- 15 September 2026
Read time: 5 minutes
Summary: Stacy De La O, Certified Association Executive, reflects on her experience of the inaugural Executive Board Secretary Programme and why five days of immersive learning continue to shape her thinking about governance leadership long after the programme ended.
Like many people in senior governance roles, much of my working life is spent in delivery. Whether that is supporting governing bodies and committees, navigating complicated governance issues, helping people get to the real question or making sure decisions lead somewhere. I have very little uninterrupted time to pause, reflect and think strategically about the future of the profession.
Promising five days to focus entirely on thinking, learning and talking about governance with other governance leaders, the Executive Board Secretary Programme intrigued me. The idea of spending almost a week completely immersed in learning, discussion and networking felt like a rare opportunity.
Learning from the cohort
As experienced practitioners, we were not there to learn the basics, nor did we simply sit together and discuss governance. We were set to work, role-playing dysfunctional board members, responding to developing scenarios, working through crisis situations, brainstorming options and solving problems as teams. Some of the exercises had an almost escape-room quality to them. New information would arrive, the situation would shift, and we would have to work out what mattered, what we still needed to know and what we would do next.
One of the biggest highlights for me was the calibre of the cohort. What I loved about the residential environment was that conversations did not stop when the training sessions ended. People shared their experiences openly and generously, creating a level of trust that developed surprisingly quickly. I came away not only with new knowledge but also with a network of peers whose perspectives challenged and enriched my own.
One particularly memorable conversation was about what AI might genuinely contribute in the boardroom. One facilitator shared a real example of a full-fledged AI board member with voting rights and challenged us to consider what it could contribute, not just the risks. Across the table, another facilitator pushed us to question AI from the position of accountability and human oversight. It sparked a thought-provoking discussion over dinner. Of course, there wasn’t a simple answer, but for me, that captures the uniqueness of the residential programme. Even when the formal learning sessions have ended, critical thinking, understanding, and knowledge sharing continue.
Challenging my thinking
The opening board simulation was one of my favourite parts of the week. Rather than simply analysing a dysfunctional board, we actually had to become one. It was uncomfortable, occasionally funny and very recognisable. After being assigned roles as the Chair, CEO, CFO and non-executive directors, we were then thrown into a deliberately messy situation involving weak information, conflicts, questionable decisions, difficult personalities and pressure to move quickly. There was no active Board Secretary in the room to steady the process. We experienced the meeting from the directors' side and the experience demonstrated just how quickly behaviour, relationships, assumptions and informal power can shape what happens around a board table. Like many, I believe that good governance is about understanding what is happening underneath the formal process. The agenda, papers and rules matter, but so do trust, personalities, who has influence, who is not speaking and whether difficult information can actually reach the people who need to hear it. For me, this isn’t a novel concept, but the programme gave me a chance to examine it more closely by hearing how other senior governance practitioners, from different sectors, countries and board structures, saw the same dynamics, and by learning from experienced facilitators and mentors.
Moving through topics such as financial oversight, ethics and AI, geopolitical risk, psychosocial governance and executive presence we’re also really intriguing. On paper, those are very different subjects, but in practice, many of the conversations came back to the same challenge: what does good governance look like when the information is incomplete, risks are interacting and there is no obviously correct answer?
The geopolitical and psychosocial risk sessions probably pushed my thinking furthest. The geopolitical discussion was not simply about following what is happening in the world. It asked how external events actually reach an organisation through strategy, finance, operations, people, partnerships, reputation, supply chains or legal obligations.
The psychosocial session made a similar shift. Rather than treating workload, role ambiguity, constant change, leadership, culture and psychological safety as separate people issues, we looked at them as governance and enterprise risk issues. The programme pushed us to think about both external and human risks as part of ordinary strategy, risk and assurance.
The work around ethics, AI and decision-making under uncertainty was one of my highlights. The point was not that governance professionals should have all the answers (which was refreshing!) Our value often lies in helping an organisation identify the real issue, ask the next good question, recognise what it does not yet know and make a judgement that can be explained and defended.
I also valued the discussions about influence. Governance professionals often sit close to decision-making without owning the decision, which means influence matters. So much of the role depends on preparation, relationships, timing and how something is framed. The programme gave us time to explore those dynamics more intentionally, including how to challenge without turning challenge into confrontation. Sitting in the room with facilitators, mentors and peers made me realise how much skill sits behind the instincts that develop over time. It is judgement built through recognising patterns, reading situations and knowing which questions to ask. That was valuable in helping me think more consciously about what I already know through experience, where I can trust that judgement and where I still want to test and develop it.
More than a programme
The Executive Board Secretary Programme delivered valuable frameworks, practical tools and thought-provoking discussions. But what made it truly memorable was the residential experience itself. For five days, I was able to immerse myself completely in learning. Working with other experienced professionals both challenged my assumptions and allowed me to build meaningful professional relationships.
As part of one of the sessions, we developed a 100-day plan for how we would apply the learning in our own work. My plan is already influencing how I think about the governance work I am doing now, where I can add the greatest value and how deliberately I want to use my experience going forward. It is also helping me think about the next stage of my career and the kinds of governance roles I want to explore.
But how could there not be more to learn beyond Day 100? I'll be turning different aspects of the programme over in my mind for some time, reflecting on my current work, my own development and where I want my governance career to go next. Sometimes the most impactful conversations continue beyond the classroom.
Find out more about the CGI Executive Board Secretary Programme.