Original synthesis, grounded in literature and Australian practice. ELENCRA’s seven-step sequence is a custom process design. Its questions and index are not independently validated. AICD and other sources inform the approach; they do not endorse or certify ELENCRA.
A repeatable learning cycle
Seven steps. A shared direction.
Work through the stages in order. Return to context when circumstances change. Suggested timeframes are ELENCRA design choices, not research-established thresholds.
Step 1 · Before the review
Establish the context
Chair, governance lead and board
Agree what this evaluation needs to answer. Define the board’s purpose, sector, size, priorities, relevant obligations and intended users of the report. Decide whether committees, the chair and management perspectives are in scope.
Set a shared 12-month reference period and an accessible participation approach.
Agree confidentiality, access, retention and how concerns will be escalated.
Appoint an impartial facilitator for sensitive issues; a deputy or independent person leads any chair review.
What you leave withA review brief with scope, participants, access rules and a timetable.
The current 18-item board survey gives each domain equal weight. This mapping shows how ELENCRA connects its own domains to governance topics; it is not an AICD assessment instrument.
ELENCRA domain
Survey focus
Evidence to examine
Strategic direction
Purpose, choices and assumptions
Strategy, board mandate and decision records
Oversight & assurance
Performance, risk and accountability
Financial governance, controls and action follow-up
Board dynamics
Preparation, challenge and respectful voice
Meeting practice, chair leadership and decision quality
Capability & learning
Expertise, skills gaps and reflection
Composition, induction and development
Stakeholder voice
Whose experience informs decisions
Engagement, representation and accountability
Executive partnership
Clear roles, support and scrutiny
Delegations, board–management relations and CEO support
AICD’s Governance essentials covers director duties, composition, minutes, committees, stakeholders and financial governance. Those topics inform the evidence review; the survey alone does not cover every obligation. [1]
Purpose before questionnaire
A suite for the questions boards need to ask.
Choose an instrument around your review objective, then triangulate perceptions with records and discussion. These eight original instruments operationalise selected concepts; citation of a theory does not establish the reliability or validity of the resulting questions.
01
Board effectiveness
Annual review of collective board processes, judgement and relationships.
Edmondson studied work teams; application to boards is an adaptation requiring validation. Forbes and Milliken provide a conceptual model, not a validated questionnaire. All scores are descriptive. There are no population norms or validated pass marks.
02
Strategic stewardship
Test the quality of strategic choices, outcome evidence and adaptation.
Who takes part
Directors and senior executives, with aggregate reporting
OECD provides governance practice principles, not psychometric validation. All scores are descriptive. There are no population norms or validated pass marks.
03
Risk & assurance oversight
Review appetite, control assurance and strategic resilience.
OECD provides governance practice principles, not psychometric validation. All scores are descriptive. There are no population norms or validated pass marks.
04
Board challenge & learning
Explore voice, constructive challenge and reflection within the board.
Who takes part
All directors
Domains
Voice & inclusion · Constructive challenge · Learning in practice
Instrument
9 original items · agreement scale 1–5 and N/A · version 1.0
Edmondson studied work teams; application to boards is an adaptation requiring validation. Forbes and Milliken provide a conceptual model, not a validated questionnaire. All scores are descriptive. There are no population norms or validated pass marks.
05
Chair leadership & facilitation
Developmental collective feedback on chair practices; no individual ranking.
Who takes part
Directors; use a trusted facilitator for small groups
Edmondson studied work teams; application to boards is an adaptation requiring validation. Forbes and Milliken provide a conceptual model, not a validated questionnaire. All scores are descriptive. There are no population norms or validated pass marks.
06
Board capability & renewal
Review how the board uses expertise and prepares for future needs.
Who takes part
All directors
Domains
Capability alignment · Use of expertise · Development & succession
Instrument
9 original items · agreement scale 1–5 and N/A · version 1.0
Forbes and Milliken provide a conceptual model, not a validated questionnaire. All scores are descriptive. There are no population norms or validated pass marks.
07
CEO support & wellbeing
Review leadership demands, support and sustainable work. Not an individual clinical assessment.
Who takes part
Comparable consenting CEO cohort; one CEO result is suppressed
Domains
Board support · Resources & openness · Sustainable leadership
Instrument
9 original items · agreement scale 1–5 and N/A · version 1.0
Edmondson studied work teams; application to boards is an adaptation requiring validation. JD–R informs work demands and resources; these pulses are not clinical measures. All scores are descriptive. There are no population norms or validated pass marks.
08
Staff voice & wellbeing
Explore work resources, clarity and sustainable working conditions.
Who takes part
Staff; aggregate reporting only
Domains
Working conditions · Inclusion & clarity · Sustainable work
Instrument
9 original items · agreement scale 1–5 and N/A · version 1.0
Edmondson studied work teams; application to boards is an adaptation requiring validation. JD–R informs work demands and resources; these pulses are not clinical measures. All scores are descriptive. There are no population norms or validated pass marks.
One consistent reporting rule
Each response must rate at least 80% of items. A domain requires at least two of its three items per respondent and five eligible contributors. Person-level domain means are averaged and transformed using (mean − 1) × 25. All domains must be available for the instrument’s equally weighted composite. Only the collective board effectiveness instrument produces EBI; other instruments retain their own titles and scores.
Use an identified, facilitated development process when a single CEO or a small board cannot meet aggregate reporting rules. Do not lower the threshold to reveal a personal result.
A private, 12-prompt director reflection to prepare for a development conversation.
Your answers stay on this page. They are held only in this tab’s memory and are cleared when you leave or reload. ELENCRA does not submit or save them to the workspace. Downloading creates a local file that you control. Self-reflection produces no composite score and does not affect the board index.
Think about the past 12 months, or your tenure if shorter. Use the same period for every prompt. These are original developmental prompts, not a diagnostic or validated director-rating scale. If you download your answers, store the file privately.
1 · Rarely 2 · Sometimes 3 · Usually 4 · Consistently 0 · Not observed / not applicable
0 of 12 reflected on · No overall score
How the evidence becomes a result.
Board profile
The live ELENCRA Board Index (EBI 1.0, formerly QEI 1.0) uses the existing 18 agreement items, six equally weighted domains and a 0–100 transformation. Rebranding has not changed the formula. Five eligible contributors are required in every domain; missing and N/A ratings are excluded under the published eligibility rules.
Keep document observations, interviews and survey ratings visible as different forms of evidence. Record agreement, disagreement and unanswered questions. Do not convert a reviewer’s impression into invented numerical precision.
Self-reflection, peer feedback, CEO support and staff wellbeing never enter the board index.
Privacy, small boards and facilitated modules
The workspace supports eight collective instruments, identified director self-evaluations, director skills updates, strategy and risk oversight, saved reports and an excellence plan. The self-reflection above works privately in this tab. The assessment library now includes collective chair, culture, strategy, risk and capability reviews. These aggregate instruments do not replace confidential peer feedback, committee-specific appraisal, document review or facilitated workshops.
The hosted preview is owner-only. A participation link does not itself grant external access. For cohorts below the reporting threshold, agree a confidential facilitated review instead of weakening suppression rules. Five contributors do not guarantee anonymity; avoid identifiable quotations and subgroup breakdowns.
What still needs to be validated
Pilot with diverse boards; cognitively test wording; assess content validity, reliability and factor structure using an adequate multi-board sample; examine response bias, sensitivity to change and fairness across sectors. Validate adapted wording separately. No population benchmark, causal attribution or validated pass mark is claimed. [7]
Collective self-report can reflect optimism, fear or shared assumptions. Pair it with independent perspectives and records. Personal self-ratings support development rather than director ranking.
Theory, evidence and practice
Why these steps belong together.
Conceptual theory explains what may matter; empirical research investigates relationships; practitioner guidance helps structure a workable review. The ELENCRA process brings these together without treating them as equivalent proof of validity.
Uses context assessment to help select an appropriate evaluation approach.
Focused source review · November 2026. This is a research-informed design synthesis, not an exhaustive systematic review. All ELENCRA questions and process wording are original.
