By Srinath Sridharan, The author is corporate advisor and independent director
If you feel the world is expecting boards to know more, decide faster, and never get anything wrong, you aren’t imagining it. Governance today often feels like being handed responsibility for the weather or a traffic jam. You did not cause it, you cannot control it; yet, everyone wants to know why you did not predict it. This is the paradox of modern boardrooms—responsibility has expanded far beyond authority, while the tolerance for error has collapsed.
The environment in which they operate has changed faster than frameworks.
The first shift boards must confront is the changing nature of accountability. Traditionally, it was defined technically, today it has become experiential. Stakeholders read intent, judgement, tone, and behaviour as closely as outcomes. How a board responds in the first hours of a crisis often matters more than the resolution.
From Promoters to Professionals
The second dimension reshaping governance is the institutionalisation of power. Many Indian enterprises are at an inflection point as ownership evolves through succession or institutionalisation of shareholding, professionalisation, investor influence, or market maturity. The debate is no longer about whether promoters should step back or stay involved. The deeper question is whether the organisation has built the institutional muscle to govern beyond individuals. Authority is being redistributed across generations, boards, management teams, regulators, and capital markets. Boards that fail to manage this redistribution risk becoming either ceremonial or adversarial.
The third shift is the elevation of governance from oversight to strategic intelligence. Boards are now expected to interpret weak signals, challenge assumptions, integrate expertise, and hold long-term purpose alongside short-term pressures. This is not about assembling more experts. It is about cultivating the ability to think together. Collective judgement has become the most valuable and the most fragile asset of a board.
Closely linked is the fourth force reshaping governance—the human architecture of institutions. Talent, culture, and leadership continuity have moved decisively into the board’s remit because they determine resilience. Expectations of workforce have shifted, leadership cycles have shortened, and organisations are judged not only by what they achieve, but how they behave internally.
The fifth and perhaps most unsettling dimension is technology. Digital transformation, cyber exposure, AI, and data ethics have created a landscape where boards carry personal and reputational liability for risks they can’t always see and consequences they can’t fully predict. The question is not whether directors must become technologists, but whether they develop the literacy to ask the right questions, recognise risks, and understand how technology reshapes power, accountability, and trust.
Complicating this further is the reality that boards must balance promoter, regulatory, market, and societal expectations simultaneously. Put differently, if even one stakeholder is entirely satisfied, it may be a sign that something important has been overlooked.
This is where Indian boards face their most uncomfortable questions—what does accountability truly mean when outcomes are shaped by forces far beyond the boardroom? How much time does effective governance require in practice? Are boards allocating sufficient cognitive and calendar space to what matters most, or are they operating to legacy rhythms unsuited today?
There is also a deeper debate on independence, particularly that of independent directors. Independence today is the willingness to ask inconvenient questions, persist when answers are incomplete, and dissent without theatrics. True independence is demonstrated in sustained engagement. It requires preparation, context, and the confidence to challenge without alienating. In too many boardrooms, independence remains a designation rather than a discipline.
The old vocabulary of governance—compliance, comfort, and precedent—is no longer adequate. Yet, there are differences in how boards see the path forward. Some emphasise speed and sharper judgement. Others stress the slower work of building institutional resilience. Both are right.
Many boards underestimate how quickly reputational and digital risks can escalate. Others underestimate the cultural work required to convert authority into trust. And many still underestimate the future by assuming yesterday’s success guarantees tomorrow’s credibility.
The “no second chances” era does not require boards to be fearful. It requires them to be intentional. Governance today is less about eliminating risk and more about building the capacity to respond with judgement, coherence, and legitimacy when risk inevitably materialises.
Cognitive Gap
There is also an uncomfortable but necessary conversation for Indian regulators to engage with. As expectations from independent directors expand dramatically, compensation frameworks have not kept pace. Board roles can no longer be treated as ceremonial or honorary. In an era of data explosion and real-time disruption, directors are expected to invest deep preparation, continuous learning, and sustained availability. If independence, diligence, and accountability are to be taken seriously, remuneration must be relevant, proportionate, and aligned with the cognitive and time demands of governance today.