As regulators and listing authorities increasingly require companies to provide detailed assessments of their boards’ competencies, the board skills matrix serves as a tool for internal evaluation and as a mechanism for transparency with stakeholders. 

Here's how to approach this task with finesse, clarity, and purpose.

A board skills matrix is a visual and comprehensive chart that maps out the demographic details, professional backgrounds, and core competencies of board members. It highlights the expertise currently present on the board and also the gaps in skills that may need to be addressed for future strategic priorities. A truly effective matrix will have answers to the following: 

• What skills and knowledge does the company’s strategy and industry demand from its board?
• What competencies, experience, and diversity attributes do the existing directors bring to the table?
• How does the current lineup measure against the desired skillset? What needs to change or improve?

If one can describe a particular skill, what is its relevance to the business? A skills matrix is not merely an exercise in listing credentials – It’s about demonstrating strategic alignment between board expertise and the company’s needs.

When it comes to discussing a board skills matrix, transparency is a double-edged sword: It can build trust and confidence among investors, but it can also expose gaps, inconsistencies, or oversights. The audience is mostly sceptical, if not critical, of what’s presented. It is vital to approach this task with realism, humility, and precision.

A frequent pitfall in creating a matrix is overvaluing certain board skills. Completing a short online webinar on artificial intelligence, for instance, does not make someone an AI expert. Boards must critically assess and validate the depth of expertise their members claim to possess. Do a “reality check” to ensure the matrix is grounded in facts rather than self-assessment bias. Rudimentary knowledge in a field cannot be equated with expertise, and overstating capabilities can harm credibility.

Generic or overly broad categories such as “strategy,” “leadership,” or “finance” can dilute the matrix’s utility. If nine out of ten directors can check the “strategy” box, it raises questions about the rigour of your definitions. Observers expect specificity: what kind of strategic expertise? Operational strategy? M&A strategy? International market entry? Without clear criteria, your matrix risks becoming meaningless jargon. Define skills precisely, with examples or benchmarks.

Beyond professional competencies, the matrix should capture demographic diversity: gender, race, age, and tenure. Diversity isn’t just a regulatory checkbox; it’s a business imperative. Numerous studies have demonstrated the positive impact of diverse boards on decision-making, and innovation. 

A board composed of individuals with similar backgrounds, perspectives, or demographics will attract scrutiny and criticism. Stakeholders expect boards to reflect the diversity of their customer base and broader society. Age diversity, in particular, is becoming increasingly relevant as companies seek to balance seasoned experience with younger, tech-savvy perspectives.

To maximize the impact of the skills matrix disclosure, companies must align it with investor priorities. Engage proactively with stakeholders to understand their concerns and expectations. While investor relations teams are central to this process, input, legal, HR, and senior management can provide additional insights. For example, passive investors and institutional funds may want governance stability and expertise in ESG (environmental, social, and governance) issues, while venture capital or private equity stakeholders might focus more on innovation, growth-stage expertise, and entrepreneurial experience. The key is to anticipate these priorities and highlight the appropriate ones.

Finally, when it comes to presenting the matrix, simplicity and clarity should guide your design. While digital tools and infographics offer a plethora of creative options, there is a risk of overcomplicating the message. Investors are not looking for artistic flair but for a clear, concise representation of your board’s capabilities.

A well-designed matrix should include a summary of core competencies and their relevance to the company’s strategic goals, a clear mapping of each director’s expertise, ideally with a level of proficiency (basic, intermediate, advanced) and diversity metrics, presented straightforwardly. Too many bells and whistles can distract from the substance. Focus on creating a clean, professional design that has good readability.

The skills matrix is not a static document – It is a living, evolving tool. As industries and markets shift, so too must the expertise required at the board level. Periodic reviews of the matrix can help companies stay ahead of emerging trends and challenges. For instance, expertise in digital transformation, cybersecurity, sustainability, and AI is increasingly valuable today. Boards must continuously evaluate whether their composition aligns with these evolving demands.

Ultimately, a board skills matrix is more than a regulatory requirement or a PR exercise. It is a reflection of how seriously a company takes governance, diversity, and strategic alignment. Done right, it can enhance investor confidence, attract top talent, and position the company as a forward-thinking, well-managed organisation.