When I completed my “AI from the Top: Strategic and Responsible AI Leadership” certification through Competent Boards in 2024, I did so because I recognized a gap in my knowledge and in the boardrooms where I’ve served for over 25 years.

As AI shifts from an IT project to a core business strategy, boards face a competency crisis directly tied to their diversity crisis.

Boards that recruit exclusively from finance and law networks lack the expertise to oversee algorithmic accountability, data governance, technical M&A due diligence, and regulatory compliance with frameworks such as the EU AI Act and Canada’s proposed AIDA. These competencies stem from STEM and technology backgrounds, where women remain significantly underrepresented among AI professionals globally, though they are far from absent.

Yet boards continue to prioritize “board experience” over “board-relevant expertise,” thereby excluding the very candidates who could fill their governance gaps.

Areas to consider additional AI competency:
Do audit committees sign off on AI-driven decisions without questioning the algorithms’ fairness? Do boards approve facial recognition technology without understanding the racial bias in the training data? Do M&A special committees acquire AI companies without directors capable of evaluating the IP in the pitch deck?

Nominating committees need to seek candidates beyond their existing networks to add STEM talent with governance-critical skills.

My Power of Three philosophy applies here as well. One director with AI literacy can raise concerns but is often overruled. Two directors with technical backgrounds may support each other yet end up siloed within a specialty committee. Three directors with STEM expertise ensure AI governance is integrated across audit, risk, nominating, and strategy, treating it as a business imperative rather than an isolated technology issue.

When you look closely, the competency and diversity crises are two sides of the same coin.

As boards grapple with regulatory exposure, reputational risk, and fiduciary responsibilities they may not fully understand, I encourage nominating committees to ask: Who at this table can technically evaluate our AI initiatives?

If the answer gives you pause, it may be time to diversify your recruiting networks.