We hear the phrase “broken system” here  in Australia  and over the last 12 months it’s come up a lot. The context of a broken system can be connected to:

Australia’s migration system, Aged Care, Child Care, Hospitals, Education.  To name just a few with so many sectors under strain, it’s reasonable to be asking a deeper question:

Is governance broken; or are we seeing the limits of how governance is currently being practiced?

Governance, at its core I believe it is about stewardship of systems.
If the systems we oversee are faltering, if they are not supporting people they are potentially in failure mode, then governance must be part of the conversation not as a scapegoat, but as a lens.

You can place different labels in front of governance: modern, conservative, contemporary, good but labels don’t change the underlying responsibility. Boards exist to oversee complexity, manage risk and relevance, and act in the long-term interests of the organisations, their people and communities they serve.

So what happens when the same challenges are on repeat?

Change Has Outpaced Capability

There is no question that governance expectations have shifted significantly.

Policy reform.
Legislative change.
Increased accountability.
Expanded director duties.

In many cases, these changes have landed faster than organisations have had the capacity to absorb them let alone embed, monitor, and measure their effectiveness. Not because boards don’t care, but because governance is being asked to evolve while still operating inside yesterday’s and in some cases legacy systems.

At the same time, we’re seeing a growing challenge in director recruitment.

Not a shortage of capable people but a shortage of people who are both skilled and willing to fully carry the responsibility and accountability of the role.

That, in my view, is not a negative.

In fact, I welcome it.

Governance should prompt harder questions about who sits at the table and why. It should challenge appointments based on tenure, familiarity, or personal agendas. And yes, that is an uncomfortable conversation. But it’s a necessary one. 

When the System Stops Evolving

Here’s where I see the tension sitting.

Governance is a system run by people.
Complex, yes but still a system.
And systems can and should evolve.

Yet too often, we see the same profiles repeatedly appointed to positions of power:

• Long tenure in a single domain
• Deep but narrow experience
• Existing connections to the board

Meanwhile, individuals with strong governance capability, contemporary insight, and diverse perspectives are overlooked not because they lack merit, but because they don’t fit the traditional mould.

If the same types of people continue to govern increasingly complex environments, we shouldn’t be surprised when the system struggles to adapt.

This is why I hesitate to say governance is broken.

What concerns me more is the growing reliance on new labels  “modern governance,” “contemporary governance,” “good governance” as though renaming the practice somehow resolves the issue. It won’t and it doesn’t!

If governance requires constant rebranding to remain relevant, perhaps what we actually need is not a new definition, but an upgrade in how the system is supported and resourced.

The Grey Area Space Matters

I don’t believe this is a simple yes or no question.

Governance isn’t broken.
But nor is it functioning optimally.

I see, hear and work with boards holding onto broken systems and sometimes broken behaviours because letting go feels risky. That doesn’t invalidate governance as a whole. But when enough boards operate this way, the collective impact is impossible to ignore.

And yet, there are solutions.

Governance Doesn’t Have to Do This Alone

In my own governance work, I’ve operated in a continuous learning mindset. Governance, advisory, executive my context may change, but the responsibility to grow does not.

What I’ve seen consistently is this:

Boards that are willing to seek new perspectives, upskill intentionally, invite independent external support and review their systems for relevance are far better equipped to navigate complexity and remain relevant.

Advisory boards, I’ve seen and experienced often, offer a powerful mechanism for evolution not as a replacement for governance, but as a complement to it. They create space for foresight, challenge, and learning without compromising accountability.

The resources exist.  The frameworks exist and the support exists.

What’s required now are curious and courageous board members willing to question not just what they govern but how.

So, is governance broken?

I don’t think so.

But I do believe it’s being asked to operate in a world that has changed and not all systems have kept pace.

And that’s where the real work begins. I’m excited to be a part of the solution.

Governance doesn’t need reinvention, it needs the right support and a board set up for foresight not only oversight.  If you would like to chat about your governance systems or maybe you would like to explore building more foresight into your board then book a time for a complimentary chat.  Remember, the solutions are to begin by being curious and courageous.