I have observed that many boards are inefficient because committees operate perfectly in isolation. After years of evaluating boards across financial institutions, manufacturing firms, and state entities, one pattern repeats, Audit reviews controls, Risk reviews exposure, and Credit review portfolios. Nomination and Governance reviews succession. Each reports upward. Few connect sideways. On paper, everything looks covered. Under stress, gaps appear. The Board Committee Intersection & Oversight Alignment Map is designed to expose those gaps before a crisis occurs. It forces clarity on ownership, joint accountability, escalation triggers, incentive alignment, and capability gaps. It makes visible where oversight overlaps, where it fragments, and where it quietly disappears. This is not another template but a living document to help you transform your board. It is a pressure test for board setup. Use it once, and you will see whether your committees truly integrate or merely coexist. Integration is not automatic; it must be engineered. I developed the Board committee intersection and oversight alignment map to ensure that enterprise risks are integrated across committees and aligned with strategy, capital, incentives, and capabilities. Use this tool to stop board committees from operating in silos. What does each Column entails? a)    Linked Strategic Objective. Prevents risk discussions from floating outside the strategy. b)   Financial Impact Exposure. Quantifies seriousness. Stops cosmetic reporting. c)    Primary Committee Owner. Removes ambiguity. One owner, not three spectators. d)   Required Joint Committee(s). Forces formal intersection. If blank, challenge it. e)   Reporting Cadence. Prevents “annual ritual” oversight. f)     Early Warning Indicator. Moves board from lagging to leading metrics. g)    Escalation Trigger. Defines when discussion shifts from committee to full board. h)   Board Capability Gap. Forces Nomination & Governance Committee to assess skills. i)     Incentive Link. Tests whether management rewards align with risk exposure. How do I use this during board retreats? Divide directors into cross-committee groups. a)    Assign two risks per group. b)   Force them to complete all columns. c)    Reconvene and challenge assumptions. This helps move the discussion from “who covers this?” to “who owns the consequence?” Winning boards do not just assign oversight. They engineer integration. That is the difference between structure and governance. If no intersection exists, you have a silo. Silos rarely announce themselves that exposes you under stress. If this feels familiar, commission an independent board evaluation. Integration does not happen by goodwill. It happens by design. I remain, Mr. Strategy

Boards do not fail in crisis; they fail in meetings. After over twenty-five years sitting in boardrooms as advisor, evaluator, director, secretary and sometimes quiet confidant, one pattern remains constant. The loudest voices are often the least prepared. And the cost is rarely visible immediately. It shows up later in missed risks, defensive CEOs, passive chairs, frustrated company secretaries, and strategy that drifts. Usually, this is not a character flaw. It is a governance design issue. Preparation, airtime discipline, and psychological courage are not personality traits. They are board setup choices. When they are weak, ego fills the gap, and when they are strong, clarity prevails. If you want to know whether your board culture rewards preparation or performance, confidence or competence, control or candour, it may be time for an independent lens. Request a confidential board evaluation. Sometimes, the most powerful decision a chair can make is to hold up the mirror. The consultant you use to do that matters a lot “Let us be honest,” the chair said, looking directly at him. “Did you read the risk report?” The director adjusted his glasses. “I skimmed it.” This was a regulated financial institution. The capital adequacy note he skipped contained a red flag. Yet he dominated the discussion for twenty minutes, challenging management on issues already addressed in the pack. The CEO grew defensive. Two directors stopped contributing. The company secretary kept glancing at the clock. We ran out of time before reaching the succession item. I was there as an external evaluator. I usually request 2-3 meetings to sit in the board as a fly on the wall to observe the board discussion as part of the board evaluation exercise. I love it when I experience the energy or lack of it in the boardroom firsthand. I noticed that the frustration was not about ignorance. It was about noise. It reminded me of a construction site. The loudest man on the ground keeps shouting instructions, but he has not looked at the blueprint. The engineers stop explaining. The workers improvise. The building still goes up, but the cracks are already inside the walls. I have noted that unprepared directors speaking the most is a power problem, not a discipline one. Many chairs tolerate airtime based on personality. Many boards confuse confidence with contribution. And when ego fills the room, preparation becomes optional. High-performing boards do the opposite. They make preparation visible and consequential. In one bank, I helped the chair introduce a simple rule: every director submits one written insight and one risk question 24 hours before the meeting to demonstrate that they have read the board pack. The submissions are circulated to all. Those who prepare shape the agenda. Those who do not prepare feel the silence. The tone changed within two meetings. At your next board retreat, run this exercise. Hand out the last board pack. Give each director five minutes to write the single most material risk and the page reference. Then go around the table, no speeches. Just the answer. You will learn two things quickly. Who leads. And who performs. Preparation is not courtesy; it is a fiduciary duty. If the board cannot master that, no strategy, no AI framework, no ESG dashboard will save it. I remain Mr Strategy. I help future-proof boards to add value.

Some leaders do not need to introduce themselves. Their work does it for them; quietly, consistently, and unmistakably.Prof. Moses Kamya, Executive Director of the Infectious Diseases Research Collaboration (IDRC), is such a leader. A man whose global exposure, academic excellence, and unmatched professional stature could easily have created distance, yet he chooses a different path. He listens. He empowers. He creates room for young professionals and local consultants to shine. That is the mark of true leadership, confidence without arrogance, authority without intimidation, and brilliance without noise.In 2019, I had the privilege of working with IDRC on Strategy and Enterprise-Wide Risk Management. What impressed me most was not the technical work itself, but the environment created by Prof. Kamya. He set a tone that allowed rigorous thinking, practical problem-solving, and honest conversations, qualities that many institutions struggle with. His openness to new ideas, regardless of source, made our work not only impactful but deeply fulfilling. The testimonial issued by IDRC reflects leadership that does more than manage; it mentors. More than evaluates; it elevates. More than supervises; it strengthens. Institutions rise or fall on the temperament of the person at the top. Under Prof. Kamya, IDRC does not just deliver world-class research; it models world-class governance. Professor, thank you for your strategic leadership. Thank you for demonstrating that humility is not the absence of achievement, but its highest expression. Thank you for championing young people, trusting local expertise, and proving that when leaders create space, talent flourishes. Your example continues to inspire me and many others striving to build institutions that matter. I remain Mr Strategy.