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.