An important lesson is framing AI as a strategic asset boards must steward, not just a risk to mitigate.
The reflections below are drawn from Pia Laub’s experience in an AI for Boards workshop delivered by INSEAD’s Centre for Corporate Governance. The themes and content explored in that workshop are now available in a four-day face-to-face format as part of INSEAD’s new open enrolment Executive Education programme, AI for Boards.
1. What motivated you to take part in this workshop, and what questions or challenges around AI governance were you hoping to explore?
As a board member, I find it essential to stay continuously updated on emerging topics that impact our work, and AI stands out as an area influencing board responsibilities across strategy, risk, ethics and decision-making. Moreover, INSEAD offers truly strong faculty and a high-calibre participant network, which motivated me to join the “AI for Boards” workshop. I was particularly keen to explore how boards can fulfil their role in the variety of aspects that AI influences, and what practical questions non-technical directors should ask to guide management effectively.
2. How did the workshop deepen your understanding of AI from a board or governance perspective (for example in relation to oversight, risk, ethics or decision-making)?
The workshop broadened my insight by addressing all the key aspects, including strategy, risks, ethics, organisational set-up and readiness, guardrails and governance, and the board's role in general oversight. It also provided a solid foundational understanding of what AI is, which was incredibly valuable.
3. Which aspects of the content did you find most valuable or immediately relevant to board-level discussions?
The workshop translated AI from technology into tangible governance duties and strategic approaches. It showed how AI integrates into existing board agendas – from risk appetite and compliance to culture and accountability – rather than requiring a siloed “tech” approach. I now have a clearer sense of where the board should engage deeply (e.g. setting principles and challenging assumptions) and where to delegate execution.
4. Was there a particular framework, discussion or insight that changed how you think about the board’s role in overseeing AI?
The most valuable elements were the high-quality faculty, case-based discussions, practical frameworks, and links to up-to-date real cases.
An important lesson is framing AI as a strategic asset boards must steward, not just a risk to mitigate. The focus on taking a portfolio approach, ensuring clear role definitions between board, management and experts, as well as the board’s different modes of engagement, strengthened my perspective on our oversight role, making it feel both actionable and pressing.
5. Who would you say the content of the workshop would be most valuable for, and why?
I recommend this workshop to all responsible non-executive directors, including audit and risk committee chairs. It equips participants to shape AI agendas confidently, without needing deep technical expertise – ideal for anyone steering governance in an AI-driven world. For me, it was very valuable that participants are required to have active board experience, as it ensured high-level discussions as well as a pure focus on the board.
