendas but remains far less mature than the expectations being placed upon it.
This disconnect increasingly reflects governance and oversight challenges, rather than limitations of the technology alone.
Why AI is now a governance issue, not a technology one
Historically, boards treated technology oversight as a delegated responsibility, primarily owned by the Chief information officer (CIO) or Chief technology officer (CTO), and oversight delegated to the audit, risk or technology committee. AI has fundamentally altered that model. Its implications cut across strategy, capital allocation, workforce design, risk management and corporate reputation, placing it squarely within the board’s fiduciary remit.
Directors increasingly view technological disruption, innovation failure, cybersecurity exposure, and data risk as among the most significant external threats to shareholder value. At the same time, one in four directors see inadequate technology as a major internal risk, limiting an organisation’s ability to scale, innovate and manage volatility.
In this context, AI is no longer “just another IT initiative.” It has become a cornerstone of modern board governance, forcing directors to engage directly with questions of feasibility, prioritisation and return on investment. This governance challenge is compounded by the fact that boards themselves are rarely aligned on what AI should deliver, or how quickly.
The AI divide inside the boardroom
One of the most overlooked challenges in AI governance is that boards are not aligned internally on what AI should deliver, or how fast.
Gartner identifies three broad categories of non-executive directors (NEDs) based on their AI posture:
- Pioneers actively push for AI-led growth, differentiation and competitive advantage.
- Pacers take a pragmatic stance, seeking proof of value while managing financial and cyber risk.
- Protectors are skeptical, prioritising stability, cost control and risk minimisation over experimentation.
These differences matter. They shape how progress is interpreted, which questions are asked and how trade-offs are evaluated. When executives fail to recognise and navigate this divide, AI discussions can quickly become circular, defensive or overly technical, satisfying neither directors nor management.
Why traditional IT reporting no longer works for AI
Board dissatisfaction with AI reporting is increasingly visible. Directors consistently call for more meaningful discussion, yet are often presented with longer prereads, denser updates and presentations that emphasise activity over insight. Preparation demands on executives are routinely underestimated, while the pace of AI development continues to outstrip traditional reporting cycles.
AI’s inherent uncertainty compounds the issue. Dashboards and static metrics struggle to capture experimentation, learning curves and shifting risk profiles. When expectations evolve faster than reporting frameworks, frustration replaces confidence – particularly for boards already divided on AI’s value.
Reframing AI as a comprehensive investment portfolio
One of the most effective ways to reset board-level conversations is to treat AI as a comprehensive investment portfolio rather than a single programme or capability. Not all AI initiatives serve the same purpose, operate on the same timelines or carry the same risk, nor should they be evaluated through the same lens.
By positioning themselves as stewards of an AI portfolio, executives can better balance competing priorities across revenue growth, cost optimisation and risk management. This framing helps boards view AI initiatives with different timelines, risks and expected outcomes, supporting informed discussions about progress.
Making AI value legible to the board
Across boardrooms, the message from directors is remarkably consistent: connect AI to financial outcomes. Boards do not expect complete certainty, but they do expect transparency. Effective AI discussions move beyond technical capability to articulate how initiatives affect revenue growth, cost structures, resilience and risk exposure.
Whether AI is positioned as a source of innovation, competitive advantage, efficiency or protection, the underlying question remains the same: how does this investment affect the income statement, balance sheet or cash flow, and over what timeframe? Which line items will be impacted and when? Clear articulation of trade-offs, timing and uncertainty is often more valuable to boards than confident projections that overstate near-term returns.
The BOARD test for AI conversations
To sharpen AI discussions, executives benefit from a simple but disciplined BOARD communication approach: being brief, open, accurate, relevant and diplomatic. Applied consistently, this mindset helps shift board conversations away from hype and toward governance maturity. It also reflects a growing reality: some directors are already using AI to challenge assumptions and inform decisions, while others are still building confidence. Meeting directors where they are is no longer optional.
From AI hype to AI stewardship
The next phase of AI adoption will not be defined by who experiments fastest, but by who governs best. Boards are right to focus on AI’s strategic importance, but ambition must be matched with realism, structure and shared understanding of both risks and opportunities.
The organisations most likely to succeed will be those that reframe AI not as a promise, but as a managed portfolio of bets, governed with the same discipline applied to capital, risk and talent. AI governance maturity is increasingly becoming a signal of overall leadership quality and strategic discipline.
For boards, that shift begins not with new dashboards or tools, but with better, more holistic conversations regarding potential portfolios of AI value.
Gartner analysts will further explore how AI governance and executive decision making are evolving at the Gartner IT Symposium/Xpo in Barcelona, from 9–12 November 2026.
Tina Nunno
