Governing strategy and risk: How boards can steer the future

IN THE theatre of corporate leadership, strategy is often presented as a management exercise, being something crafted by executives, presented in compelling slides, and approved by the board before being shelved until the next annual review.

- NQOBANI MZIZI

But governance theory, particularly King IV, challenges this view. Principle 11 is unambiguous: the governing body should govern risk in a way that supports the organisation in setting and achieving its strategic objectives. That is, strategy cannot be separated from risk, and boards cannot be passive participants in either.

From observations of governance practice, it appears that the board’s involvement in strategy tends to be more reactive than generative. Strategic plans are often presented for endorsement rather than developed in close partnership with the board. Even multi-day strategic planning workshops, intended to promote alignment and long-term vision, can end up validating management’s predetermined direction, rather than enabling critical reflection or true co-creation.

Yet, the board’s role in strategy is not merely to approve, it is to shape. It is to interrogate, anticipate and guide the organization's navigation through complexity.

The MTN Group offers a compelling case of the dynamic interplay between strategy and risk. Operating in more than 18 countries, many of which present volatile political and regulatory conditions, MTN has had to continuously recalibrate its strategic posture. Its challenges have ranged from a record-setting regulatory fine in Nigeria to managing sanctions exposure in Iran and dealing with compliance scrutiny in multiple jurisdictions. Each of these moments has tested the resilience of MTN’s governance structures and demanded strategic agility from its leadership.