This article was first published in German. The original article can be viewed in the PDF. Leading insights contributed by Dr Julia Zdrahal-Urbanek, Founder and Managing Partner AltoPartners Executive Search in Austria

Executive Summary

Access to Supervisory Board Positions, Board Practices, and Compensation: Insights from a Survey of Austrian and German Supervisory Board Members

The supervisory board is in transition. While traditional responsibilities such as oversight, governance and financial control remain central, boards are increasingly expected to contribute strategic guidance, support corporate resilience and navigate a more demanding regulatory and geopolitical environment. Against this backdrop, researchers from WU Vienna, together with AltoPartners Executive Search and Women Corporate Directors Austria, conducted a survey of 155 supervisory board members in Austria and Germany. The resulting analysis, authored by Alexander Hofer (WU Vienna), Ewald Aschauer (WU Vienna) and Julia Zdrahal-Urbanek (Alto Executive Search), examines how supervisory board members gain access to board positions, which competencies are most valued, what topics dominate board agendas, and how board compensation is perceived.

Access to a first supervisory board mandate continues to be driven primarily by professional networks and personal recommendations. Although executive search firms are playing a growing role in identifying candidates with specific expertise, formal and transparent appointment processes have yet to become the norm. Trust remains the single most important prerequisite for board appointments, complemented by industry experience, financial expertise and strategic capabilities. Emerging competencies such as digitalisation, cybersecurity, artificial intelligence and ESG are increasingly valued, but they continue to rank behind traditional business credentials.

The survey also highlights a clear hierarchy of board priorities. Strategic development, CEO and executive succession, governance and corporate resilience dominate board agendas, while sustainability and digital transformation, despite gaining visibility, are not yet perceived as being on an equal footing with these core responsibilities. Respondents identify information asymmetry between management and the supervisory board as a key challenge, alongside interpersonal dynamics and the effectiveness of informal communication channels.

Compensation presents a more nuanced picture. Most respondents consider their remuneration broadly appropriate, yet many point to a growing mismatch between rising expectations and largely unchanged compensation structures. Fixed fees remain the dominant model, while performance-related elements are rare. Notably, a majority of respondents do not regard supervisory board remuneration in their home market as internationally competitive, raising concerns about the ability of companies with global ambitions to attract and retain highly qualified board members.

Taken together, the findings portray supervisory boards as institutions moving from a predominantly supervisory role towards a more professional and strategically engaged governance model. Greater transparency in board appointments, broader competency profiles and continued professionalisation are likely to define the next stage of this evolution.