New research from University of Bath on board composition and effective decision-making should give us all pause for thought, says CFG associate Nigel Kippax. In part one of his series on effective boards, Nigel takes a look at the report's findings on bias and the implications for trustee recruitment.
Charity boards are required to make collective decisions. It follows that good boards will make good decisions by adopting a robust decision making process that utilises all of the knowledge, expertise and skills of the trustees.
In my experience working with many charity boards, however, I’ve observed that this doesn’t always happen. Bias can detract from good decision-making with a knock-on negative effect on the way the charity operates, and the impact it has in the community. Understanding how a board works together to make decisions is really important.
With this in mind, myself and CFG recently sponsored research at University of Bath School of Management to examine board decision-making, with a particular focus on how ‘group-think’ and bias may detract from a good decision. The research was carried out by final-year students in early 2026, with the final report published in August 2026.
The students collected data from within the charity sector through interviews and a survey, then related the findings to known behavioural science theory. We believe all charity boards can benefit from insight delivered from this research which has implications for trustee recruitment, induction and the ongoing development of charity boards.
The students went on to develop an extremely useful framework (DREAM) that is now available for boards to use as a diagnostic within their own organisations.
Paradoxes and psychological safety
The team’s findings gave me and colleagues at University of Bath and CFG pause for thought, but two in particular stood out to me.
Firstly, the student researchers unearthed a paradox at the heart of the trait that trustees said they valued the most, that being ‘mission alignment’. While boards see their current trustees as mission-aligned, very few said they actively recruit for it. The personal quality that is most prized is often left to chance.
The second finding that jumped out is the ‘specialisation trap’ which shows that adding specialists to broaden a board's skills can, counter-intuitively, deepen behavioural biases such as groupthink, deference to seniority and a reluctance to challenge in someone else’s domain. More expertise does not automatically mean better scrutiny – the foundation for good decision-making. The students further concluded that a propensity for bias is greater, not smaller, in larger boards of more trustees.
Underpinning all of this is psychological safety – the shared confidence to question, disagree or admit uncertainty without penalty. The research showed that most trustees feel personally comfortable challenging, yet most also say a willingness to challenge is exactly what their board lacks.
Individual confidence and a collective culture of challenge are not necessarily the same thing. Without collective safety, even a diverse board will not genuinely make collective decisions. A well-composed board can drift toward ‘premature consensus’.
The students went on to develop a really interesting framework which can be adopted as a diagnostic tool. The DREAM framework sets out five features or elements of a high-quality board decision, namely:
- Duration-aware – balancing the short and long term
- Risk-considered – weighing risks and downsides
- Evidence-based – grounded in adequate information
- Alternatives genuinely considered – surfacing real options before deciding
- Mission-aligned – serving beneficiaries first
What makes DREAM practical, rather than merely a tick list, is that each criterion maps to a measurable trait that can be assessed at the recruitment stage, with four of the five traits measurable with free, signposted tools. You’ll find a lot more details on the DREAM framework within the team’s report.
The DREAM framework is well worth looking into if you’re responsible for trustee recruitment. Even if you’re not, understanding the elements and traits that underpin good board and decisions is important for all trustees and charity leaders, and those who work alongside them.
We'll be exploring the DREAM framework and findings in more depth in a series of articles to come. In the meantime, the takeaway is that the best boards aren't simply the most qualified. They're the ones deliberately built to think well together. Perhaps this is something we’ve always instinctively known, but it’s great to see some research that finally backs it up!
Read CFG's update and download the report (free)
Look out for part two of Nigel's series on board effectiveness, coming soon!