How Should Boards Use Their Limited Time in Meetings?
How Should Boards Use Their Limited Time in Meetings?
David Cantrick-Brooks | 22/08/2026

Board agendas are getting heavier, but directors' attention is not infinitely expandable.

The US National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD's) 2025 survey found 74% of directors said agenda topics had increased; one-third said it had become harder to focus on mission-critical priorities. Spencer Stuart, one of the world's leading global executive search and leadership consulting firms, conducted a survey in 2024 which found 70% of directors reported increased board-work hours, with strategy/performance most often identified for more discussion. I see evidence of that here in Australia.

In Australia, APRA's draft CPS 510 consultation is unusually direct: regulated entities have consistently told APRA that boards spend too much time on varied compliance matters, drawing focus from key responsibilities. APRA proposes clearer delegation so boards can devote more attention to strategy, risk, culture, oversight and challenge. Submissions close on 28 August 2026.

But there is no universal “sweet spot”. A fixed 20/80 compliance/strategy split, a three-to-four-hour meeting rule, or a prescribed number of agenda items is not an Australian governance standard. The right design depends on size, complexity, regulation, risk and what is happening in the business.

The better principle is: delegate work, not accountability.

Boards can:

• Build the annual calendar around strategy, risk, reserved matters and regulatory cycles (keep it up to date!);

• Label items for decision, discussion, noting or information, and put high judgement matters early;

• Use starring/consent processes and exception reporting for routine matters (refer to my earlier LinkedIn post on this subject);

• Require concise, decision-useful papers exposing options, assumptions and material risks (the need for better board papers raises its head again);

• Use committees and delegations for detail, with clear escalation of any exceptions;

• Track where meeting time goes and rebalance it (if necessary); and

• Use securely governed AI to interrogate information – never to replace director reading, challenge or judgement.

The objective is not “less governance”. It is better governance architecture: make routine conformance systematic so scarce board time is available for the questions, choices and judgements that matter most.

Governance in Action Pty Ltd can assist clients with agenda setting, board reporting and time management in meetings (and various other aspects of meetings, including the preparation of minutes).

David Cantrick-Brooks FGIA FCG, Principal & Director of Governance in Action Pty Ltd, would be pleased to assist with enquiries. Please feel free to reach out via LinkedIn or visit the Governance in Action website: gia.net.au

AI-assisted tools and techniques were used here to support the research, drafting and editing of this publication. Responsibility for the final content rests with David Cantrick-Brooks.

A longer version of this blog (containing additional information and practical hints and tips) is available upon request.

PreviousNext

Related Articles

How Often Should Boards Review Their Policies? A Practical Governance Approach

How often should boards review their policies? There is no universal answer. Some policies and governance frameworks warrant annual review; others may reasonably operate on longer cycles. What matters is that review frequency reflects the importance of the policy, the organisation's risk profile, the pace of change and operational experience – and that scheduled reviews are supplemented by event-driven triggers. This article proposes a practical, risk-based approach to policy review cycles, board and committee workplans, policy registers and effective policy governance.

10/03/2026

From More Board Papers to Better Board Questions: What Telstra’s AI Agent Tells Us About the Future

Artificial intelligence may have a more important role in the boardroom than simply drafting papers, summarising reports or producing minutes. Telstra’s purpose-built Board AI agent points to a different possibility: using AI to help directors retrieve, connect and interrogate trusted board information so they can ask better questions. This article explores what that development may mean for board effectiveness, board reporting, company secretaries and the governance of AI itself – and why the objective should not be to automate board judgement, but to create more space for informed challenge, institutional memory and sound decision-making.

10/01/2026

External Audits: A Director’s Guide from Planning to Sign-off

External audits are an important source of independent assurance – but they do not relieve directors of responsibility for the financial report. This practical guide explains the external audit process from a director’s governance perspective, from auditor selection and planning through to year-end testing, written representations and the final audit opinion. It examines where boards and Audit Committees should engage, how to approach auditor independence and non-audit services, why uncorrected audit differences deserve attention, and the particular care required when legal professional privilege is involved. It also considers auditors’ statutory reporting obligations to ASIC, the growing use of AI in audit, sustainability assurance and forthcoming changes to Australian auditing standards. Above all, it explains why directors must continue to bring their own informed and enquiring judgement to financial reporting rather than treating external audit as a substitute for board oversight.

09/20/2026