In today’s polarized, fast-moving and highly scrutinized public environment, technical competence and policy knowledge alone are no longer sufficient for effective leadership. Elected officials are increasingly being called upon not just to govern, but to 

. This is where relational leadership becomes not just relevant, but essential.

Relational leadership is grounded in the understanding that leadership is not primarily about authority, position or control — but about influence, trust, connection and shared purpose. For elected officials, whose legitimacy is derived from the public they serve, relational leadership is not optional; it is foundational.

The shift from transactional to relational leadership

Traditional models of leadership emphasized hierarchy, command and compliance. Leaders made decisions, others followed. While this approach may have worked in stable environments, it is poorly suited for today’s complex and adaptive challenges.

Influence is earned through credibility and connection, not title.

For elected officials, this shift is particularly important. Governance does not occur in isolation, it occurs in relationship with constituents, fellow board or council members, administrators, staff and the broader community.

Relational leadership reframes the role of elected officials from “decision-makers only” to stewards of relationships, culture and collective outcomes.

Trust is the cornerstone of relational leadership. Without trust, communication breaks down, collaboration falters and even well-intended decisions are met with skepticism or resistance.

Timothy R. Clark’s work on psychological safety

 reminds us that people must feel safe to:

In a governance context, this means creating boardrooms and public spaces where:

Mistakes are treated as learning opportunities.

Elected officials who cultivate this environment strengthen not only their board or council, but public confidence in the institution itself.

Relational leadership and healthy governance culture

A healthy governance culture does not emerge by accident, it is intentionally built. Research and practice consistently show that high-performing boards share several relational characteristics:

A commitment to collective responsibility

 reinforces that trust is the foundation upon which productive conflict, commitment, accountability and results are built.

For elected officials, relational leadership means:

Investing in relationships before crises occur.

Addressing tension directly but respectfully.

Holding one another accountable in service of shared goals.

This is not about being “nice” or avoiding hard conversations, it is about engaging in those conversations in ways that preserve dignity, strengthen alignment and move the work forward.

Relational leaders understand that influence is more powerful — and more sustainable — than authority. 

 emphasizes that when leaders are at their best, they exhibit five key practices:

For elected officials, this translates into:

Articulating a compelling vision rooted in community values.

Empowering administrators and staff rather than micromanaging.

Recognizing contributions and celebrating progress.

When influence replaces coercion, governance becomes a collaborative enterprise rather than a positional contest.

The role of the board chair and governance leaders

Relational leadership is particularly critical for board chairs and presiding officers. Their role is not merely procedural — it is profoundly relational.

Build and sustain relationships among board members and with leadership.

Balance relational and governance responsibilities, ensuring neither is neglected.

Facilitate communication and collaboration.

This relational stewardship shapes the culture of the entire organization. When the chair models humility, curiosity and respect, others follow. When they model defensiveness or dominance, dysfunction multiplies.

Relational leadership in action and community engagement

For elected officials, relational leadership extends far beyond the boardroom. It is most visible in how leaders engage with their communities.

Treat every interaction as a trust-building opportunity.

Community engagement is not a public relations function, it is a relational practice. When leaders consistently engage with authenticity and respect, even difficult decisions are more likely to be understood, if not universally supported.

One of the most misunderstood aspects of relational leadership is accountability. Some assume that a relational approach avoids conflict or consequences. In reality, relational leadership demands 

 accountability, not less, because accountability is framed around shared purpose and mutual respect.

Frame feedback as growth, not punishment.

Maintain high expectations while offering high support.

This approach strengthens performance while preserving trust, an essential balance for elected officials navigating complex public systems.

Humility, feedback and continuous improvement

Exceptional elected leaders recognize that leadership is a practice, not a destination. They embrace:

Relational leadership requires leaders to be learners — open to critique, willing to adapt and committed to growth. This posture not only enhances effectiveness but models the very behaviors we seek in our organizations and communities.

What exceptional boards and elected bodies do

Relational leadership is not abstract, it produces tangible outcomes. Exceptional boards and elected bodies consistently (Schroeder and Saron, 2003):

Empower the superintendent/CEO or chief administrator.

Encourage and role-model a culture of feedback, continuous improvement, gratitude, relationships and care.

Ensure focus on outcomes and ends, not just activity.

These are not merely technical practices, they are relational commitments.

At a time when public trust in institutions is fragile, relational leadership offers a powerful path forward. It humanizes governance. It restores credibility. It creates conditions where difficult work can happen with integrity and respect.

For elected officials, relational leadership is not about soft skills, it is about core leadership competence.

Because ultimately, leadership is not measured by how many decisions we make, but by the trust we build, the cultures we shape, the people we empower and the outcomes we achieve together.

And in that work, relationships are not secondary — they are the work.

To go even deeper into this topic, join Steve and his governance team colleagues from Sun Prairie Area School District who will be hosting a half-day pre-conference session,

Leading with Purpose: Governance Workshop for Education Leaders

. The interactive workshop is designed for three governance roles to participate together, creating a shared learning experience and aligned outcomes. It includes practical frameworks, real-world insights and peer discussion focused on ethical leadership, accountability and future-ready decision-making.

Relational leadership: What it is and why it matters more than ever

Preparing for an IPO is an exciting time for any company. Not only does your personal net worth stand to skyrocket, but the business you worked so hard to build will join a chosen few, making headlines and earning its own ticker on the public markets.

Yet as visions of Bloomberg interviews and vested stock options dance in your head, understanding how to prepare for an IPO becomes critical. This comprehensive guide covers the essential governance frameworks, regulatory requirements, and professional infrastructure needed for successful public market entry.

From establishing board structures and implementing compliance systems to selecting the right governance technology, we'll walk through the complete IPO preparation process that demonstrates operational maturity to institutional investors and regulatory bodies.

 by Diligent Institute, Wilson Sonsini, NetSuite, CFO Alliance and CFO Leadership Council, only 42% of boards are actively engaged in shaping transaction strategy. This represents a significant readiness gap, particularly as economic headwinds and regulatory complexity intensify.

Building IPO-ready governance 12-18 months before your S-1 submission positions your company for success when market windows open. With that in mind, this comprehensive guide will help you 

What preparing for an IPO means and how governance readiness affects valuation

Essential governance structures, including board composition, committee requirements and executive leadership

SEC registration, Sarbanes-Oxley compliance and disclosure requirements

A complete IPO governance readiness checklist with timeline guidance

How AI-powered governance technology accelerates IPO preparation

Preparing for an IPO means building the governance infrastructure, regulatory compliance frameworks and operational controls that public market investors require. This preparation typically begins 12-18 months before S-1 filing and addresses everything from board composition to disclosure controls.

Unlike private company governance, IPO preparation requires satisfying institutional investors, regulatory bodies and public shareholders — all with different expectations. Getting these details right can increase your initial offering price, as investors share confidence in your company's governance sophistication.

Why governance readiness matters for IPO success

Governance gaps discovered during due diligence create the delays and valuation discounts that derail IPO timelines. Companies with weak board structures, incomplete internal controls or underdeveloped risk management face extended S-1 review cycles.

On the other hand, professional governance infrastructure signals operational maturity that supports higher valuations and faster preparation timelines.

"Economic turbulence has put CFOs at the center of the conversation, forcing them to be translators of risk and architects of optionality,” says Nick Araco, CEO of CFO Alliance. “CFOs tell us they are not just slowing deals but actively using this environment to strengthen governance, stress-test assumptions and ensure their organizations will be ready to move quickly when conditions improve."

What governance structures should companies have before going public?

Going public requires a team of legal, financial and regulatory advisors to manage extensive requirements. The structures you put in place signal governance sophistication to institutional investors and establish the oversight framework for public company operations.

In today's business environment with heightened risk and shareholder activism, regulators and investors first examine the board of directors. This group provides strategic oversight and 

 — responsibilities that intensify dramatically for public companies.

Consider the following when building your IPO-ready board:

Directors should represent diverse backgrounds and viewpoints: For many pre-IPO companies, this means expanding beyond the leadership team that brought the company to this point.

Board expertise should reflect current challenges: across industries, these include cybersecurity, sustainability, and AI governance. In the 

 from Corporate Board Member and Diligent Institute, 28% of directors said AI expertise is a top attribute they want in their next board appointment, yet only 8% report having strong AI expertise today. Cybersecurity shows a similar gap: just 21% of boards report strong expertise, despite 12% actively seeking it in new directors.

Most directors should be independent: In other words, not an employee of the company, like a CEO or CFO. This ensures objectivity and impartiality in oversight and decision-making.

Include public company experience: At least one director should have prior experience with public company audit and capital markets requirements.

For a public company, board committees aren't just a handy way to delegate. Many are required by law, and regulations like the 

 may require a certain proportion of independent directors in their membership.

There are three committees every public board must have:

 oversees financial reporting independent of management. At least one member must qualify as a financial expert under SEC rules.

 manages the executive remuneration structure and administration, ensuring alignment with the company's performance and shareholder expectations.

 (often called "nom/gov") handles new director recruitment, board effectiveness assessments and succession planning.

To the people and institutions investing in a public company and the regulators overseeing it, the people at the top matter a great deal.

Among the CEO's responsibilities are overseeing company expansion, driving profitability and improving share prices, while the CFO manages activities from cash flow and financial planning to compliance and reporting. Make sure that responsibilities are clearly defined for these two critical roles, and that the people holding them have the expertise and skills needed for a public company.

As with the board, it's important to have a 

 for key executives. This builds trust that the company will be well-positioned to obtain top talent and maintain institutional knowledge, and that shareholders will be unaffected by changes in leadership.

 to lead corporate response on legal issues, along with a 

 to ensure that the board has the resources to fulfill its fiduciary duties. In many companies, and especially as board oversight involves an evolving range of regulatory and legal frameworks, these two roles are combined and held by the same person.

Using board management software for IPO preparation

Choosing the right board management software during IPO preparation proves critical for companies transitioning from private to public ownership. The best board management software for growing companies provides enterprise-grade capabilities without overwhelming complexity, supporting the rapid governance professionalization that institutional investors expect.

What startups and growing companies need in board portals for IPO:

Companies preparing for IPO should evaluate board management platforms across these essential criteria:

 Comprehensive audit trails that automatically document all board decisions, approvals, and communications. During IPO due diligence, underwriters and investors scrutinize governance practices — professional documentation demonstrates operational maturity.

 The ability to produce institutional-quality board books and committee materials that meet public company standards. Manual document assembly consumes weeks during critical IPO preparation periods; automation maintains professional presentation while freeing governance teams for strategic work.

 Support for separate audit, compensation, and nominating/governance committees with distinct member access, meeting schedules, and documentation requirements. Companies building these structures for the first time need platforms that guide proper committee governance.

 The best board portals for startups preparing for IPO grow seamlessly with the company, eliminating platform migration during critical preparation periods. Organizations that select enterprise-grade platforms 18-12 months before S-1 filing avoid the disruption of changing systems mid-process.

Companies that implement professional board management software early in the IPO timeline demonstrate governance sophistication that accelerates due diligence, strengthens investor confidence, and supports the institutional-grade oversight that public markets demand.

What best practices will shareholders and stakeholders expect?

Beyond qualified leadership and committee structures, today's shareholders and regulators expect governance best practices that demonstrate institutional maturity:

A code of ethics codifying principles like those in the 

: accountability; transparency; ethical behavior; and respect for stakeholder interests, the rule of law, international norms of behavior and human rights.

 that encourage open communication and enable internal problem resolution

 consideration and business judgment rule awareness to ensure comprehensive risk oversight

Ongoing director education to ensure directors remain current on governance practices and industry developments

"Being on a board is about realism and not perfection. Many directors are afraid to say when they don't know something—and this needs to change. Lean into perpetual learning for teams, directors and executives." — Anastassia Lauterbach, Board Director

What IPO requirements and regulations must companies comply with?

The examples and guidelines below reflect requirements for companies going public on U.S. stock exchanges.

Please keep in mind that this is not an exclusive list, and if your company is going public outside the U.S., you'll need to be familiar with the applicable rules and regulations for those exchanges and jurisdictions.

One of the first steps a U.S. company must undertake before going public is filing an S-1 

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

. Be sure to plan ahead and allocate adequate staffing and time for this task; you'll be required to provide detailed information about your company, including its financials, management and operations.

Financial reporting and internal controls

Public company status brings intensive financial reporting expectations. You'll prepare and disclose audited financial statements conforming to 

 (GAAP). Shareholders expect comprehensive visibility into financial condition and performance.

 can help ensure your financial reporting is accurate, up to date, auditable, and always ready to surface for the board and relevant committees.

While you add more disclosures and reports to your to-do list, you'll also need to know the rules about when to stay quiet.

To prevent unfair promotion or market manipulation during the time leading up to a public offering, pre-IPO companies must strictly limit statements and the release of information about their company from the time they file the IPO until 40 days after the stock starts trading.

Information and events are considered "material" when they could affect your company's financial condition or stock price. They include both positive and negative developments, and your company, as a publicly traded entity, must be prepared to disclose them in a timely manner.

When companies like yours go public on a stock exchange, an underwriting group (often an investment bank) acts as an intermediary. The underwriting agreement outlines the details of this arrangement and the terms and conditions of the IPO, including:

In a publicly traded company, certain stockholders are entitled by law to vote on issues impacting company performance, such as mergers and acquisitions, dividend payouts, new securities and elections of new directors.

You'll need to familiarize yourself with these shareholder voting rights, as well as mechanisms like proxy solicitations, where shareholders request an authorized party to vote on their behalf.

As a public company, you'll need to be conversant in and compliant with rules and reporting requirements related to 

This may include employee education and trading restrictions, an in-house "watchdog," or specialized technology for monitoring operations, flagging potential issues and responding appropriately.

The paperwork doesn't end after your company goes public. Investors and the SEC will expect regular disclosures. Make sure your systems and staffing are equipped to file a Form 10-K each year, Form 10-Q each quarter, and Form 8-K documentation to disclose any material events.

In the United States, the SEC requires publicly traded companies to file 

 before annual and special meetings. This is so shareholders can make informed votes in areas like new director elections, executive compensation and mergers and acquisitions.

A proxy statement can also be a powerful governance tool. Especially when combined with a 

, preparation of these detailed documents can help you identify emerging risks early and prepare for activism or other shareholder pressures.

Going public on a U.S. stock exchange requires 

. This legislation contains stringent requirements for financial reporting, internal control assessments and whistleblower protections.

Section 302: CEOs and CFOs must personally certify financial statement accuracy and disclosure control effectiveness

Section 404: Annual internal control assessment and external auditor attestation (with Emerging Growth Company exemptions)

Section 401: Comprehensive financial disclosures, including off-balance-sheet arrangements

It's a lot to oversee, so you may want to consider 

 to make it easier to get contextualized data and customizable reports from your audit teams.

Another act you'll need to familiarize yourself with, along with the terms "pay for performance" and "say on pay," is 

Provisions within this act require your company to justify its executive compensation, in great detail, before each shareholder meeting.

This can be a highly involved activity consisting of extensive peer and market research, detailed benchmarking, and a specific format, table and metrics to follow for reporting. 

 can help you stay ahead of compensation-related scrutiny and ensure compliance with Dodd-Frank.

One essential area when preparing for an IPO: the listing requirements of the stock exchange where your company's shares will be traded. There may be specific criteria for your company to meet in terms of share price, market capitalization and so forth.

How to prepare for an IPO: Governance‑led roadmap and checklist

This article originally appeared in our February 12th edition of the Diligent Minute Newsletter. For more insights like these, delivered straight to your inbox, subscribe

 produced with our partners at Corporate Board Member, and the signals on risk oversight are impossible to miss. More than 200 corporate directors shared how they see the year ahead; their views reveal where boards are strengthening oversight and where blind spots still linger.

Key risk trends boards can’t ignore in 2026

From a risk oversight perspective, the story starts in a familiar place: the macro environment. A majority of directors cite a sharp downturn in the U.S. economy as the single biggest risk over the next few years, with “black swan” events and large-scale cyber incidents close behind. Economic conditions and government policy shifts top the broader risk landscape too, even as directors see technological disruption and M\&A as some of 

Boards are not standing still. Over the past five years, 84% say they’ve changed their approach to scenario planning, expanding the scope of scenarios they consider, increasing the time devoted to planning and broadening the range of geopolitical, technological and social risks they examine.

Some risk-oversight trends that stood out

 of directors cite a sharp downturn in the U.S. economy as a top organizational risk, and 

 worry most about a black swan event they haven’t yet scenario planned.

 include cyber events or data breaches in crisis exercises, 

 test for technology-related disruption and 

 say more frequent, structured risk discussions at the full-board level would most improve risk oversight, and 

 want a clearer link between risk and strategy.

 point to better use of AI-powered data and technology tools as a key lever to strengthen risk oversight.

 of directors view cybersecurity as a top organizational risk, even though cyber incidents are modeled in crisis planning more than any other scenario.

 say strengthening cyber and data‑privacy defenses is a priority for 2026.

AI and technology‑related regulation is expected to demand the most compliance attention this year, yet 

 of directors say it remains the most underestimated area of compliance oversight.

Upgrading the board’s risk oversight toolkit

Boards still lean most heavily on management reporting and updates from internal audit or the risk committee, but many say that isn’t enough in a world of always-on risk. They point to AI monitoring tools, 

 into strategy discussions, and more frequent engagement with external experts as the upgrades they need most.

Digital infrastructure is improving — nearly half of directors now receive real-time or near-real-time operational data between meetings — but many wish board time were more forward-looking, noting that risk and performance data are often used to monitor the present rather than reframe the future.

What emerges is a picture of boards working hard to catch up with the velocity of risk, but still wrestling with misalignment between what they rehearse, what they prioritize and how they equip themselves. Directors in this year’s survey point to the same set of needs: more structured risk discussions, clearer links between risk and strategy, better tools and analytics and ongoing education on emerging threats.

Risk oversight has to become a continuous discipline, not a periodic exercise. That means pairing richer scenarios and better data with more disciplined boardroom processes, so directors can anticipate disruptions, challenge assumptions and guide management through whatever “unimagined” risks come next.

What Directors Think: Are today’s tools enough for tackling tomorrow’s risks?

Consider what unfolded in a single fortnight in January: The United States signaled intensified interest in the Arctic, prompting Denmark to include a NATO ally in its threat assessment for the first time. China expanded military exercises in the South China Sea, testing regional supply chain assumptions. Ukraine's conflict entered a new phase as European leaders debated security guarantees independent of Washington. Venezuela's political crisis deepened, affecting energy markets and regional stability. At Davos, leaders from middle powers – Canada, the EU and others – called for renewed multilateral cooperation as traditional alliance structures showed strain. Meanwhile, trade policy announcements and reversals arrived within hours, not quarters.

For any corporate board still conducting quarterly geopolitical reviews, these two weeks should serve as a wake-up call. The world now moves faster than board calendars.

Directors recognize the problem - but haven't solved it

Diligent Institute and Corporate Board Member's 

 survey reveals that boards understand the risk landscape has fundamentally changed. Eighty-four percent of directors report strengthening their scenario planning approach in some way. Nearly half have increased time spent on scenario planning and 49% have expanded the scope of scenarios considered. These are meaningful investments in risk oversight.

Yet 71% of directors do not incorporate geopolitical conflicts into their crisis planning scenarios, a significant gap given current volatility. Meanwhile, less than a third of directors worry most about "a black swan event we have not scenario planned."

The problem isn't effort — it's rhythm. Boards are investing more time, but the cadence remains periodic rather than continuous. Most directors receive real-time data only "sometimes," "rarely," or "never" between meetings. That means many boards are reacting to last quarter's world rather than today's.

From periodic to continuous: The shift required

Directors themselves are signaling the need for change. According to the survey, 47% want more frequent and structured risk discussions at the full-board level, and 32% seek clearer linkage between risk oversight and strategy setting. The survey also found that directors want their agendas balanced toward forward-looking discussions, yet most meetings remain retrospective.

When tariffs can be announced – and reversed – within hours, when regional conflicts escalate overnight, when alliance structures shift in days, quarterly snapshots become dangerously stale. Geopolitical risk assessment must shift from a calendar-driven exercise to an "always-on" discipline.

I’m based in Silicon Valley, where we seemingly have an app for 

. I believe that technology can help close the gap between the speed of geopolitical change and the pace of board oversight. Indeed, a quarter of directors surveyed also think enhanced use of AI-powered data and technology tools would most improve risk oversight. Yet only 23% regularly use such tools to support strategic decision-making, and 40% don't use AI at all for this purpose.

Imagine a "Geopolitical Intelligence Brief" – a company could create a proprietary LLM with the last 10 years of quarterly and annual reports and press releases, updated weekly, and partner with an AI company to create an app that continuously monitors global headlines, generating an automated morning alert for the board and senior leadership. Each alert would identify two or three potential implications for the company's specific business lines, markets, or exposures. Not definitive answers, but prompted questions: "Given overnight developments in [region], consider reviewing [exposure], [contract], [supply chain node]." This horizon scanning exercise would then connect dots between macro events and micro business implications – and notify management for a further discussion if warranted. Or the app could be queried about the effects of a certain geopolitical scenario on revenues or supply. This isn't about replacing human judgment – it's about ensuring directors have current information in a timely fashion when judgment is required.

Identify a few discrete issues – maybe tariffs, maybe technology, maybe distribution – where advance preparation for some kind of asymmetry will create a market opportunity, and plan for that eventuality.

Establish a geopolitical monitoring cadence between meetings: 

Designate responsibility for weekly or bi-weekly briefings to the board – even a single-page summary keeps directors current.

In this era of polycrisis, build compound scenarios: 

Combine geopolitical shocks with cyber, supply chain or economic triggers – because in the real world, crises don't arrive one at a time.

The difference between boards that preserve value and those that destroy it will increasingly be decided before a geopolitical event occurs – not after. This January's rapid-fire developments compressed what would historically unfold over months into days. This year, the question isn't whether your company will be affected by geopolitical disruption. The question is whether your board will see it coming – and whether you'll have time to act. Quarterly reviews assess yesterday's risks while today's threats materialise in real-time. The boards that thrive will be those that treat geopolitics not as background noise, but as a continuous strategic variable requiring always-on attention.

Diligent

Blog

Relational leadership: What it is and why it matters more than ever

How to prepare for an IPO: Governance‑led roadmap and checklist

Your Data Matters