How to Tell When Trouble is Brewing: A Governance Perspective
How to Tell When Trouble is Brewing: A Governance Perspective
David Cantrick-Brooks | 06/05/2026

Poor governance rarely announces itself with a single dramatic failure. More often, it emerges through a pattern of warning signs: weak challenge, poor information flow, recurring compliance issues, unresolved conflicts, unhealthy culture, lack of accountability and ineffective escalation.

This distinction matters. Not every corporate setback is evidence of poor governance. Organisations can be affected by external shocks, economic conditions, cyber incidents, regulatory change, funding constraints or market disruption despite reasonable governance arrangements. The more revealing question is whether the board and executive team saw the risks early enough, received the right information, tested management’s assumptions and acted with appropriate urgency.

1. Board dynamics and challenge

A board that is divided, passive or overly deferential to management can become ineffective even if its formal structures appear sound. Warning signs include:

• unresolved boardroom tension;
• “passenger” directors who rarely contribute;
• groupthink;
• excessive reliance on the Chair or CEO;
• lack of diversity of background, skill, tenure and perspective; and
• insufficient constructive challenge of management.

Good boards do not obstruct management, but they do test, probe and bring independent judgement to material decisions.

2. Information flow and board papers

ASIC has emphasised that boards need timely, accurate and material information to oversee non-financial risk effectively. Poor information flow can lead directly to poor oversight, weak accountability and flawed decision-making.

Warning signs include late papers, overly long papers, excessive operational detail, unclear recommendations, missing risk analysis, insufficient options analysis and management reporting that consistently emphasises good news while softening or delaying bad news.

A good board paper should make the decision clear, explain the issue, identify material risks, set out options, disclose assumptions and support genuine board-level discussion.

3. Culture and accountability

The Hayne Royal Commission, APRA’s prudential inquiry into CBA and subsequent regulatory commentary have all reinforced the importance of culture, accountability, remuneration and consequence management.

Practical red flags include:

• repeated misconduct or compliance breaches;
• unresolved audit or risk findings;
• tolerance of bullying or executive dysfunction;
• poor staff engagement and high turnover;
• reward outcomes that do not reflect risk or conduct; and
• little consequence for poor performance or poor behaviour.

Culture is not simply “tone from the top”. It is revealed by what an organisation tolerates, rewards, escalates and ignores.

4. Conflicts and independence

Conflicts of interest are not unusual. Poor handling of conflicts is the problem.

The ACNC’s governance guidance for charities, for example, emphasises duties of care and diligence, acting in the organisation’s best interests and disclosing conflicts. Similar principles are relevant across corporate, government, not-for-profit and regulated environments.

Warning signs include undocumented conflicts, conflicted individuals participating in decisions, weak related-party controls and key control functions lacking independence, authority or direct access to the board or relevant committee.

5. Whistleblowing and bad news

An organisation’s treatment of bad news is one of the clearest indicators of governance maturity.

If whistleblowing arrangements exist only on paper, staff do not trust escalation channels, or those who raise concerns suffer adverse consequences, the board should be concerned. Similarly, repeated use of confidential settlements or quiet exits may sometimes be legitimate, but can also conceal recurring problems if not properly overseen.

6. When warning signs cluster

No single indicator proves governance failure. A late board paper, a difficult executive or a compliance breach may be isolated.

The concern arises when indicators cluster: weak challenge, poor papers, dominant personalities, suppressed bad news, repeated breaches and lack of consequence. At that point, the board should ask whether it is observing symptoms of a deeper governance problem.

7. What boards should do

Boards do not need to overreact to every warning sign. But they should be prepared to:

• commission targeted governance reviews;
• refresh board and committee workplans;
• improve board paper standards;
• review delegations, reporting lines and escalation protocols;
• test the independence of control functions;
• examine culture, conduct and accountability settings; and
• ensure conflicts and whistleblowing arrangements are working in practice.

Good governance is not about preventing every misadventure. It is about seeing the warning signs early, asking better questions and acting before problems become crises.

Governance in Action Pty Ltd assists organisations to identify and address governance issues before they become more serious, working with other specialists where appropriate.

This article / blog has been prepared with the aid of AI (including refining structure, wording and readability).Final judgement, editing and accountability remain with the author.

PreviousNext

Related Articles

The Corporations Act at 25: Still Fit for Purpose – or Overdue for Reform?

At 25, Australia’s Corporations Act remains indispensable – but has it become unnecessarily complicated? This article assesses its achievements, the causes and costs of legislative complexity, the ALRC’s reform agenda and the difference between changes already enacted and proposals still awaiting implementation. It argues for careful, evidence-based reform that makes corporate law clearer and more proportionate without sacrificing investor protection, accountability or market confidence.

11/09/2026

The Hidden Governance System: Why Management Committees Need Rules Too

Management committees can strengthen decision-making by bringing relevant expertise and challenge into important operational matters. But they can also create bureaucracy, delay decisions and obscure accountability. This article examines when management committees are worthwhile, how their authority should be defined, what the board needs to know, and the practical disciplines that help them work effectively. The central question is not how many committees an organisation has, but whether each committee improves decisions, manages risks and maintains clear responsibility for results.

10/31/2026

Proposed Reporting Threshold Changes: Implications for Australian Companies and Climate Reporting

The Australian Government has proposed significant increases to the financial thresholds used to classify large proprietary companies under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). From financial years commencing on or after 1 July 2027, the consolidated revenue threshold would double from $50 million to $100 million, while the consolidated gross assets threshold would increase from $25 million to $50 million. The employee threshold would remain unchanged. Although intended to reduce corporate reporting burdens, the proposals seem to have broader implications for Australia's mandatory climate-related financial disclosure regime. In particular, some entities previously expecting to commence Group 3 sustainability reporting in July 2027 may no longer meet the applicable reporting thresholds. Importantly, the potential consequences extend beyond proprietary companies to certain non-charitable public companies limited by guarantee. This Governance Briefing looks at the proposed changes, their interaction with the Corporations Act, and the practical implications for directors, company secretaries, CFOs and governance professionals.

10/30/2026