Intelligent and Unintelligent Groups: a Tale of Two Charity Boards

Inspired by Matthew Syed's Rebel Ideas

Board One: The Money Experts

The Trustees gather around the table, impressive, professional and confident in their expertise.

• The Treasurer - A senior fund manager, experienced in managing high-value portfolios with a focus on maximising income to support the charity’s delivery and sustainability.
• The Chair - A former banker, known for keeping meetings efficient and focused.
• Trustee (Risk Analyst) - Specialising in financial modelling and market risk, accustomed to identifying volatility and mitigating exposure.
• Trustee (Investment Manager) - Works with institutional investors, ensuring strong, stable returns.

The charity: Community Progress - a charity that partners with a grassroots partner in the Niger Delta to support community development.

They know their role: ensure the charity’s financial resources are working effectively to support its mission.

The Meeting

Chair: Right, let’s move on to the investment policy. Treasurer, what’s your recommendation?

Treasurer: I propose we adopt an investment policy that prioritises financial stability and strong returns. That means a diversified portfolio, including high-performing industries like energy and commodities.

Trustee (Risk Analyst): Agreed. The energy sector remains one of the most stable long-term investments. There’s volatility in renewables, but oil and gas? Reliable.

Trustee (Investment Manager): And ethical funds tend to underperform. We need to be pragmatic. Our responsibility is financial stewardship.

Treasurer: Exactly. There’s no legal requirement for us to restrict investments based on ethics. In fact, some might argue it’s irresponsible to do so.

Chair: Any objections?

Silence. Agreement.

Chair: Then let’s take a vote.

The decision is unanimous. The meeting moves on.

As the Trustees close their laptops and shake hands, there’s a quiet satisfaction. A job well done. A clear, rational decision. No conflict, no wasted time. The right answer—obvious and uncontested.

Board Two: The Debate

Same charity, but this Board is different. The expertise is there, but so is something else—different perspectives, different lived experiences, and a different way of approaching decisions.

The Trustees gather around the table. The sense that there is something to discuss is clear from having read the papers, and there is some expectation in the air.

• The Treasurer - A senior fund manager, experienced in balancing financial security with long-term sustainability.
• The Chair - A lawyer, careful with process, used to weighing risk and accountability.
• Trustee (Academic) - A researcher in global development and sustainability.
• Trustee (Journalist) - An investigative journalist who has reported on corporate accountability.
• Trustee (Business in Nigeria) - A Nigerian business leader, with firsthand experience of the economic impact of corporate activities in the Niger Delta.
• CEO - The CEO of the charity, experienced in both strategy and operations and connected with the realities of service delivery.

The Meeting

Treasurer: Our reserves need to be working for us. Not only must we continue to grow them each year to rise with inflation, any surplus we make relieves pressure on our fundraising function. I propose we adopt a standard investment policy—maximising returns, minimising risk. That means a diverse portfolio, including stable sectors like energy and... -

Trustee (Business in Nigeria): Energy? As in fossil fuels?

Treasurer: That would be part of a balanced approach, yes.

CEO: I would ask the Board to rethink this. Our work is in the Niger Delta. Some of the very communities we support have been impacted by these industries.

Treasurer: That doesn’t change our fiduciary responsibility. We’re here to ensure the charity has long-term financial sustainability. Avoiding whole sectors isn’t sound financial management.

Chair: But fiduciary responsibility isn’t just about returns. It’s about acting in the best interests of the charity. Does investing in fossil fuels align with our purpose?

Trustee (Journalist): And what about reputational risk? If our investments are made public, how does that look?

The Treasurer exhales. This is already more complicated than expected.

Trustee (Academic): There’s research suggesting ethical funds can perform just as well -sometimes better - over time. Have we looked at those?

Treasurer: They’re riskier. Less established.

Trustee (Journalist): The risk isn’t just financial though. It’s about credibility and integrity. I’ve seen the damage these companies do. And do we really want to be plastered across the front page of the Daily Mail as hypocrites?

Trustee (Business in Nigeria): I feel deeply uncomfortable about this. But I have had many conversations with people from the communities there, and they've said they would happily take funds directly from oil companies because - in their words 'they owe us'. I don't like it, but I think we need to listen to those on the ground.

Trustee (Academic): But can we really invest charity resources in supporting this kind of activity? Wouldn't we be perpetuating the very problems that led to the charity needing to exist?

The conversation loops, circles back, branches off.

Treasurer: If we exclude fossil fuels, where do we draw the line?

CEO: That's something for the Board to decide. But I don't think no line at all is justifiable.

The debate stretches on, it's challenging and uncomfortable. The Treasurer keeps pushing for financial caution. The journalist keeps questioning. The Nigerian business leader keeps grounding the discussion in real-world impact and the perspectives of the service users.

Finally, the Chair leans forward.

Chair: Look, we’re not going to find a perfect answer. But we have to find a principled one. Can we agree on some red lines?

Treasurer: If we rule out fossil fuels entirely, we limit our options. What about an approach that allows investments only in companies with strong transition plans—ones shifting towards renewables?

Trustee (Journalist): A lot of “green” initiatives are just PR.

Trustee (Academic): We could commit to an annual review of our investments—hold them to their promises. I'm sure I could rope some students into doing that for us pro bono.

Trustee (Business in Nigeria): That would be a start. And maybe part of our policy is reinvesting in ethical funds over time, as viable options grow. And communicating with our service users about why we've gone for this approach will be essential.

Chair: So, our policy: no direct investment in fossil fuel companies without a credible transition plan. Regular reviews. And a shift towards ethical funds where possible.

Slow nods. A head shake or two. Some hesitation. A final glance around the table.

Chair: All in favour?

Hands go up, one by one. The Journalist remains against, but looks resigned when the majority agree.

The Treasurer is frustrated - this decision will limit the options for funds management. The Academic still has questions. The Journalist feels conflicted - this will still be hard to defend. No one leaves the room feeling entirely sure.

But maybe that’s the point.

The Takeaway

The first board left their meeting feeling confident, efficient, decisive. The second left feeling uncertain, uncomfortable, and full of questions.

And yet...

One group made a decision without ever really interrogating it or considering different viewpoints. The other wrestled with complexity, with ethics, with competing priorities - and came out with a policy that balanced responsibility with principle.

Both groups were crammed with intelligent individuals.

One group was quick and confident. But only one group was intelligent.

Because almost always, the right decision isn’t the easiest one. And the best conversations aren’t comfortable.

In Rebel Ideas, Matthew Syed argues that intelligence isn’t just about individual expertise but about how groups think together. When everyone in a group has similar backgrounds and perspectives, they often reinforce each other’s assumptions rather than questioning them, leading to narrow thinking and flawed decisions. In contrast, cognitively diverse groups bring different experiences and ways of reasoning, helping them to challenge gaps in understanding, consider alternative viewpoints, and ultimately make better choices. However, this process is often slower and more uncomfortable.

If you want support in developing your Board to be able to manage these tricky debates and conversations, don't hesitate to get in touch.