From Investment Thesis to Value Creation: A Conversation with Telmo Valido
Telmo Valido, Partner at One Rock Capital Partners, reflects on how governance turns investment theses into real business performance. Drawing on his experience in private equity, board leadership, and large-scale transformations, he shares why effective boards do more than oversee management — they help organizations ask harder questions, navigate pressure, and create long-term value.
Telmo Valido is a Partner at One Rock Capital Partners, where he co-leads the firm’s London office and oversees investments across Europe. Over the course of his career, he has worked across private equity, strategy consulting, and board leadership roles, with experience spanning operational turnarounds, carve-outs, and large-scale business transformations.
For Valido, governance has become central to how he evaluates companies and supports management teams. In private equity, a strong investment thesis can identify potential value, but realizing that value depends on what happens inside the company: the quality of leadership, the strength of the board, and the ability of both to move in the same direction when conditions become difficult.
To deepen his understanding of board effectiveness, leadership dynamics, and long-term value creation, Valido participated in our Corporate Governance Program.
In this conversation, Valido reflects on governance as a driver of value creation, the difference between functional and high-performing boards, and why the strongest boards are willing to engage with difficult questions before they become urgent.
When did governance become central to how you evaluate companies?
Relatively early. I started my career in private equity focused on financial modeling and business plans, but soon realized that change happens inside companies, and the link between the shareholders’ vision and company performance is the board.
When you’re allocating capital, you quickly learn that the quality of a business is inseparable from the quality of the people and structures running it. Over time, I stopped thinking of governance as a checkbox and started thinking of it as infrastructure — something that becomes visible when the organization is under pressure or needs to do something genuinely difficult.
What showed you the difference between a good investment and a well-governed company?
I’ve seen both sides of the gap between a good investment and a well-governed company.
A business can have strong fundamentals and still be fragile if governance isn’t present. You find that out when a CEO needs to be replaced, when a compliance issue surfaces, or when a macro shock like COVID hits and the board and management need to move quickly and in the same direction.
Those moments expose the architecture of the organization. Good governance doesn’t prevent crises, but it largely determines whether a company comes out stronger or weaker on the other side.
What brought you to the Corporate Governance Program?
I came into the program with real operating experience in private market investing, board seats, and business transformations. What I wanted was a more rigorous framework for what actually makes boards effective rather than just functional.
The program widened my perspective and gave me confidence to look at governance situations through different lenses — from dysfunctional boards to boards that actively contribute to value creation.
What was your first impression of the program?
From the moment I walked into Henry Kravis Hall and started meeting my peers, I immediately sensed I was in a special place.
The caliber of the room, the diversity of backgrounds, and the ambition of the curriculum stood out immediately. It was clear this was going to be a meaningful investment of time.
How did the program change your view of boards?
I underestimated how much board effectiveness depends on composition and dynamics — not just the credentials of individual directors, but how they interact, how conflict is managed, and how dissent is expressed.
A board of individually impressive people can still be collectively dysfunctional.
What stayed with you most?
I underestimated how much board effectiveness depends on composition and dynamics — not just the credentials of individual directors, but how they interact, how conflict is managed, and how dissent is expressed.
A board of individually impressive people can still be collectively dysfunctional.
How has your approach to governance evolved?
I underestimated how much board effectiveness depends on composition and dynamics — not just the credentials of individual directors, but how they interact, how conflict is managed, and how dissent is expressed.
A board of individually impressive people can still be collectively dysfunctional.
What separates boards that create value from those that simply oversee it?
I underestimated how much board effectiveness depends on composition and dynamics — not just the credentials of individual directors, but how they interact, how conflict is managed, and how dissent is expressed.
A board of individually impressive people can still be collectively dysfunctional.
Upcoming Corporate Governance Program
$10,550
Corporate Governance Program: Developing Exceptional Board Leaders
4 CIBE Credits
Sign Up for Email Alerts
Sign up for program updates and content relevant to today's business leaders from Columbia Business School Executive Education.