The Value of Articulating Data Expectations: Boards Must Define What They Need to Know

In an era where decisions must be both data-driven and ethically grounded, board effectiveness hinges on clarity, particularly clarity around the information the board receives. Yet too often, boards and executive teams operate with vague or unspoken assumptions about what constitutes sufficient data for performance oversight, strategic decision-making, and accountability. When these expectations remain unclear or unarticulated, governance becomes reactive, inconsistent, and ultimately, ineffective.

Articulating the level and type of data a board requires is not just a procedural issue, it’s a governance imperative. It signals a board’s maturity, strengthens the relationship between board and executive, and creates the conditions for confident decision-making, appropriate oversight, and shared accountability.

Governance is a Data-Informed Practice

Boards are not in the business of daily operations. Their role is to set direction, assess progress, ensure accountability, and make decisions in the best interest of the organisation. To do that, they need timely, relevant, and accurate information. Not all data is equal, and not all data is useful. What a board requires is not data for data’s sake, but decision-grade information, i.e., the right level of detail to assess performance and risks, test assumptions, and make choices about the future.

Boards that fail to articulate their expectations often fall into two traps. The first is data overload, where board packs are bloated with operational minutiae and unfiltered reports, leaving members overwhelmed and unclear on what matters. The second is data starvation, where the board is presented with curated highlights or superficial metrics, and is forced to operate in the dark, relying on executive reassurance rather than evidence.

Defining What ‘Assurance’ Looks Like

When boards don’t clarify the level of assurance they require, they unintentionally leave interpretation to the executive. What one CEO sees as “enough” may fall short of what the board expects. Articulating what constitutes meaningful assurance, for example, the frequency, depth, and triangulation of reporting, allows both parties to operate with confidence and clarity.

Assurance isn’t just about performance metrics; it’s also about strategic progress, financial health, regulatory compliance, and stakeholder confidence. Boards need to agree collectively on what assurance means in these domains and what evidence will support it. This could include:

• Trends over time, not just static snapshots;

• Independent audit or evaluation findings;

• Benchmarking against sector or peer organisations;

• Commentary that contextualises numbers and explains variance; and/or

• Scenario planning or predictive modelling to show likely futures.

  
  

Creating a Shared Language of Governance

Too often, the relationship between a board and executive team can become strained not because of disagreement over decisions, but because of confusion over expectations. By explicitly defining the data the board needs, and explaining why it's needed, creates a shared governance vocabulary. This reduces friction, prevents micromanagement, and builds a collaborative culture where both sides are clear about their responsibilities and information needs.

A good board doesn’t just accept or reject the information provided, it works with the executive to shape what good reporting looks like. This might mean co-developing a performance dashboard, revising the board pack format, or holding regular reviews of reporting effectiveness. It also means recognising that different types of decisions require different types of data, i.e., operational updates, strategic shifts, risk oversight, and financial planning each require distinct lenses.

Enabling Informed, Courageous Decisions

Boards are often called upon to make bold, high-stakes decisions about investment, restructuring, partnerships, or crisis response. In such moments, instinct or precedent alone are not enough. Boards need access to integrated, multidimensional information that supports scrutiny and foresight. If the board has previously agreed what constitutes “decision-ready” data, it is better prepared to act decisively and responsibly.

Conversely, when data is insufficient or unclear, boards default to caution or deferral. They delay decisions, ask for further clarification, or avoid taking necessary risks. This can paralyse an organisation at critical moments and erode confidence in governance.

Supporting the Willingness to Be Held to Account

Accountability is not a passive condition but an active willingness to be judged against agreed standards. For a board to fulfil its duty to stakeholders, it must first agree on what success looks like and how that will be measured. This means defining the information it will use to monitor its own effectiveness as well as the organisation’s.

When data expectations are clear and transparent, it enables both internal and external accountability. It becomes easier for members, funders, regulators, or the public to understand the board’s decisions, assess progress, and have confidence in the organisation’s stewardship.

Making it a Board-Level Conversation

Articulating data expectations should be a deliberate and collective board exercise, not left to the chair alone. It should be embedded in board induction, annual performance reviews, and strategic planning cycles. This also provides a platform for board development, building the confidence of trustees or non-executive directors to engage critically with information and ask the right questions.

It’s worth noting that the right data evolves. As the organisation grows, shifts direction, or faces new challenges, the board’s information needs will change too. Articulating expectations is not a one-off act but an ongoing commitment to governance clarity and effectiveness.

In the end, a board’s ability to perform its role with integrity and impact rests on its information base. Boards that take the time to agree on what data they need (not just to know but to act) build a stronger foundation for decision-making, accountability, and organisational success. It is not a technical exercise. It is the heart of effective governance.