| Time | Session | Session Details | Presenter |
| 8:30am to 9am | Arrival & Registration | | |
| 9am to 9:20am | ACT I Opening: 'Designed for a different world?' | • Sets intellectual frame for the day • Introduces 'More Human / Less Human' AI framework • Poses the central question: can board thinking be improved through design? | Paul Smith (The Board Futurist, Faculty at Bond University) |
| 9:25am to 9:45am | ACT II Talk: 'Curiosity Is a condition, not a trait' | • Curiosity as a structural feature, not a personality trait • Evidence that inquiry protocols change board decision-making • Implications for board design | Dr Titziana Casciaro (Professor of Organisational Behaviour, University of Toronto) [Virtual] |
| 9:50am – 10:30am | ACT II Live Experiment: 'Before and After' | • Tables work through same scenario twice unstructured, then with question protocol • Participants experience the structural difference firsthand • Full-room debrief | Paul Smith & Dr Titziana Casciaro |
| 10:30am to 10:50am | Morning tea break | | |
| 10:50am-11:10am | ACT III Talk: 'The conditions that create better thinking' | • How information reaches the board, how discussion is structured, and how tension is handled
• Most boards inherited their structures without examining whether they still fit | Matt Fullbrook (Board Effectiveness, Faculty at Bond University) [Virtual] |
| 11:15am to 11:35am | ACT III Panel: 'The Chair’s effect on the room’s intelligence' | • The board chair is the most powerful structural variable in decision quality
• Specific chair behaviours can expand or contract the room’s collective intelligence
• The chair’s primary role is to design conditions for the best thinking to happen | Tony Barnes, Sara Harrup – moderated by Paul Smith |
| 11:40am-12:10pm | ACT III Table Dialogue: 'How is your room designed?' | • Structured table conversations using prompts drawn from preceding talks
• Each table captures one or two key insights; host synthesises patterns back to the room
• Moves from comparative analysis to direct examination of participants’ own boards | Facilitated at tables |
| 12:10-1:10pm | Lunch | “Think of a decision your board made that you later questioned. Not whether the outcome was right - whether the process produced the best thinking the room was capable of. What would have needed to be different?” | |
| 1:10pm-1:20pm | ACT IV Talk: 'First Nations Governance' | • First Nations governance centres relational accountability, collective deliberation, and intergenerational time horizons
• These produce different outputs to Western board structures and see what Western cycles are structurally blind to | Keitha Dunstan (Provost at Bond University) |
| 1:20pm-1:30pm | ACT IV Talk: 'Neurodiversity in the Boardroom' | • Boards carry unexamined assumptions about how people should think, communicate, and process information
• Neurodivergence is distinct from general cognitive diversity and shapes how boards should be designed and led
• Many neurodivergent directors are already in the room; the question is whether boards are designed to realise that value | Sara Harrup (Neuroinclusive Leadership & Governance Expert) |
| 1:30pm-1:40pm | ACT IV Talk: 'The younger director’s view' | • Experience is a filter, long-tenured directors learn, partly unconsciously, what to stop noticing
• Younger directors still ask the questions experience has normalised away
• At what point does experience stop being an asset and become a blind spot? | Lucas Patchett OAM (Founder, Orange Sky) [Virtual] |
| 1:40pm-1:50pm | ACT IV Talk: 'The non-human in the room' | • The earlier scenario is submitted to AI live, with the response projected and read aloud
• The room then considers: what did AI see that humans missed? What did humans see that AI couldn’t?
• Is AI genuinely different thinking or just a faster version of the same thinking? | Claude |
| 1:50pm-2:30pm | ACT IV Panel: 'Inclusion v Assimilation' | • The question isn’t whether boards should include diverse perspectives - it’s what genuine inclusion structurally requires
• Adding a diverse voice without changing how the room operates is assimilation, not inclusion
• Being in the room, being heard. Being heard, changing how the room thinks. | All four perspectives in conversation |
| 2:30pm to 2:40pm | Afternoon tea break | | |
| 1:10pm-1:20pm | ACT IV Talk: 'The structure creates the thinking' | • Board information flow and discussion structure as cognitive infrastructure • Different governance models as different optimisation systems • Most boards have never examined whether their structure still fits | Governance academic or experienced consultant (cross-sector practice) |
| 1:25pm-1:45pm | ACT IV Talk: 'The Chair's effect on the board's intelligence' | • Chair as the most powerful structural variable in decision quality • Specific behaviours that expand or contract collective intelligence • Closing provocation on new director contribution | Experienced board chair or leadership researcher |
| 2:20pm to 2:40pm | Afternoon tea break | | |
| 2:50pm to 3:10pm | ACT V Talk: 'How the brain behaves in the boardroom' | • Under time pressure and social risk, classic boardroom conditions the brain defaults to fast pattern-matching over deliberate thinking
• Research shows stress actively reduces question-asking in structured group settings
• This is not a character flaw; it’s a design problem with a design solution | Neuroscientist or behavioural psychologist Anna Byrne, Neuro Group |
| 3:15pm to 3:35pm | ACT V Talk: 'Elite teams and the culture of rehearsal' | • Elite teams rehearse decision-making under pressure before they need it, boards almost never do
• Boards perform constantly and practise almost never
• Where in your board’s annual calendar does deliberate preparation for high-stakes decisions sit? | Michael Collins (Director of Sport, Bond University) |
| 3:40pm-4pm | ACT V Talk: When Poor Thinking Meets the Law | • The Business Judgement Rule only protects directors when specific conditions are met and those conditions are fundamentally cognitive
• A director who thinks well and can demonstrate reasoned engagement also has a stronger legal defence
• The ASIC v Bekier (Star Entertainment) case is used as a diagnostic: what did the decision-making process lack, and what structural conditions could have changed the outcome? | Annette Greenhow PhD (Director, Centre for Commercial Law & Governance, Bond) |
| 4:05pm-4:35pm | ACT V Panel: The same problem, three different disciplines | • All three speakers in conversation with participants
• Focus stays practical: not why good directors fail but what a board could do differently at its next meeting | Facilitated by Host + our three key speakers Anna Byrne, Michael Collins, Annette Greenhow |
| 4:40pm-5pm | Closing Host Synthesis: 'What we've found' | • Drawing together the key ideas and tensions from across the day
• Closing challenge to each participant: what structural assumption about your board are you taking back to examine? | Paul Smith – Host and Curator |
| 5pm-6pm | Networking | | |