Is Your Board Creating or Eroding Value?

Find Out with the Multiplicative Value Model™

Value is not additive. It’s multiplicative.

In a world of persistent disruption, AI acceleration, geopolitical volatility, capital market pressure, and rising stakeholder expectations, boards can no longer rely on intuition, precedent, or backward-looking metrics to understand how value is truly created… or silently eroded.

What boards don’t see is often what puts enterprise value most at risk.

This executive-level webinar is a wake-up call for directors, chairs, and governance leaders who want to understand how governance, leadership, culture, and the external environment interact to either multiply, or diminish, enterprise value over time.

Traditional board dashboards focus on performance outcomes. But value creation, and value erosion, happens much earlier, driven by human, cultural, and systemic dynamics that most boards are not equipped to see.

In this session, you’ll be introduced to a powerful diagnostic lens that helps boards:

Surface hidden risks before they become losses
Understand how leadership and culture amplify (or destroy) value
Shift from reactive oversight to future-ready governance

You can’t manage what you can’t see. And you can’t protect value with yesterday’s governance logic.

Introducing the Multiplicative Value Model™ (MVM™)

The Multiplicative Value Model™ (MVM™) reframes

how boards think about value creation.

Rather than treating governance, leadership, culture, and context as separate variables, MVM™ reveals how they interact multiplicatively — strengthening or weakening enterprise value over time.

This model helps boards see:

Where value is being amplified
Where value is quietly eroding
How governance decisions compound risk or resilience
Why future-ready leadership capabilities matter more than ever

Jay R. Weiser

Jay R. Weiser is a Global Governance Advisor, leadership strategist, and creator of the Multiplicative Value Model™ (MVM™) and The Five Leadership Superpowers®.

Jay works with boards and senior leaders worldwide to strengthen governance effectiveness, leadership capability, and long-term value creation in complex, high-stakes environments.

His work focuses on helping boards see, and act on, the systemic dynamics

that determine whether value compounds or erodes over time.

Key Questions Answered

Can you elaborate on the tension between risk and growth? Many boards seem to prioritize risk avoidance.

Jay explained that boards often adopt one of two postures: “playing not to lose” or “playing to win.” Prioritizing risk avoidance is a “playing not to lose” strategy, where the primary focus is on preventing downside. While managing “avoidable erosion” is a critical function of the board, an overemphasis on it can stifle progress and lead to missed opportunities.

To create value, boards must also adopt a “playing to win” mindset. This involves taking calculated risks to drive innovation, explore new markets, and foster growth. The key is not to choose one over the other but to hold the tension between them—simultaneously protecting existing value while experimenting and investing to realize future potential.

What makes it most difficult for boards to learn in real time?

The primary obstacle to real-time learning is a historical reliance on past experience. Traditionally, board members, often former CEOs and CFOs, were selected for their accumulated judgment and what they already knew. This can create an inherent belief that they “know so much” that there is little left to learn.

However, the modern context, with its rapidly changing conditions and interconnected risks, makes this mindset a liability. The conditions today are vastly different from those of the past, requiring a new openness to ideas and a willingness to learn continuously. Board members must develop a perspective that transcends their individual functional expertise to grasp the complex, interacting systems at play.

This necessary evolution from a knowledge-based to a learning-based mindset directly impacts the board’s most critical function: selecting leaders who are defined not by what they know, but by their demonstrated capacity to learn and adapt.

How should boards select a CEO who is prepared for the new, turbulent environment, not just the old one?

The evaluation criteria for a new CEO must shift from focusing solely on what a candidate did to what they can do. Past experience in a stable environment is no longer the most reliable predictor of future success.

Instead, boards should probe for demonstrated capability in navigating modern challenges. Interview questions should explore how candidates have recently handled complexity, managed competing tensions (such as balancing present demands with future preparation), and guided organizations through crises. The goal is to identify a leader who can operate effectively under pressure and uncertainty, not just one who succeeded under previous, calmer conditions.

Is the focus on governance primarily about the CEO, or does it extend to levels above and below?

The application of governance principles extends across three distinct but interconnected levels:

1. The Board Level: The board is directly responsible for selecting the CEO and influencing the selection of other senior leaders, setting the standard for capability at the highest level.

2. The Executive Team Level: It is not enough for the CEO alone to be capable. The CEO and their direct reports must collectively be “future ready,” sharing the same mindset and capabilities for balancing tensions and making decisions under pressure.

3. The Collective Leadership: The entire leadership team must operate from a shared “playbook” of capabilities. This playbook is not a rigid set of instructions but a common approach that enables leaders to handle a wide variety of situations coherently across industries, functions, and geographies.

How can young, aspiring professionals best prepare for a future board career?

For professionals aspiring to board-level roles, the focus should be on developing the core capabilities of a “future-ready” leader. The speaker provided the following advice:

• Practice Balancing Tensions: Focus on how you can manage competing demands in your current role to build the mental muscles required for board-level navigation.

• Develop Broad Contextual Awareness: Move beyond technical and industry-specific skills to understand the wider business ecosystem and how different forces interact.

• Learn from Others: Study the successes and failures of other organizations to understand what works and what doesn’t in practice.

• Cultivate Key Attributes: Nurture curiosity, an appetite for smart risk-taking, and strong collaborative skills, as these are foundational to effective governance.

• View Certifications as a Starting Point: While certifications can be valuable, they are like a “license to drive”—they don’t automatically make you a good driver. Demonstrated capability is what truly matters.

Yet, even the most capable leaders can be undermined by inefficient structures, making it imperative to examine the board’s own operational dynamics and internal culture.

How can the blurring of roles between the board and management, which can weaken independence, be addressed?

The traditional model of “noses in, fingers out”—where boards investigate but do not intervene in operations—is becoming outdated. A more effective modern approach is “brains in, thinkers out.”

This means the board’s primary role is to bring its collective intellect to the table. Board members should be asking challenging questions, providing advice, and helping management test its own thinking without overstepping into day-to-day execution. To do this effectively, boards must be more actively aware of the business, which requires greater transparency from management and a commitment from directors to understand the company’s culture and operations on a deeper level.

What is the best way to handle boards that are overcommitted and too busy to engage deeply?

This issue has two primary dimensions: selection and accountability. The problem often begins with selecting directors who serve on too many boards and lack the time and mental bandwidth to contribute meaningfully. Board service today demands significant preparation and engagement beyond simply attending meetings.

Once on the board, passive or over-committed members must be held accountable. A passive director is a drag on the quality of governance and, ultimately, on performance. The speaker referenced a PwC study where, as he recalled, over 80% of board members believed one or more of their peers “shouldn’t be on the board,” highlighting the urgent need for boards to be more rigorous in evaluating their own members.

How can boards improve the structure of their meetings and the utility of their board packs?

A common trap for ineffective boards is spending too much time looking in the “rearview mirror”—reviewing past performance and relitigating old decisions. Highly effective boards shift their focus forward, concentrating on issues they can influence.

To support this forward-looking orientation, board packs should be “skinnied down” from exhaustive data dumps to concise documents that frame the key issues for discussion. The goal of the board pack should be to provide the essential context needed for a constructive and strategic debate, not to bury directors in irrelevant information.

How should a board deal with an unruly member who stalls progress?

Managing a disruptive board member requires a multi-faceted approach. The first line of defense is an effective board chair, who acts as a “conductor” to guide the discussion, ensure all voices are heard, and prevent one individual from dominating the conversation.

If the chair’s efforts are insufficient, other strategies include bringing in an outside facilitator to understand the root of the conflict, the chair having a direct “heart-to-heart” conversation with the member, and adhering to the principle that once a decision is made after robust debate, the entire board must coalesce around it.

What is the influence of the corporate secretary in the new era of governance?

The modern corporate secretary can be a highly influential figure in fostering effective governance. Their role extends beyond administrative duties to become a strategic partner to the board chair. They can help coordinate and shape agendas, bring in outside voices and expertise to inform discussions, and identify crucial development opportunities—such as master classes and webinars—to help board members build the capabilities they need to succeed.

The board’s internal effectiveness directly dictates its capacity to engage with the external stakeholders and political realities that shape its operating environment.

How should boards handle political appointees who may be there to maintain the status quo?

Regardless of how a member is appointed, every director has a fiduciary duty to act in the best long-term interests of the organization. This responsibility includes a commitment to stewardship and sustainable value creation for all stakeholders.

In today’s rapidly changing environment, maintaining the “status quo is not a safe place.” It is incumbent upon the board chair and the other members to challenge inertia and ensure that all directors, including political appointees, are contributing to the forward progress of the organization.

What is the role of shareholders in this new governance landscape?

Shareholders play a crucial role in holding the board accountable for its performance. They should expect transparency from the board on key issues, including financial results, sustainability efforts, and the strength of its governance practices.

If a board fails to deliver, shareholders have powerful tools at their disposal. Activist investors can push for changes, or poor performance can make the company a target for a takeover. While shareholders are a major stakeholder, the speaker emphasized that a board’s accountability is broader, extending to its customers, employees, and the communities in which it operates.

This complex external environment now includes rapidly advancing technologies that are reshaping the very tools boards can and should use to operate.

How can boards balance the use of AI with emerging regulations and govern its use responsibly?

While noting he is not an expert on the evolving regulations, the speaker stressed that AI is already a powerful tool that boards should be leveraging. It can be used to filter vast amounts of information, summarize complex topics to clarify debates, and prompt critical questions that might otherwise be missed.

However, AI cannot replace the uniquely human work of the board. The nuanced tasks of debating issues, understanding stakeholder dynamics, and making final judgments remain the domain of human directors.

The speaker concluded with a critical takeaway: the biggest risk for boards today is not using AI. The future will belong to leaders and organizations that learn to effectively combine their human skills with AI’s analytical capabilities. As he noted, “It’s a person who effectively uses AI, who will replace you.”

Three Questions for Every Board

The overarching message of the webinar Q&A is that the central challenge for modern boards is not a matter of intent—most boards want to do the right thing. It is a matter of capability. To succeed in an era of sustained pressure, boards must be equipped with the mindsets, processes, and leadership capabilities to navigate complexity effectively.

Jay left every board with three critical questions to begin this self-reflection: Where might value be leaking today?

What limits our ability to respond under pressure?
What capabilities matter most for the future we face, and are we actively developing them?
What capabilities matter most for the future we face, and are we actively developing them?

Glossary of Key Terms

Term	Definition
Accountable Collaborator	One of the Five Leadership Superpowers, representing a leadership capability essential for effective governance under pressure.
Brains In, Thinkers Out	A proposed model for board engagement where members apply their full intellectual capacity to provide advice and challenge management’s thinking, moving beyond the more passive “noses in, fingers out” approach.
Conversion Problem	The common organizational struggle to turn potential, ideas, and ambition into sustained, realized results. It is influenced by decision quality, learning speed, accountability, and leadership behavior.
Experienced Learner	One of the Five Leadership Superpowers, highlighting the need for leaders and boards to combine experience with the curiosity and openness to learn in real-time.
Five Leadership Superpowers	A set of five core capabilities that determine whether organizations adapt or default under pressure. They are: Present Futurist, Experienced Learner, Prepared Risk Taker, Strategic Executor, and Accountable Collaborator.
Future-Ready Governance	A governance approach characterized by a better orientation and the ability to balance and navigate complex tensions, enabled by a specific set of leadership capabilities.
Governance Capability	The collective ability of a board to perform effectively and govern well under conditions of sustained pressure, uncertainty, speed, and ambiguity. This is distinct from the individual experience or credentials of its members.
King 4 / King 5	Leading global governance frameworks mentioned as evolving to align with a capability-based view. They emphasize sustainable value creation, operating in interconnected systems, and translating principles into outcomes.
Noses In, Fingers Out	A traditional phrase describing the board’s role, suggesting they should be aware of what’s happening in the company (“sniffing around”) but keep their hands out of day-to-day operations.
Persistent Turbulence	The current business environment characterized by rapid change, frequent and overlapping disruptions, interconnected risks, and escalating consequences, contrasting with the historically more stable environment of episodic crises.
Playing Not to Lose vs. Playing to Win	A tension in risk management. “Playing not to lose” involves a defensive posture of avoiding and managing risk, while “playing to win” involves proactively taking smart risks to innovate, grow, and realize more value.
Prepared Risk Taker	One of the Five Leadership Superpowers, representing a leadership capability essential for effective governance under pressure.
Present Futurist	One of the Five Leadership Superpowers, indicating the ability to balance the demands of the present while simultaneously preparing for the future, without sacrificing one for the other.
Strategic Executor	One of the Five Leadership Superpowers, representing a leadership capability essential for effective governance under pressure.
Three Levers of Value	The interconnected system through which value is created or lost: Governance, Leadership, and Culture. For value to be created effectively, these three levers must be aligned and working in sync.
Value Erosion / Leakage	The quiet, cumulative loss of value that occurs over time through governance patterns, rather than as the result of a single, dramatic event. It is described as a “quiet seepage.”