It can sometimes be difficult for boards to arrive at a consensus, but take heart: A majority of board members are sure the dysfunction is somebody else’s fault.

According to PwC’s new 2026 Annual Corporate Directors Survey: Governing What’s Next, a solid majority (55 percent) of directors “think at least one director of the board should be replaced.” Moreover, that group is increasingly sure about what the problem is: Nearly 40 percent of that group say that “insufficient expertise” is the main reason for wanting a replacement, a leap from 21 percent last year.

This might look like evidence of a board getting ahead of its problems, except those board members don’t seem eager to act accordingly. Their succession planning process, according to the survey, prioritizes cultural fit over expertise: Eighty-one percent says “cultural alignment” is very important, while only 27 percent say the same about knowledge of AI or cybersecurity.

This is not a recipe for success, obviously, and it’s further evidence that the stack of strategic issues a board is pressed to think about is only rising higher. AI and cybersecurity alone is giving boards headaches: Seventy-one percent say they need to improve their skill and knowledge around those topics “to provide more effective oversight.”

Every association has to decide for itself how much the staff leader works with the board chair to manage strategy and succession. But the PwC survey makes it clear that the executive can’t be absent from the conversation. Two thirds of the directors say board assessments need improvement, and nearly half (49 percent) describe them as “not sufficiently candid.”

How should a staff executive be involved without unduly interfering? For starters, the PwC report suggests that they do more around the “expertise” piece. “Executives can help directors understand how shifts in strategy, technology, talent, and risk are changing what effective oversight requires,” the report says. Staff leaders should be putting internal and external subject experts in front of the board, with the goal of educating the board about the key issues and helping them identify gaps.

Moreover, executives shouldn’t be shy about saying when they see the board focusing more on its clubbish qualities than the ones that make it truly effective: being informed, being open to reasonable debate, dedicated to a succession process that ensures the association is fit for purpose.

“Executives can surface issues boards may not see firsthand, including gaps in information flow, meeting focus, role clarity, access to leaders, or the quality of board management engagement,” the report says.

This is a tricky balance: Staff is there to execute on the board’s direction-setting, and neither the board nor the staff want to see the other as unduly interfering. But though the relationship is a challenging one, it’s still a relationship. If a CEO wants to ensure that the association thrives, they need to do their part to ensure that the board has the tools and temperament to do the same. Usually with a little more knowledge, and a little less finger-pointing.