Monday Briefing

19 October 2026

A weekly Executive Perspective on developments that matter to business and nonprofit CEOs, managers, boards and advisers.

Welcome to the first Monday Briefing, a new weekly feature within Executive Perspective.

Over the years, Executive Perspective has explored leadership, business, governance, organisational change and the realities of managing organisations and people.

Monday Briefing adds something a little different. Each week, I will look beyond the volume of business and sector news and select a small number of developments that I believe are worth the attention of experienced leaders, managers, board members and advisers.

Not simply what happened, but why it matters, what we might learn from it and what leaders should be thinking about next.

My aim is simple: a concise briefing you can read at the beginning of the week that gives you something useful to think about as you get on with the job of leading.

So, for our first Monday Briefing, three developments caught my attention this week.

1. AI is moving into the boardroom — faster than governance may be keeping up

Artificial intelligence is no longer simply something management teams are experimenting with.

Directors are using it too.

The Australian Institute of Company Directors and Governance Institute of Australia have updated their joint guidance on board minutes, specifically addressing the growing use of AI in preparing meeting records.

The message is sensible: AI may improve efficiency, but it does not replace professional judgement, human oversight or directors' responsibilities.

That comes as the Commonwealth Bank's CEO Matt Comyn described AI as potentially the most significant technology shift we have seen and argued that regulation needs to keep pace if public trust is to be maintained.

Why it matters

I suspect many organisations are already beyond the point of deciding whether to “adopt AI”. People inside them are using it. That changes the leadership question.

It is no longer simply:

Should our organisation use AI?

It is increasingly:

Where is it already being used, what information is being given to it, and who remains accountable for the result?

That matters particularly around board papers, minutes, confidential information and significant decisions.

Technology can help a director absorb information.

It cannot assume the director's responsibility for understanding it.

What I would be asking

At the next board or executive meeting, one simple question might produce an interesting conversation:

Where are we already using AI in important work — formally or informally — and are our governance arrangements keeping up?

The organisations that handle this well will probably not be those with the longest AI policies. They will be those who are clear about judgement, accountability and trust.

Worth reading: the AICD and Governance Institute's updated guidance on effective board minutes and AI, together with the discussion now emerging about AI use in board papers.

2. The leadership pipeline deserves more attention than the next CEO appointment

The latest Chief Executive Women Senior Executive Census contains an interesting finding.

After years of progress, women's representation in ASX 200 executive leadership teams has gone backwards for the first time in the Census's ten-year history.

Women now hold 31 per cent of those executive positions, down from 32 per cent.

Across the ASX 300, 25 companies have no women on their executive teams, compared with 17 previously. Women hold just 18 per cent of roles regarded as part of the CEO pipeline, and received only one in seven CEO appointments.

Whatever one's views about targets and diversity initiatives, there is a wider leadership lesson here.

Why it matters

Boards often devote considerable attention to CEO succession.

But by the time the CEO vacancy appears, many of the important decisions have already been made.

• Who received operational responsibility?

• Who was given the difficult assignment?

• Who had exposure to the board?

• Who was encouraged to broaden their experience?

• Who was regarded as “CEO material” several years earlier?

Those decisions gradually create tomorrow's candidate pool.

Good succession planning therefore isn't primarily about finding a replacement when somebody leaves.

It is about developing leadership capacity before you need it.

And that lesson applies well beyond gender or large listed companies.

Family businesses, private companies and nonprofits face exactly the same question.

What I would be asking

Rather than asking only:

Who could replace our CEO?

perhaps boards should also ask:

Who are we developing now who could lead this organisation three or five years from today?

And then the harder question:

What experience are we giving them that will make that possible?

Succession starts much earlier than succession planning.

Worth reading: Chief Executive Women's 2026 Senior Executive Census, particularly the findings on CEO pipeline roles and leadership development.

3. Two CEO transitions — and two reminders about how leadership changes should be handled

Leadership transition appeared in two quite different organisations this week.

Customer-owned banking organisation NGM Group announced that James Cudmore will succeed Bernadette Inglis as CEO. Importantly, the incoming and outgoing CEOs will work together over the coming months to provide continuity for customers, employees and stakeholders.

At the Brisbane 2032 Olympic organising committee, CEO Cindy Hook will step down at the end of her four-year contract after leading the organisation through its establishment phase. Recruitment has begun for a leader to take the organisation into its next operational stage.

Different organisations. Different circumstances.

But both illustrate something boards sometimes overlook.

Why it matters

The leader who is right for one stage of an organisation's life may not necessarily be the leader required for the next.

Start-up requires something different from consolidation.

Turnaround requires something different from growth.

Bringing organisations together requires something different from running the organisation once integration is complete.

And preparing an Olympic Games six years out will require different leadership emphasis from establishing the organisation in the first place.

That doesn't diminish the outgoing leader.

It recognises that leadership needs change as organisations change.

The other lesson is transition itself.

A good handover is more than transferring files and introducing stakeholders.

It is transferring organisational knowledge while still giving the incoming leader enough room to establish their own authority.

What I would be asking

For boards contemplating CEO succession:

Are we trying to replace the person who is leaving — or identifying the leadership our next stage actually requires?

Those are not necessarily the same exercise.

A strong board understands the difference.

Worth reading: NGM Group's announcement of its planned CEO transition and reporting on the Brisbane 2032 leadership change.

One thought to take into the week

AI governance.

Leadership pipelines.

CEO succession.

At first they look like three separate issues. But they share something important. Good organisations think ahead.

They don't wait for technology to create a problem before discussing accountability.

They don't wait for the CEO to resign before developing future leaders.

And they don't assume the leadership that brought the organisation this far will automatically be what it needs for the next stage.

There will always be urgent matters demanding attention.

One of the responsibilities of leadership — and particularly of boards — is to make room for the important questions that are not yet urgent.

Because by the time they become urgent, our choices are often much narrower.

Something worth considering as the week begins.

Michael A. Cassar

Executive Perspective | It’s Achievable®