Pär Edin (KPMG): Inside a Thousand Boardrooms: How Boards Are Actually Handling AI

Three years ago, boards did something unusual. They didn't just push management to act. They pointed at a specific technology and said: go.

That almost never happens. Boards govern, challenge, approve. They rarely lead the charge on a directional bet. But every board member had tried ChatGPT on their phone and the reaction was visceral. Pär Edin was sitting on the KPMG US board while leading their AI go-to-market. Both sides of the table. And what he saw was a pattern now playing out across more than a thousand board members: full throttle and full brakes, at the same time. The question most boards still haven't resolved is whether they're governing a company through a technological shift, or still governing the company that existed before it.

🎙️ Pär Edin

Pär Edin is a Principal at KPMG who spent five years on the firm's US and Americas board, chairing the operations and technology committee when generative AI hit. Not advisory. Votes. He's since worked with over a thousand board members on AI. What makes his lens unusual is the dual view: boardroom and management floor, simultaneously. He knows exactly where the two misunderstand each other.

🔥 Key Insights

✅ Use cases are a sign of immaturity

The more a board asks for specific AI use cases, the earlier they are on the curve. Advanced boards focus on the haystack, not the needles. What happens when every player in our ecosystem adopts AI at the same pace or faster? That outward-looking question separates governance from curiosity.

✅ The power play you're not running

Think of AI like an extra player on the ice. Would you rather play short-handed or in constant power play? That extra player doubles in performance every three to six months. A competitor with a year's head start sounds small. It compounds.

✅ No company transforms faster than the pace of trust

Employees afraid to use AI because an error might cost them their job. Shadow usage exploding because official tools are two generations old. Top talent leaving because the policy signals a company standing still. Not three problems. One trust failure.

✅ Demanding ROI right now is counterproductive

The circular argument plays out everywhere: management says the board needs a number, the board says we asked for a conversation about value creation. Forcing precise ROI assumptions that don't exist yet wastes energy and produces fiction. Most AI investments so far were approved on strategic intent. That's not reckless. It's rational.

✅ More work, lower cost. The productivity flip.

Traditional productivity means fewer hours per task. AI inverts this. When agent hours approach zero marginal cost, you can triple the volume of work while cutting what it costs. A European telco went from targeting 30% improvement in offshore finance to automating the function entirely and bringing it home. But only because someone redesigned the process from scratch.

✅ The board that beat every human

An INSEAD experiment in HBR: a fully agentic AI board versus human boards, blind-tested by human jurors. The AI board scored higher on every dimension. Pär isn't saying boards get replaced. But if you're asking your teams to rethink which work is uniquely human, at some point that question comes home.