Australian Boards and Technology Governance

 

My husband attended the AICD Australian Governance Summit in Sydney earlier this month. He called me a couple of times to check in and give me a run down.

Almost every session, he said, touched on AI and technology governance, and the urgent need for boards to have more digital expertise.

I've just read the AICD's report on AI use by directors and boards (link to their post in the comments). It's thoughtful and well-researched. It talks about AI literacy, the risks of directors using public AI tools on sensitive board papers and the importance of human judgment remaining central to governance. It doesn't mention the pipeline problem though.

I hold the AICD Foundations of Directorship credential and an MBA. I have 30 years of hands-on technology experience across enterprise, NFP and SME organisations. I've reported directly to boards and CEOs on technology strategy and risk. By the AICD's own definition, I'm exactly the kind of person they're saying boards need.

I also can't get onto a board without prior board experience. And I can't get prior board experience without being on a board. 🤯 

This isn't a new problem. Australian boards have long operated as a relatively closed system, with roles going to people who already hold board roles - predominantly lawyers and finance professionals, predominantly older and with limited technology expertise. ASIC Chair Joe Longo noted recently that directors with a technology background represent less than 8% of Australian boards, numbers which have scarcely changed in the past year.

Now the institutions that built that system are saying boards urgently need people with technology and AI expertise. The people who actually have that expertise at depth are, on average, not lawyers or CPAs, younger, and mostly haven't yet accumulated the governance CVs that get you into the room.

I don't have a clean solution to this. Boards are genuinely trying to grapple with a fast-moving space, and the AICD report reflects that seriously.

I do think it's worth naming the gap between the problem being described and the structural barriers preventing it from being solved.

AICD report referenced in this post - AI use by directors and boards: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/australianinstituteofcompanydirectors_boardroom-conversations-are-shifting-from-activity-7441589560666615808-xx4H/ 

Learn more on the ENVEE Digital blog - Digital Strategy at the executive level

This article was first published on LinkedIn

Read More

"Well, you're still an executive"

A couple of months ago I met a woman at a networking event - someone I'd connected with on LinkedIn but never met in person.

She asked what I did.

I said I was coming off a sabbatical. My kids call it my 'Gap Year', which I'd started to find quite funny. I made a little joke about technically not being an executive at the moment.

She looked at me and said: "Well, you're still an executive" and then we moved on to small talk.

I've been thinking about those five words ever since.

She didn't make a big thing of it. Just a statement of fact, delivered matter-of-factly, from someone who had no reason to be anything other than honest.

But she was right. I'd spent months using my kids' affectionate framing for a period that was actually a deliberate pause, to recover, recalibrate and work out what came next. Somewhere in there I'd started to believe the lighter version of the story.

That one comment quietly triggered something in my brain.

In the weeks since, I've rebuilt my entire professional presence - rewritten and rebuilt my website, updated my profiles, set up systems that make me more effective, and started applying selectively for some senior roles that would really mean something to me.

One comment. Five words.

I don't know if she remembers saying it. I doubt it meant much to her.

It meant quite a lot to me though. ❤️ 

This article was first published on LinkedIn

Read More