Why forming your first board could be your next smartest move.
There comes a stage in building a company when you realise you are no longer simply building something. You are shaping something that will shape other people.
Employees begin to make life decisions around the stability of the business. A senior hire relocates their family, a team member signs a mortgage. Customers make longer term decisions about your services, and suppliers extend terms based on trust rather than contract. Strategic partners align their reputations with yours, and the company begins to generate its own gravity; others orbit around it rather than the company orbit around others.
With that gravity comes the requirement for structure because the decisions being made now carry longer and deeper consequences. The organisation is becoming more than a vehicle for drive, proof, or independence. It is taking on the characteristics of an organisation. As this happens, the questions become strategic not just operational. How is judgement strengthened? How is risk examined? How is responsibility shared without diluting accountability?
This is often the moment when a Board moves from optional to appropriate.
When I reached that stage in my own early businesses, the shift had to be internal before it was structural. The company was expanding with broader opportunities and with a capable team, and progress felt good.
What I was slower to recognise was that the business needed a wider field of judgement than my existing capacity comfortably provided. Decisions flowed through me because they always had. It felt efficient, it felt responsible, but it also meant the organisation could only stretch as far as I did.
There was a period where I sensed that truth and yet still chose to ignore it. I don’t think through denial or ignorance, simply familiarity. I had built the company through instinct and intensity, but inviting an external perspective required a different posture, one that needed my thinking to be examined and strengthened first.
That step felt exposing at first, it also felt like my next growth phase calling and challenging me to take that leap of faith. In time I began to understand that a Board was not about replacing authority, it was about enlarging it. A company does not outgrow its founder in a single leap; it grows as its leadership grows. External support becomes less a signal of weakness and more a marker of readiness for the next stage.
I have watched founders reach this point and respond in different ways. Some treat their first Board as a marker of arrival, a form of business adulthood. The website evolves; “Board of Directors” appears as a new tab, titles are formalised, and the language of governance finds its way into conversation with advisers and clients. Others seem to get stuck between knowing they should but still not acting, and “it’ll be alright, we don’t need that…” until they realise they have inadvertently limited their own growth.
Beneath those signals something more human is unfolding: a founder attempting to build a circle of trust while recognising that trust redistributes influence and reshapes authority. In the early days, the directors are always ahead of the knowledge curve, when this stage beckons, the directors can never be ahead of the knowledge curve, they must be at the head of the leadership curve. See my blog on “The Weight of Being The Answer”.
A Board is never merely practical with seats around a table for their own sake, more document packs than make any sense, or a chair chosen for experience or presence. These are the visible mechanics. Underneath sits a social contract. You are creating a space in which someone might say, “We told the client we could deliver that in eight weeks, but we cannot without burning out the team,” and that person expects to be heard. You are creating a forum where decisions shape the futures of the apprentice who just signed a mortgage, the long-serving operations manager who has built their identity around reliability, the suppliers who have extended you credit on the strength of your word.
The founder remains the founder once the Board is formed, yet the presence of a Board makes that role more visible. Exposure increases, and the informal conversations that once settled everything in the corridor now surface in presentations, in recorded minutes, and in collective scrutiny.
In early form, a Board can drift into performance. People arrive with carefully prepared updates, numbers are framed positively, and challenge softens into choreography. The real conversations migrate outside the room. Comfort grows, control feels preserved, but pressure will eventually test the structure.
The first genuinely conflicted decision might be a major client who pays slowly but represents significant revenue, or a redundancy that protects cash but strains culture. Simple enough with one central source of control, but collective decision making truly reveals the quality of the room. You see how the company can hold the ethical line even when the spreadsheet tightens. You notice who asks what a decision does to trust in the company as well as margin. Then you genuinely begin to recognise how much you may have relied on being the sharpest mind present.
Founders often express a desire for challenge, accountability, and safety. In practice that might mean someone who asks why customer concentration risk has been tolerated, or why operational issues continue to escalate upward. A Board, when it matters, widens judgement without theatrics.
The early architecture shapes everything that follows, the number of seats, the range of disciplines, the balance between executive directors and external NEDs, and the quality of the chair. Each element influences the tone and texture of the room.
If you are approaching this stage, it helps to be specific about structure. In my experience, both in my own businesses and in those I’ve supported, there is a configuration that consistently works well as a starting point.
This is what I do, and what I see work repeatedly well. Seven people, five operational leaders across the core pillars of the business, and two independent Non-Executive Directors.
The five operational voices ensure that lived reality is present in every strategic decision. Typically, that means leadership across:
- Managing Director – overall direction and accountability
- Marketing and Sales – demand, revenue, and market position
- Finance – capital discipline and risk
- People – culture and capability
- Operations or Production – delivery and quality
Growth, cash, people, and delivery must be in the room together. Strategy without operational depth becomes aspiration, and operational intensity without strategic perspective becomes drift.
Alongside those five, I recommend two independent NEDs rather than one. A single NED can unintentionally become the sole source of external wisdom. That concentration of influence is rarely deliberate, but it can distort balance. It also places disproportionate weight on one individual’s judgement. Every external director brings experience, perspective, and human ambition. Most bring integrity and intent. Occasionally, however, a personal agenda can sit subtly alongside what a company truly needs. That is not cynicism, it’s realism.
Two NEDs create equilibrium because they widen the field of perspective, and they examine one another’s thinking as well as that of the executive team. They reduce the risk of narrative bias because they create triangulation rather than deference.
Five operational leaders and two independent NEDs create constructive tension: depth and distance, immersion and perspective. And one further principle matters.
In my own non-executive roles, I use a simple rule of thumb: eyes in, fingers out. Know what is happening. Ask the difficult questions. Support and advise with clarity but leave operations to those accountable for delivering them. When that boundary holds, a Board strengthens leadership. When it blurs, authority fragments.
I have also seen founders form a Board under investment pressure. A seat becomes part of a funding negotiation. Enthusiasm for the product or a promised network becomes sufficient justification.
Experience has taught me to ask different questions before offering a seat:
- What specific gap does this person fill?
- What will they contribute that does not already exist?
- What evidence supports that expectation?
- How will we know the appointment is working?
A Board seat is not a gesture, it’s a design decision.
That practical shape creates structure, yet the deeper journey begins when others share ownership of your decisions. Founders and partner directors carry private narratives about what the company represents. Freedom. Redemption. Proof. Control. When a Board forms, the company becomes shared and governed. It must stand beyond those initial stories.
Some founders experience a subtle, even unconscious sense of grief at that stage. The business that once felt like an extension of self begins to develop its own voice through others. Instinct sits alongside deliberation, and loyalty sits alongside fiduciary responsibility.
The character of the company not just the individual now becomes central. Skills matter of course, yet temperament and motive determine how influence is used. You observe who listens before speaking. Who strengthens a decision rather than winning a point. Who holds confidence with integrity. When the Board composition is right, disagreement refines judgement. Accountability feels steady rather than restrictive and the founder’s feeling of being superfluous changes into a deeper understanding of their evolving relationship with leadership.
When the Board composition is wrong however, distortion follows. Discussions narrow, and good news travels more easily than difficult truth. Think about that for a moment because good news traveling easily, can also easily be mistaken for success and growth, but not at the expense of a hidden truth which may move the organisation forward.
Setting up a Board in your company ultimately brings this question into view: who am I becoming as this company grows? In the room you feel the invitation to steadiness, to patience, and to perspective.
The shift from urgency to considered judgement becomes visible in how time is given to consequence. With witnesses present, values acquire substance, decisions become seen, and consistency itself gains gravity. Over time the Board becomes an expression of intent. Its existence signals endurance, it signals principles embedded in processes, and it signals confidence that the company is capable of more than one person’s instinct.
Now collective language begins to change. “I think” becomes “We have considered.” And impulse gives way to examined direction.
A first Board forms both structure and mirror. It reveals leadership under pressure. It reveals partnership under scrutiny, and it reveals the degree of truth a company can tolerate about itself. With time, the notion of simply having a Board recedes. What remains is the recognition that the room represents a commitment to the company you are becoming, and to the growth you are willing to undertake alongside it.
Mark Jarvis
6x Founder | Interim MD | NED | Coach & Mentor
Author of:
The Very Best Business Handbook You’ll Ever Own
The 63 Point Business Blueprint
Work with me:
I build companies worth owning by supporting owners, founders and leaders to create a scalable business that works without them, Book a call with me here to ask a question and get started.
Remember, there are only three types of people – those who make things happen, those who wait for things to happen, and those who talk about why things don’t happen for them. Which one are you?
Recent Comments