A recent global survey of 625 CEOs and board members reveals a significant disconnect: 61 per cent of chief executives say their boards are pushing artificial intelligence transformation too quickly. While three-quarters of board members believe their own understanding of AI is on par with or ahead of their peers, nearly 40 per cent of CEOs disagree. More than half of the CEOs surveyed said that hype around AI is distorting boardroom judgment.
The confidence gap
The survey, which polled 351 CEOs and 274 board members at companies with at least $100 million in annual revenue, highlights a troubling knowledge gap at the highest levels of corporate leadership. Board members consistently rate their AI knowledge higher than their CEOs do. This disconnect matters because boards are making consequential decisions about AI strategy based on a level of understanding that their chief executives consider inadequate.
AI FOMO (fear of missing out) has become a dominant force in corporate strategy. Many board members see AI as a wholesale replacement for human labor, leading them to push for faster and broader deployment than the technology can currently support. This disconnect often leads to unrealistic expectations and poorly scoped AI projects. One in three CEOs said their board overestimates the human capabilities that AI can replace, further deepening the divide between strategic intent and operational reality.
The implications for companies are significant. When boards rush AI adoption without a clear understanding, they risk approving projects that fail to deliver returns, waste resources, and create operational disruptions. At the same time, CEOs who resist board pressure may be seen as laggards, putting their careers at risk. This tension is exacerbated by the fact that boards typically meet only a handful of times per year, relying on management presentations for information—information that the CEO themselves may be providing, creating a structural conflict of interest.
The accountability mismatch
The survey also reveals a substantial gap in how CEOs and board members perceive accountability for AI results. CEOs estimated that 35 per cent of their performance evaluation now depends on delivering AI-related returns on investment. Board members put the figure at only 27 per cent. This eight-percentage-point difference suggests that CEOs feel more pressure to show AI results than their boards realize they are applying.
This mismatch has real consequences. A CEO who believes more than a third of their evaluation hinges on AI outcomes will naturally prioritize AI projects, even if those projects are premature or poorly scoped. Conversely, a board that believes the figure is lower may not understand why its CEO is resisting calls to accelerate deployment—or may underestimate the operational risk of rushing. The survey indicates that many boards are not fully aware of the pressure they are creating.
Governance challenges in the AI era
The survey raises a deeper question: is traditional board governance suited to making decisions about AI? Boards are typically composed of members whose primary expertise lies in finance, regulation, or sector-specific operations, not technology. They meet infrequently and depend heavily on management presentations for information. This structure worked well when the pace of technological change allowed for quarterly deliberation, but it is increasingly ill-suited for a world where AI capabilities evolve monthly.
The structural tension is evident: if the CEO is the primary source of a board's AI understanding, the board loses its ability to independently evaluate the CEO's AI strategy. The survey does not offer a solution, but it makes the tension visible. Approximately 80 per cent of both CEOs and board members agreed that prospective board candidates should demonstrate a measurable understanding of how AI can reshape their industry—a finding that suggests both groups recognize the knowledge gap, even if they disagree on its severity.
AI adoption is not a binary choice between rushing and waiting. Companies that successfully scale AI in the coming years will be those where the board and CEO are aligned on pace, objectives, and risk tolerance. The survey makes clear that this alignment is currently missing in most large organizations. Boards that push too fast risk approving projects that fail to deliver returns. CEOs that move too slowly risk losing competitive ground. For both groups, the temptation to let AI substitute for clear thinking rather than support it is a risk that no survey can fully quantify.
Moreover, the survey underscores the importance of board education. Rather than delegating AI briefings to a chief technology officer or outside consultant, CEOs should personally lead upskilling sessions that demonstrate what current tools can and cannot do. They should frame AI in terms that distinguish between tasks where the technology substitutes for humans and tasks where it complements them. This distinction is critical: boards that see AI as a complement are more likely to approve investments scoped to realistic outcomes, while boards that see it as a replacement are more likely to demand moonshots.
While the survey does not break down results by industry, geography, or company size, the findings likely apply across sectors. A board pushing AI transformation at a financial services firm faces a very different risk profile from one doing the same at a manufacturing company, but the underlying disconnect between board and CEO perceptions appears to be a widespread phenomenon. The survey also does not measure whether the CEOs who say their boards are rushing are themselves correct in their caution, or whether some boards are right to push harder. In certain industries, faster AI adoption may indeed be the right strategy. What the data captures is a perception gap—a clear sign that the most senior leaders at large companies are not aligned on the most consequential technology investment of the current era.
For companies trying to navigate AI transformation, the message from the survey is that alignment at the top is not optional. The first step is for boards to acknowledge that their understanding of AI may not be as strong as they think. The second is for CEOs to invest time in building that understanding, even if it means slowing down the decision-making process. The third is for both groups to recognize that the governance structures that served them well in the past may need to evolve to meet the demands of an AI-powered future. The stakes are high, and the window for getting this right is narrowing.