Henk Rottinghuis: ‘Curiosity is more important than knowledge’

What characterizes a good supervisory board member?
‘A supervisory board member must enjoy the success of others. That is the essence of being a supervisory director, facilitating and enabling better performance by the executive board and the employees, and thus by the company. I had to learn that. When I was CEO of Pon, I briefly served as a supervisory board member. That was not a success because I was too caught up in scoring mode. I had to grow up a bit.
When I left Pon at the age of fifty-four, I felt I was ready to put my knowledge and experience to good use as a supervisory board member. And fortunately, I have been asked regularly since then – which is nice, because it is great to work for people you know have confidence in you.’

What character traits should a supervisory board member have to be able to ‘enjoy the success of others’ and to be able to fulfill the role of supervisor, advisor, and employer effectively? And what conditions must be met?
‘Curiosity is essential. Daring to ask questions and keep asking. I think that if you are not very curious, you are not a good supervisory board member. I am still curious. Curious about tomorrow. Curious about things I do not know yet.
It is also more important to be curious than to be extremely knowledgeable about something. In various of the forums I am involved in, AI is often discussed at the moment. People say there needs to be an AI specialist on the supervisory board, otherwise you will not be able to keep up. My answer to that is that if I had to appoint a specialist to the supervisory board for all these kinds of questions that have arisen over the years, I would now have ten people on every board. Moreover, there is a danger that the other members no longer think about the subject in question when there is an expert, but leave it to him or her. While our duty is precisely to delve into it: to get informed, take a course, read about it. And then also be able to separate the hype from the fundamental change. That you, in this case, understand what AI can do, and that you ensure the necessary expertise is available in the company.
The experts belong in the company, and the supervisory board members would do well to consult them from time to time. That is why I am a big proponent of committee work for supervisory board members. It allows you to delve deeper into a specialized topic than during a full supervisory board meeting. It also gives insight into the tone in the organization, what kind of people are working on what kind of topics, and how these are being developed.’

What else does a supervisory board member need to remain truly sharp in his or her judgment?
‘It is also important that you, as a supervisory board member, know how to present your criticism. If you do not receive criticism as a CEO, you dry up. That is a serious risk. Because people tell you what you want to hear and give you filtered information. You have to make sure you create a critical environment around you. This applies equally to a supervisory board member. We all make mistakes.
When I go into a supervisory board meeting, I have an opinion about what we are going to discuss. But what if I always, at the end of the meeting, have my opinion unchanged? Then I am on the wrong board. If you think you're the smartest in the room, you're in the wrong room, as the saying goes. No one is capable of overseeing all aspects of a problem on their own. A discussion on a topic, where someone else approaches it from a completely different angle, is very important. Diversity, in other words. Do I understand the problem better after a meeting? Do I understand the decision better? If not, then that supervisory board has not functioned properly. And then we do not need to meet; we might as well vote by email.’

The role of the supervisory board member has changed significantly in recent years. What do you see as the biggest change or challenge?
‘The role of a supervisory board member has undergone a drastic transformation over the past twenty to twenty-five years. The old stereotype of the supervisory board member who holds fifteen board positions simultaneously and opens the meeting documents only in the car on the way to the meeting is definitely a thing of the past. Nowadays, everyone has a much smaller portfolio, simply because the position demands more and more time and the responsibilities have increased substantially.
This increase in time commitment is due to the growing complexity of business itself. Twenty years ago, risk management was barely a concept in supervisory boardrooms, whereas now it is an essential part of every meeting. Supervisory board members must immerse themselves in geopolitical developments, digital transformation, climate risks, and countless other aspects that were rarely or never discussed in the past.
In addition, several elements have been added on the governance side. These are legitimate elements but have significantly increased the time commitment required. I used to think that the focus on corporate governance was a bit excessive. Now I am actually a proponent of it. Governance regulations, of course, do not change the essence of the work. You still have to think about the business and make decisions about the business. But it gives you structure and helps prevent things from being overlooked. Think of the introduction of mandatory self-evaluations. Whereas in the past, in some boards, it simply did not happen, it is now an annual ritual that is regularly deepened with the help of external coaches. These evaluations prove to be illuminating because they give supervisory board members the opportunity to give each other constructive feedback, reflect on their own performance, and identify areas for improvement.
The way in which we are accountable has also changed significantly. It has become much more transparent. We are much more accountable to the public than before. And that is actually a good thing, because it means you have to think more carefully about how to explain things. My father always said: ‘To explain is to understand, and to understand is to explain’.

In short: the structure that governance provides is exceptionally helpful in properly fulfilling the increasingly complex role of the supervisory board. Does this also apply to the recent update of the corporate governance code by the Corporate Governance Code Monitoring Committee, and in particular to the introduction of the Risk Management Statement (VOR)?
‘I believe the new Monitoring Committee, led by Rob van Wingerden, should be cautious and ask itself time and again whether it is solving a real problem or primarily seeking to make its own mark. In my opinion, the pace at which we continue to add things is too fast; we have barely implemented the previous amendments to the code. You would want a new committee to exercise restraint and only tackle things that you believe really need improvement. I advocate not trying to fix something that is not broken. And, frankly, as far as I am concerned, the tools available are sufficient. In my practice, at least.

As far as the VOR is concerned, risk management is of course essential. But I believe companies are already very transparent about their risk management. In that respect, the VOR is redundant. There is also a danger that supervisory boards become too defensive and forget that entrepreneurship by definition involves risks, that the supervisory board may even become one big ‘hedging operation’.
For me personally, the introduction of the VOR has changed little. I was accustomed to factoring risks into my decisions, and the way I report has not fundamentally changed either.’

Back to the supervisory boards you serve on. You have chosen very diverse organizations. Is there perhaps a common thread?
‘My portfolio consists almost exclusively of what I call the old economy: shipbuilding at Damen, construction at BAM, tank storage, cement, all companies that make things. I do not have a deep understanding of the digital world, so it is logical that I am not immediately asked to serve on boards in that sector. I think I understand what digital can do for the old economy, but that is different from getting me to serve on the supervisory board of NVIDIA.
But more important to me than the sector is whether there are challenges. I enjoy it most when there are difficulties. Because then you hope you can make a bigger difference. I am not so much into ‘minding the shop’. It has to be about good companies that are worth leading further. Solving puzzles, guiding transitions, that is what excites me.’

Are there rules for how to manage a transition or a crisis?
‘There are a few perennial themes that a supervisory board member can advise companies on how best to prepare themselves. Firstly: by focusing on liquidity. Make sure you are liquid. As an organization, always keep in mind that you could suddenly find yourself in a very different situation. Will you be able to survive it financially?
Secondly, try to ensure everyone keeps a cool head. An experienced supervisory board member can play a crucial role here. If you have been through several transitions, you can, from your greater distance, assess the depth of the transition for the company. That makes you calmer, and you can be helpful to a board of directors that is going through this for the first time. You have to try to keep the company out of the crisis zone, to look more at the strategic side of events.’

And if that does not work? Are you not at risk of damaging your image as a supervisory board member?
‘So what? What could happen to me? A bad reputation? That I can no longer buy bread? No, that does not scare me. I see around me that some people choose their projects very carefully. They opt for the safe options, and when things get tough, they run away.  I call that defecting: you followed the flag, but when the ground beneath your feet gets too hot, you run away. That is not me.
At BAM, the share was worth one euro when I started. Colleagues said: ‘Do you even know what you are getting yourself into? You are taking quite a risk’. But hey, someone has to do it. And if they are great companies that are worth saving, then I think it is worth the effort. Or, if they cannot be saved, to make sure that everything is settled properly.’

Want to respond? Mail us at redactie@scopebusinessmedia.nl. 

This interview was published in Management Scope 01 2026.