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

Governance Audits in Australia: What Boards Can Learn from the Public Sector

Governance frameworks can look impressive on paper. The more important question is whether they work in practice. This article examines governance audits as evidence-based assessments of the design, operation and outcomes of an organisation’s governance arrangements. It considers why governance assurance is more formalised and visible in the Australian public sector, why private-sector organisations often perform equivalent work under different labels, and what boards can learn from each approach. It also explores appropriate audit scope, culture and behavioural evidence, review frequency, the role of internal and external reviewers, and the opportunities and risks associated with using AI. The central message is simple: good governance assurance should go beyond confirming that policies, charters and controls exist. It should test whether they are understood, used, effective and capable of identifying and correcting governance weaknesses before they become larger problems.

08/18/2026

Lead and Lag Indicators in Corporate Governance: From Rear-View Reporting to Early Warning

Boards need more than a rear-view mirror. Lagging indicators such as breaches, losses, incidents and missed targets remain essential for accountability, but well-designed leading indicators can provide earlier warning of changing risk, culture, capability and control conditions. This article examines what lead and lag indicators actually mean in corporate governance, why the same measure can sometimes be both, and why “leading” should not automatically be equated with “predictive”. It proposes a practical indicator framework across strategy, risk and compliance, culture, WHS, board effectiveness, internal audit, technology, data, customers and third parties. It also considers how big data, analytics and AI can strengthen governance – provided boards first address data quality, privacy, context and assurance. The objective is not perfect prediction, but earlier recognition, better questions and better-informed board decisions.

08/13/2026

Tranche 2 AML/CTF: An Early Temperature Check for Professional Service Providers

Australia’s Tranche 2 AML/CTF reforms moved into live operation on 1 July 2026. One month later, the evidence is not strong enough for a verdict - but it is sufficient to identify the questions that matter. This article explains why scope mapping remains the first control, clarifies the significance of the 29 July enrolment deadline, and examines the shift from having policies and templates to operating an effective AML/CTF framework. It also considers the position of governance and company secretarial providers, the need to integrate customer due diligence into ordinary workflows, the interaction between recordkeeping and privacy, and the responsibilities of governing bodies, senior managers and compliance officers. The central lesson is that commencement readiness is not completion: the next phase is to test, evidence and improve how the program works in live engagements.

08/02/2026