Boards often think about skills in a fairly straightforward way. Legal expertise helps companies to navigate regulation. Digital expertise helps boards to understand technological change. International experience helps firms to assess growth across markets.

That logic is not wrong. But it misses something important.

Boards do not make decisions as isolated experts. They make decisions as groups. What one director brings to the table depends on what others bring, how they interpret the issue, and which questions dominate the conversation. Skills can complement each other, but they can also pull the board in different directions.

This matters especially when boards discuss strategic topics such as corporate entrepreneurship: investments in new products, technologies or growth opportunities inside established firms. These decisions are uncertain, long-term oriented and resource-intensive. They require boards to judge the future before the evidence is complete.

My research with Thomas Keil of the University of Zurich and Shaker Zahra of the University of Minnesota examines this issue using a large sample of US firms that design and manufacture technology products. We studied directors’ skills, focusing especially on entrepreneurial and finance-related skills, and their influence on firm resource allocation toward corporate entrepreneurship.

We found that board representation of entrepreneurial directors is associated with greater corporate entrepreneurship investment. Entrepreneurial directors can help boards see opportunities for renewal and growth. They are more likely to understand experimentation, tolerate uncertainty and recognise that some important investments will not produce immediate returns.

This effect, however, weakens as the number of finance-skilled directors increases. Finance-skilled directors bring discipline. They help boards to test assumptions, ask hard questions and protect companies from poorly thought-through investments. Their contribution is essential. The difficulty arises when entrepreneurial ideas are assessed only through a financial-control lens.

We also found that broader board skill diversity can weaken the positive effect of entrepreneurial skills on corporate entrepreneurship. This does not mean diversity is bad. Rather, it shows that diversity creates a more complex decision environment. Different skills bring different priorities, assumptions and ways of judging risk. Unless these differences are managed well, they can dilute the influence of any individual skill type.

The broader message is simple: board skills do not simply add up; they interact.

How skills interact

Director skill interactions play out at two levels.

The first is the full board. This is where directors debate major strategic priorities and decide where resources should go. In these discussions, directors ask different questions. Some ask, “How large is the opportunity?” Others ask, “How reliable is the forecast?” Both are legitimate. But if one set of questions dominates, the board may consistently favour one type of investment over another.

The second level is the board committee. Committees shape how decisions are prepared before they reach the full board. A dedicated corporate development, strategy or investment committee may not have final authority, but it often determines which proposals are developed further, what information is requested, which risks are emphasised and how opportunities are framed.

Managing tension in a productive way

So what can boards do in practice?

Board chairs need to ensure that entrepreneurial proposals are not assessed only through the language of control, but also through the language of renewal, learning and future positioning. This means broadening the questions. Instead of asking only, “What is the expected return?”, boards should also ask: “What option does this investment create? What would we learn? What capabilities would it build? What risks do we face if we do nothing?”

Committee chairs are equally important. Because committees shape proposals before the full board sees them, committee chairs should ensure that both finance and entrepreneurial perspectives are present early. A committee can ask management to present innovation proposals with milestones, staged funding, evidence thresholds and learning goals. This gives finance-skilled directors something concrete to work with without forcing every opportunity into a conventional business case too soon.

The nomination committee should look beyond the skills matrix and ask how the board actually uses its expertise. Which voices dominate when uncertain opportunities are discussed? Which assumptions go unchallenged? Are some types of investment repeatedly dismissed too early? Board evaluations can help reveal whether the board’s skill mix is producing constructive challenge or quiet blockage.

Finally, board process matters. Boards need to agree on process-related norms of how work in committees and the full board is being conducted. Especially when the board is staffed with members that may take a very different perspective on proposals, the right board process can alleviate tensions and help to bridge positions.

The goal thus is not to remove tension from the boardroom. It is to use it well. When boards manage different perspectives deliberately, they can turn potential friction into better strategic advice.

Stevo Pavićević is associate professor of strategy at Frankfurt School of Finance & Management