In a recent LinkedIn post, Greg Head challenges conventional boardroom approaches to Artificial Intelligence, arguing that the focus on tools misses critical governance and risk management questions. Head, who chairs a private equity portfolio company governance certification task force, observed a significant gap in how companies and their boards are addressing AI deployment.
Head recounts an experience where AI was treated as a mere IT update, discussed for a mere eleven minutes on an agenda between an ERP migration and a help desk renewal. This superficial treatment stood in stark contrast to the reality that the company already had AI models in production, making live decisions about pricing and collections.
“A director asked who signs off when the model is wrong. Nobody answered. Then it landed on the CTO by default, because the CTO was the one who had built it.”
The Critical Governance Gap in AI Deployment
This anecdote, as detailed by Greg Head, highlights a fundamental misunderstanding of AI’s implications. Head asserts that the question of accountability when AI errs is not an IT issue, but a significant Directors and Officers (D&O) liability concern. He criticizes the common practice of starting AI discussions at the board level by focusing on the tools being used.
According to Greg Head, a more pertinent starting point for boards involves understanding the tangible business impact of AI. He suggests two more effective lines of inquiry:
- Can the CEO connect an AI decision to EBITDA, or did they merely forward an article about it?
- Who owns the risk associated with AI deployment?
Head points out that fluency and awareness can appear identical in a board deck, but this facade crumbles at the point of exit. The true measure of AI integration lies in its demonstrable contribution to business value and a clear understanding of associated risks.
Beyond Adoption: The Imperative of Ownership and Risk Management
Greg Head emphasizes that the prevalent gap he observes is not one of AI adoption, but rather of deployment without clear ownership, sign-off, or inclusion in the risk register. This lack of defined responsibility creates a precarious situation for companies, particularly those under the scrutiny of private equity.
“The gap I keep seeing is not adoption. It is deployment with no owner, no sign-off, and nothing in the risk register.”
As Head articulates, companies whose boards are still focused solely on the AI tools being adopted are likely to face costly realizations about the consequences of this oversight, especially when seeking an exit. The financial repercussions of unmanaged AI risk can be substantial.
“The boards still asking about tools will find out what that cost at exit.”
In Head’s view, a proactive and robust governance framework is essential for navigating the complexities of AI. Boards and leadership teams must move beyond a superficial understanding of AI tools and delve into the critical questions of accountability, business impact, and risk ownership to ensure responsible and effective AI integration.
📝 About This Content
This article is based on insights shared by Greg Head on LinkedIn.
📅 Originally posted on August 2, 2026 | View original post on LinkedIn →