European boards increasingly acknowledge that human capital sits at the heart of enterprise value creation. Yet when governance decisions are made, CHROs remain underrepresented, particularly across continental Europe and the BENELUX region.
It is a boardroom perception problem, reinforced by generational leadership legacies, conservative governance norms, and a persistent misunderstanding of what modern HR leadership actually entails.
This perspective draws on a closed-door executive panel convened by Kingsley Gate in Brussels, bringing together CHROs, board chairs, CEOs, governance experts and search leaders to examine why the gap persists and what genuinely differentiates CHROs who reach boards from those who do not.
Boards Say They Value People. Their Appointments Tell a Different Story.
Across Europe, boards routinely describe talent, culture, and leadership as strategic priorities. Yet board composition often reflects a narrow interpretation of “strategic expertise”, typically finance, operations, industry, or technology.
Panel participants highlighted a structural contradiction: many European boards are still dominated by directors whose formative careers peaked before HR evolved into a strategic, data-driven enterprise function. Their mental model of HR remains anchored in administration, compliance, and industrial relations.
Mike Bergen, who leads Kingsley Gate’s Global Markets initiative and global CHRO practice, emphasized that this perception gap creates the fundamental barrier:
“The challenge isn’t regulation or access—it’s how CHROs position themselves as enterprise leaders.”
Mike Bergen, Head of Global Markets and Global HR Practice Leader, Kingsley Gate
As a result, CHROs are often evaluated not on the scale of decisions they make, but on outdated assumptions about the function they represent.
The Generational Lag at the Heart of the Problem
Andy Davies put it bluntly:
“Twenty-five years ago, personnel managers occupied basement offices and held no executive committee seats. Today’s CHRO sits in the C-suite as a fundamental member of enterprise leadership.”
Andy Davies, Co-Lead of Kingsley Gate’s Global Board Practice
The problem? Current board chairs and directors built their careers during that transition. Their mental model of what HR can contribute is stuck in the past.
Multiple panelists described the same frustration: boards populated by people who “lost connection with reality,” discussing workplace dynamics from the ’80s. These directors genuinely believe they understand HR because they’ve managed people. They don’t see the strategic sophistication modern CHROs bring: workforce analytics, transformation management, cultural architecture.
The good news? Davies noted that “today’s board chairs will soon be replaced by CEOs who built their careers working alongside world-class strategic HR leaders.” The generational shift is coming.
AI Has Turned Human Capital into a Governance Risk
Béatrice de Mahieu, CEO of BeCode and board member at Proximus, articulated something critical about the AI era: even as AI automates work, human relationships become the primary competitive differentiator.
“With the digital transformation from 10 years ago, that was a really easy one. With the AI transformation from now, we don’t even know, you’re in the middle of a tornado, and a tsunami is coming up.”
Béatrice de Mahieu, CEO of BeCode and Board Member at Proximus
This is where CHRO expertise becomes essential. Boards need someone asking:
- How do we prevent toxic cultures that drive burnout?
- What does skills-based organization design mean for career development?
- How do we maintain engagement in hybrid models?
- Who's monitoring the well-being of the people responsible for supporting everyone else?
Gaëtan Bonny, CHRO at Kaeron and professor at UCLouvain, argued that preventing organizational toxicity deserves board attention equivalent to cybersecurity risk. Boards can’t predict every workforce challenge, but they can proactively design organizations that support rather than undermine human flourishing.
And here’s the thing: younger generations won’t wait.
“The new generations will not wait until you ask, because they will put you down directly.”
Gaëtan Bonny, CHRO at Kaeron and Professor at UCLouvain
What Boards Actually Want: Enterprise Leadership, Not Functional Expertise
The Brussels discussion surfaced a blunt insight: boards do not appoint CHROs because they are HR leaders. They appoint them when HR leadership is secondary to enterprise leadership.
Across appointments, boards prioritise:
- Demonstrated transformational leadership
- Cross-functional decision-making authority
- Commercial and operational fluency
- Strategic judgment under ambiguity
“Transformation experience has become the defining factor separating CHROs who reach boards from those who don’t.”
Anette Böhm, Executive Committee Member & CHRO, bpost
Functional excellence is assumed. It is not differentiating.
The distinction matters because it reframes the entire conversation. CHROs don’t need to convince boards that HR matters strategically, most already accept this intellectually. What they must demonstrate is that they can lead enterprise transformation, navigate commercial
complexity, and make sound governance decisions across the full business agenda. HR expertise becomes the differentiating lens they bring to enterprise leadership, not the primary qualification itself.
What CHROs Must Do Differently Now
The panel’s message was unequivocal: waiting to be invited into the boardroom no longer works.
CHROs who succeed:
- Expand their scope before seeking board roles
- Lead transformation beyond HR boundaries
- Speak credibly on finance, operations, and strategy
- Position themselves consistently and visibly
This requires claiming broader organizational responsibility while still in executive roles. Lead M&A integration. Drive digital transformation with workforce implications. Contribute to commercial strategy. The goal is establishing a track record that makes enterprise leadership obvious, not merely arguable.
The panel concluded that the final barrier is psychological—not structural, not regulatory, but about how CHROs see themselves and choose to position their capabilities. Those who make this mental shift and back it with deliberate action will find unprecedented opportunities opening in European boardrooms.
Download the Full Perspective
The complete article dives deeper into:
The time commitment reality
20-25 days annually for typical boards versus 100+ in regulated industries, and why chair roles are qualitatively different
Family business complexity
Due diligence on family relationships, navigating politics, when to use board relationships to advance initiatives the CEO resists
The NGO pathway debate
Why it works as development but risks perpetuating gender-based undervaluation of women’s expertise
What boards lack sophistication in
Succession planning methodology (not replacement charts), compensation complexity, and transformation management at the human level
Selection process dysfunction
Why requirements shift mid-process, the chemistry versus technical distinction, and how to navigate misalignment between stakeholders
What CHROs must do differently
Specific actions for claiming broader organizational scope, speaking up persistently, and choosing opportunities strategically
The panelists also share candid experiences, the painful board selection processes, the exhausting persistence required, and the three questions to ask before joining any board.
About This Article
This article is based on a leadership panel discussion held in Brussels, convened by Kingsley Gate. The discussion included CHROs, board members, governance experts, and search consultants from across the BENELUX region, with particular focus on Belgian and broader European market dynamics.
English 
Español de México