Europe's Boards: When Investors Help—or Hurt—Startups

A warning from inside the boardroom

Boards are supposed to help startups—but according to Jessica Schultz, a partner at Northzone, they can sometimes do the opposite. In a comment captured under the headline "Europe's most valuable board members, according to founders," Schultz stated plainly that boards can hinder companies "in the worst kind of ways."

It's a blunt admission from someone inside the venture ecosystem, and it lands at a moment when the report also notes a broader shift: Europe's venture capitalists are increasingly taking on jobs at their own portfolio startups, blurring the line between investor and operator.

What we actually know—and what we don't

The available reporting is notably thin on specifics. There's no list of the "most valuable" board members despite the headline, no criteria for what makes a board member valuable to founders, and no examples of how boards actually hinder companies. Similarly, the trend of VCs stepping into operational roles at startups isn't backed by names, specific companies, job titles, or a timeframe—so it's unclear how widespread this shift really is.

What remains is a caption-level signal: a respected investor publicly acknowledging that board dynamics can go wrong, paired with an emerging pattern of VCs getting more hands-on. Sources don't provide enough detail to say whether these two threads are connected, but both point toward the same underlying theme—the nature of investor involvement in startups may be evolving, for better or worse.

Why founders should care

For founders currently raising or already living with a board, this is a moment to pay attention rather than panic. A few things are likely worth considering:

Board composition may matter more than founders assume. If a seasoned VC is willing to say boards can hinder companies "in the worst kind of ways," it's plausible that board dysfunction is a real and recurring risk—not a hypothetical one—even though no specific examples were cited.
Deeper VC involvement could cut both ways. VCs taking on jobs at startups might signal more resources, mentorship, or hands-on support for portfolio companies. It could also raise legitimate questions about governance and independence, particularly if an investor's operational role overlaps with their board oversight duties. The report doesn't specify how this tension is playing out in practice, so founders should treat it as an emerging pattern to watch rather than a settled trend.
"Valuable" board members likely aren't defined by title alone. Without criteria from founders themselves, it's reasonable to assume that being helpful—rather than just being present or well-known—is what separates a good board member from a bad one.

The bottom line

This report offers a strong opening line and a noteworthy structural shift, but stops short of the details founders would need to act decisively—no names, no methodology, no case studies. Still, the core signal is hard to ignore: even insiders are willing to say boards can go badly wrong, and the investor-operator line in Europe appears to be shifting. Founders vetting new board members, or negotiating board seats in an upcoming raise, may want to ask direct questions about how prospective board members define their own value—and how they handle situations where their interests as an operator and as a director might diverge.