Are your corporate directors actually doing anything useful anymore, or are they just politely nodding along while the tech world burns? That’s the question simmering beneath the surface of PwC’s 2025 Annual Corporate Directors Survey, and the answer, particularly for companies in technology, media, and telecommunications (TMT), is increasingly unsettling. The real story here isn't the predictable scramble to understand generative AI – it’s the growing dysfunction within the boards tasked with navigating it.
In 2025, 81 directors from TMT public companies participated in the survey, representing 13% of all respondents, and their responses paint a picture of boards paralyzed by collegiality and hampered by shockingly ineffective self-assessment. While everyone’s talking about disruption, a record number of directors – across all industries – now believe someone on their board should be replaced. But in the TMT sector, the reasons are particularly damning: boards are too chummy, leadership avoids confronting underperformance, and the assessment processes meant to identify and address these issues are, frankly, a joke. This isn’t a matter of needing a slightly different skillset; it’s a fundamental breakdown in accountability.
Reporting from pwc.com informs this analysis.
The survey reveals a stark contrast between what directors say about board effectiveness and what’s actually happening. Over two-thirds claim their board assessment process is effective, yet TMT directors consistently rate their assessments as the least meaningful. Why? Because a staggering number of boards aren’t bothering with individual evaluations – crucial for pinpointing specific weaknesses – and, even more critically, aren’t following up on the recommendations that do emerge. It’s like a doctor diagnosing an illness and then handing you the prescription without actually expecting you to fill it. This lack of follow-through isn’t just bureaucratic inertia; it’s a symptom of a deeper cultural problem where maintaining harmony trumps driving genuine improvement.
Of course, the rise of AI is dominating boardroom conversations, and rightly so. Nearly 80% of TMT directors feel the technology isn’t getting enough attention, nearly double the percentage who felt that way in 2024. This isn’t simply about understanding the technology itself, though that’s a challenge. It’s about recognizing that AI isn’t just a tool for boosting productivity; it’s a fundamental reshaping of competitive landscapes, cost structures, and even the viability of existing business models. Generative AI is forcing TMT companies to ask themselves if their core products and pricing strategies can survive in a world of compressed margins and accelerating risk. For software companies, in particular, this is an existential question.
But the laser focus on AI is coming at a cost. While talent management has surged up the agenda – 70% of TMT directors discussed it at every meeting in the last year, up from 52% in 2024, driven by CEO turnover (12% in tech, slightly above the Russell 3000 average of 11%) and the complexities of integrating talent after megadeals – climate change is rapidly falling off the radar. Only 30% of TMT directors even discussed sustainability in the past year. This isn’t just a matter of corporate social responsibility; it’s a strategic blind spot. The energy demands of AI, the geopolitical risks surrounding semiconductor supply chains, and the broader infrastructure requirements for a data-intensive future are all deeply intertwined with climate and geopolitical considerations. Ignoring these issues isn’t forward-thinking; it’s reckless.
The irony is palpable. Boards are scrambling to govern AI responsibly while simultaneously neglecting the broader systemic risks that AI exacerbates. They’re prioritizing short-term competitive advantages while overlooking long-term sustainability challenges. They’re talking about disruption while failing to disrupt the outdated, collegial dynamics that are crippling their own effectiveness. This isn’t about a lack of intelligence; it’s about a failure of courage.
Here’s what to watch for: in the next 18 months, expect a wave of activist investor campaigns targeting TMT companies with demonstrably weak board oversight. These campaigns won’t focus on AI strategy; they’ll focus on board composition, assessment processes, and the willingness to hold directors accountable. The question isn’t if boards will be forced to change, but how painful the process will be for those who resist.
