Behind the boardroom case study: Record plc board performance review

At a glance

Client: Record plc

Business type: Publicly listed

No. of directors: Seven including 3 executive directors, a NED chair and 3 further NEDs.
RGS service: Board performance review
Scope: Governance framework, board composition, dynamics, committee effectiveness
Approach: Interviews, observation, document review, survey analysis, people-before-process
Output: RAG (red, amber, green)-rated recommendations and practical implementation

Reshaping perception and performance

For listed companies, board performance reviews sit somewhere between obligation and opportunity. It’s expected. But what board members can fail to recognise is that they can also open the door to better ways of working.

Inside the boardroom, though, reviews can feel like a sensitive exercise. They ask a group of people to reflect and look closely at how they operate together. This can sometimes feel uncomfortable. 

Or, reviews have been conducted before, and boards have failed to see the benefit.

Introducing Record plc. A specialist currency and asset manager with an international footprint and established committee structure.

Record came into its external board performance review with a degree of caution. Some directors had been through reviews before and weren’t convinced they always led to meaningful change.

Still, there was alignment around why this one mattered. The Board wanted to:

• Examine the effectiveness of its governance framework

• Look at performance collectively rather than individually

• Provide assurance to stakeholders that governance arrangements were fit for purpose

• Identify areas for continued development within a listed environment

There was also a clear steer from the outset: this review needed to feel tailored. Grounded in how the Board actually worked. Built around people and not process.

“We approached our recent board evaluation with a degree of scepticism about the value such an exercise could genuinely deliver.” David Morrison, Chairman and Kevin Ayles, Chief of Staff.

What we did

Round Governance Services designed a review shaped around the realities of Record’s Board. We considered its composition, committee structure and strategic context rather than applying a standard template.

We began with detailed scoping conversations to align on objectives and priorities. From there, the evaluation moved through several stages, each building a fuller picture of board effectiveness.

Document & governance review

We carried out a deep analysis of board and committee materials from the previous 12 months, exploring:

• Agenda design and meeting rhythm

• Decision-making flows

• Committee reporting structures

• Risk oversight and assurance activity

This gave us a clear view of how governance operated day to day and not just how it was designed to work.

Board & leadership input

Structured questionnaires gathered perspectives from directors and senior leadership, creating a wide evidence base to complement qualitative insights.

One-to-one interviews

It’s was during our confidential interviews (45–60 minutes) that the magic happened. We created space for candid reflection on board dynamics, strategic contribution, and operational effectiveness.

It was here that tone and trust mattered most.

“Her ability to build trust quickly, ask the right questions and surface meaningful insights created an experience that was both constructive and energising for the whole board.”

Focusing on rapport building as opposed to moving through a rigid process is the secret sauce in all of our board performance reviews.

Observation in practice

Boardroom observation added another layer of context. We looked for how discussion flowed, challenge was expressed and decisions were reached. Noticing behavioural dynamics that don’t show up on paper or in data, gave us real-life intel to use in our recommendations.

Solution

The final output went well beyond assessment.

Round Governance Services delivered a review that the Board could actually use— translating observations into practical steps that supported both governance expectations and board effectiveness.

Key areas we considered included:

• Board composition and skills balance

• Committee structures and reporting lines

• Strategic oversight and delegation

• Succession planning and development pathways

• Stakeholder engagement approaches

Findings were presented in a detailed report with recommendations prioritised and clearly framed. Everything was grounded in the operating reality of a listed company allowing the Board to move from insight to action quickly.

The results speak for themselves

The impact of the review was felt both immediately and seen straightaway in the Board’s forward agenda.

A shift in perception

Initial scepticism gave way to recognition of the evaluation’s strategic value.

“Kerry’s thoughtful, rigorous and highly professional approach has entirely reshaped our view of the process.”

Stronger board alignment

Directors gained a shared understanding of:

• Governance strengths

• Development priorities

• How the Board contributes to long-term strategy

Practical change underway

Recommendations did not sit on paper. They informed active changes to board practice, committee focus and governance processes.

A new benchmark

Perhaps most telling was the Board’s collective response:

“We are unanimously pleased with the outcome and now recognise the significant potential that a well-run evaluation can offer.” David Morrison, Chairman

“Kerry has set a new benchmark for us, and we would not hesitate to recommend Round Governance Services to any board seeking a genuinely value-adding evaluation.” Kevin Ayles, Chief of Staff.