When the Pit Wall Meets the Boardroom

I have watched Formula One for thirty years. It is my long-running way to switch off.
Over the past decade, my governance work has become a genuine calling. And lately, I cannot help noticing the parallels. The same tension between management and trust, performance and communication, shows up both on the pit wall and in the boardroom.

When Winning Isn’t Simple

McLaren’s 2025 Constructors’ Championship win should read as pure success. The team title is secure, and both drivers remain in contention for the individual World Drivers’ Championship — something that has not happened often in recent memory. A team identity gradually rebuilt over the past five years, evolving to the now familiar papaya livery, seems to have found its pace again.

Yet even in that success, communication remains the challenge. Both drivers have spoken about the team’s "papaya rules," an agreement that exists but is not fully explained to the public, nor, it seems, with perfect clarity within the garage. And perhaps we do not need to know; every team is entitled to manage its inner workings. Still, it is a sharp reminder of how clarity, or the lack of it, shapes perception from the outside.

That is the truth of any high-performing team: success does not remove the strain. It amplifies it.

The Rulebook Allows It, But Should You?

Team orders in Formula One are no longer banned. They are permitted so long as they do not "bring the sport into disrepute."
It is a broad allowance that relies on judgement, not prescription.
And, having read both, I can say the Formula 1 Sporting Regulations rival most school board constitutions for length and detail, though I seem to have developed a working knowledge of both.

Boards face a similar tension, though under far heavier guardrails.
Education governance sits inside layers of legal and regulatory obligation: child safety, staff wellbeing, finance, risk, compliance. All are non-negotiable.
Within those bounds, though, discretion still matters. The real test is not simply "is it compliant?" but "is it consistent with our values, transparent to our community, and likely to build trust?"
Good governance lives in that space between legal duty and cultural integrity.

Private Direction, Public Cohesion

An F1 team communicates under pressure through radio chatter, coded instructions and millions watching. Yet the hardest conversations are not broadcast; they happen inside the team’s motorhomes, engineering offices and closed briefings.

Boards operate in similar tension. Most of what matters is discussed privately, but every public statement and policy must hold together. When internal tone and external message drift apart, people sense it.
Clarity is not a luxury; it is the guardrail that keeps confidence on track.

The Quiet Work Between Races

A race team resets after each round: data, performance, relationships. No headlines, just process.
Boards do the same through regular contact between the Chair, Principal and Executive. The work may not be visible, but that is where alignment is maintained.
The public rarely sees the conversations that prevent misunderstanding. That is how it should be.

The Line Between Success and Disrepute

McLaren’s 2007 season showed how thin that line can be: a championship nearly won, a team fractured, reputation scarred. The 2025 version is steadier but still a reminder that confusion erodes culture faster than loss ever could.

Boards, like race teams, are judged not only on outcomes but on the integrity of how those outcomes are achieved. When communication falters, credibility follows.

Even the best-run teams must keep checking their mirrors.
Fast is not fragile; unclear is.