The Case for Integrating Individual Director Assessments into Annual Board Performance Reviews

Research suggests that incorporating individual director performance assessments into annual board reviews can enhance governance by addressing skills gaps, promoting accountability, and supporting timely renewal, though implementation should be proportionate to entity size and complexity to avoid undue burden.

• Enhanced Accountability and Effectiveness: Evidence leans toward individual evaluations helping identify underperformance early, with surveys indicating many directors support structured renewal processes for better board dynamics.

  
  

• Regulatory Alignment: In Australia, proposals like APRA's emphasise skills assessments and triennial external reviews for larger entities, potentially extending to annual processes for holistic governance.

  
  

• Global Best Practices: US insights highlight the value in strategic alignment and risk management, suggesting a balanced approach that acknowledges diverse business models.

  
  

Key Benefits

Integrating individual assessments can lead to more robust boards. For instance, it allows for targeted development, ensuring directors contribute effectively without over-relying on collective reviews. Often individual self assessments are completed as part of the Board Performance evaluation process, however they can be seen as tokenistic and lacking in depth.

Potential Challenges

While beneficial, this approach may raise privacy concerns or increase costs; experts recommend starting with guidance-based frameworks for smaller organisations. It may be beneficial to incorporate individual performance assessments every three years to reduce the burden and cost.

In the evolving landscape of corporate governance, boards face increasing pressure to demonstrate not just collective strength but also the individual contributions of each director. This comprehensive exploration makes the case for embedding individual director performance assessments within the annual board review process, drawing on recent regulatory developments in Australia—particularly the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA)'s Governance Review Discussion Paper from March 2025 and its subsequent updates—as well as insights from US-based analyses. We'll examine the rationale, benefits, regulatory context, practical implementation and emerging challenges in this space.

The Growing Imperative for Robust Board Evaluations

Effective governance is foundational to organisational resilience, financial stability, and stakeholder trust. Historical events, such as the Hayne Royal Commission in Australia and high-profile bank failures like Silicon Valley Bank in the US, underscore how governance lapses—often rooted in inadequate board oversight—can lead to significant risks. APRA's review highlights that while governance has improved over the past decade, persistent weaknesses in director skills, performance reviews, and long tenures continue to plague many entities. For instance, APRA notes that 32% of regulated entities are under heightened supervision, with 78% of those exhibiting governance issues.

Traditional annual board assessments focus primarily on collective performance. However, this approach can overlook individual contributions, leading to unaddressed gaps in skills, impartiality, or engagement. Integrating individual assessments addresses this by providing a more granular view, enabling boards to align director capabilities with strategic needs. As APRA's paper states, "Ongoing failure to address skill and capability needs will result in boards that are inadequately prepared to deliver on their organisational strategy or to anticipate and address challenges that arise".

PwC's 2025 Annual Corporate Directors Survey reveals a similar sentiment: directors are increasingly calling out underperformance, with many advocating for accountability measures like renewals. Harvard Law School's forum emphasises that effective board leadership involves composition reviews aligned with strategic goals, including individual evaluations to mitigate risks.

Regulatory Push: APRA's Framework and Its Implications

APRA's March 2025 Discussion Paper proposes eight updates to prudential standards, with several directly supporting the integration of individual assessments. Key proposals include:

• Proposal 1 (Skills and Capabilities): Entities must identify and document skills for the board overall and each director, evaluate against these, and address gaps. This feeds into performance reviews, ensuring annual assessments are informed by verifiable metrics.

  
  

• Proposal 5 (Board Performance Review): For Significant Financial Institutions (SFIs), mandate triennial independent third-party assessments covering the board, committees, and individual directors. Annual reviews should track progress, with reports submitted to APRA. Non-SFIs receive guidance for rigorous annual processes.

  
  

• Proposal 8 (Director Tenure and Board Renewal): A 10-year lifetime tenure limit (updated to 12 years in October 2025 based on feedback), coupled with robust renewal processes that integrate performance data. This ensures assessments drive succession planning.

  
  

These proposals apply across banking, insurance, and superannuation sectors, with proportionality for smaller entities. APRA Chair John Lonsdale noted in the October update: “Effective governance is fundamental to financial stability and sound risk management... These changes will still deliver the uplift in governance standards APRA is seeking but we have found an outcome that works better for all parties”.

Submissions like those from CPA Australia and ASFA endorse these ideas but call for flexibility. CPA Australia supports triennial reviews but seeks clarification on disclosure and proportionality, while ASFA prefers periodic over fixed triennial assessments and views skills holistically rather than per director.

In the US, similar themes emerge. EY's analysis of board composition trends stresses succession strategies that incorporate individual evaluations for future readiness, while NACD's 2025 Blue Ribbon Commission urges strategic alignment through disciplined reviews.

Benefits of Integration: A Stronger Case for Adoption

Embedding individual assessments into annual reviews offers multifaceted advantages:

• Improved Decision-Making and Risk Management: By evaluating individual contributions, boards can better address conflicts and skills gaps, as highlighted in APRA's focus on perceived conflicts (Proposal 3). KPMG's report on corporate culture notes that such reviews help identify risks through employee survey integration.

  
  

• Enhanced Accountability and Renewal: Individual feedback promotes impartiality, countering long-tenure erosion of judgment. PwC advises self-assessments combined with external reviews for change.

  
  

• Strategic Alignment: As AICD articles discuss, boards must navigate AI and change management; individual assessments ensure directors possess critical skills like ethical oversight.

Quantitative insights: Effective boards can yield 25-30% better financial outcomes, per industry reports. A table summarising benefits vs. traditional collective-only reviews:

Practical Implementation and Best Practices

To implement effectively:

1. Develop Skills Matrices: As per APRA Proposal 1, create documented matrices evaluating collective and individual capabilities annually.

   
   

2. Conduct Hybrid Reviews: Combine self-assessments with peer feedback and external input.

   
   

3. Address Challenges: Privacy in individual reviews can be managed through anonymous aggregation and costs mitigated via phased assessments. Engage an experienced external expert who can address any concerns and provide feedback to Directors in a sensitive manner.

The Role of AI in Optimising Assessments

AI is transforming governance at a fast pace. AICD highlights directors' need to understand AI challenges and opportunities, suggesting assessments include tech literacy. HBR's poll on AI boards indicates potential for superior performance in data-driven evaluations, making a case for AI-assisted reviews to enhance objectivity and efficiency.

Challenges and Counterarguments

Critics, including industry submissions, argue for flexibility to avoid one-size-fits-all mandates. ASFA opposes strict tenure limits, preferring 12 years, and views individual skills mandates as impractical. In the US, BoardSource focuses on executive evaluations but extends principles to boards, warning of cultural risks without balanced assessments. A balanced view: While integration uplifts standards, proportionality is key, as APRA's updates reflect industry feedback.

Conclusion: A Forward-Looking Approach to Governance

Incorporating individual director assessments into annual board reviews is not just a regulatory checkbox but a strategic imperative for resilient organisations. Backed by APRA's framework and global insights, this practice fosters accountability, innovation, and alignment. Boards should act now—review your processes, consult guidance, and consider AI tools for optimisation.

For tailored advice and a confidential discussion on how Sadhana Consulting can assist, please book a free discovery call.