 Over the years since it was founded by Marc Randolph and Reed Hastings (in 1997), Netflix has been at the forefront of entertainment and innovation. Initially a rental service, the company introduced a streaming option in 2007 and, as they say, the rest is history. The company has also garnered attention for its innovative approach to corporate governance—one based on proximity more so than distance. I wrote about it several years ago. The approach, founded on governance by walking about and pragmatic reports, ensured directors were adequately informed to make smart decisions. But that was then. Now, eight years on, things have changed somewhat. Jay Hoag, a venture capital investor, was voted off the board recently, after pressure was applied by Institutional Shareholder Services, a data analytics and proxy advisory firm. It turns out Hoag missed three quarters of the board and committee meetings he should have attended. Given the Netflix board usually meets quarterly, it follows that Hoag attended once per year. Quite how anyone can contribute well if they don't attend meetings, is beyond comprehension. That shareholders have taken a stand on the matter is laudable. Well done ISS, for bringing Hoag's absenteeism to the attention of shareholders. But other questions remain:
If boards are to have any hope of governing with impact, all of the directors need to be appropriately engaged (capable and present). Ideally, the board should adopt a robust governance framework too, to expedite effective steerage and guidance. How does your board stack up in this regard?
0 Comments
 Monday was a public holiday in New Zealand: King’s Birthday is the selected day in most British Commonwealth countries on which the birthday of the reigning monarch is celebrated. The day dawned fine, so the decision was made to walk around the Waikareao Estuary, a tidal body of water about eight minutes drive from home. The 8.3km track is flat, with wide gravel paths and steady boardwalks, offering easy walking and plenty of room for runners, cyclists and walkers. With the main decision of the morning made, the only remaining ones were, “Which direction?” and "Coffee stop?" Clockwise, starting at the southern end, and Yes, at the northern end near the bridge. Our intention was to walk and talk; to reflect on events over the past couple of weeks; to check-in on upcoming commitments; and, importantly, to dream about the future. And that we did. The walk was refreshing, for the only ‘agenda’ item was to ‘be’: to enjoy the morning and, eventually, return to the car. Along the way we walked; we talked; we stopped; we enjoyed the views; we took a few photographs; we watched birds wading; we read signage; we stepped to the side as family groups rode past; and, having returned to the car, we realised we had not only achieved our goal, we had enjoyed ourselves too. (We also noticed no one actively reading their social feeds or anything like that!) Contrast this vignette with how modern society tends to work: We feed on knowledge; we cram our days (as if busyness signals progress); we live connected; we chase the clock; and we strive to solve problems. Ultimately, we crave knowledge and certainty—what to do, who to meet, where to go, how to get there. This, despite humanity’s poor record forecasting what might happen tomorrow, much less next year or next century. Not-knowing is hard for directors. But boardwork, like leadership and life itself, is not about having all the answers. It is about creating the conditions where better questions can surface and be explored. Uncertainty can be the start of something real, as the author of this article attests. When was the last time your board took time out dwell amidst ambiguity and uncertainty; to strategise; even to dream?
 When was the last time you stopped and thought about your work, your contribution and the value you offer others? Are you adding value, or simply occupying space? Most leaders say taking time for self-reflection and to think is important, if high performance is to be sustained. But many do not follow through. Instead, they remain 'on': making lists, completing tasks, checking emails, and responding to social media feeds—all in the name of getting things done. Some even speak, proudly, of workaholism and busyness. Such behaviour is lauded in many modern societies. But is 'always on' and busyness conducive to high performance? Or is it a delusion? What of personal and professional relationships; of curiosity; of gaining new insights; of becoming a better person? Allocating uninterrupted time—white space—for reflection, thinking and dreaming is critical if organisational leaders (especially board directors!) are to have any hope of contributing well. The idea of dedicated white space was an anathema for me through the first half of my career. But as I got underway with my doctoral research (circa 2012), something changed. Gradually, the guilt I felt when stepping away from my desk when I was stuck subsided: the act of changing neural activity (from sitting staring at a problem, to going for a walk or riding my bike) often had the effect of helping clear the mental block I had been struggling with! Since completing my doctoral research in 2016, I continued to prioritise white space, as follows:
None of this makes me good, or any better than anyone else. However, my dedication to allocating white spaces and holding them sacrosanct has seen me become more curious. My mind seems to have become more malleable too. Hopefully, my contributions have become more valuable as a result—but this is best assessed by others, not me. Does the idea of white space resonate for you? If so, would you mind sharing your experiences, so others can benefit from them?
 I have had the good fortune of time in South Africa this week, as a guest of GovernEx, a board advisory practice. To have been invited to interact with hundreds of directors, executives, academics and political leaders, to listen, learn, and offer insights has been invigorating. South Africa is a dynamic society. In the 31 years since nation-building was restarted (May 1994) much has changed. Black South Africans comprise over eighty per cent of the population; they now dominate the middle class. Efforts to build an inclusive society, whereby circa 63 million people can participate, have produced much fruit. But some cracks are visible: extremes (of wealth and poverty, in particular) remain; guidance introduced to enable and empower has become prescriptive over time; corruption is apparent in some quarters; and, in some cases, the pursuit of inclusion has delivered little more than a power shift, from whites to blacks. The situation is complex, of course, and hope springs eternal. But hope is hardly a strategy. South Africa’s political leaders have recognised the situation, and they are responding. The President, Cyril Ramaphosa, together with an entourage of business, community and sporting leaders, met with the President of the United States a few days ago. The G20 summit will be held in South Africa in late 2025. Business leaders have told me of their desire to move beyond various codes and constructs that have devolved to now impose more cost than benefit in many cases. Their question is telling: “Tick-box exercises for what benefit?” My sense is that great courage will be needed, if business leaders are to step beyond the pathways and structures that served the nation well in the early years but now seem to have become hindrances to further progress. Those I have spoken with this week are not without courage—and they have been excited to explore alternate pathways to secure better outcomes, amongst these the Strategic Governance Framework. The challenge now is one of deciding: whether and how to act.
 This is an invitation to US-based directors and chairs who want to move beyond cookie-cutter and tick-box approaches to corporate governance and board work: I'll be visiting the East Coast in July, and would be glad to meet to offer insights to help lift your board's effectiveness. One of the enduring joys throughout my life has been to serve. Whether it be confidential conversations with board chairs; advising boards or regulators; delivering keynote talks; leading director education workshops; or writing, the call to support directors and executive leaders in their efforts to realise organisational potential is compelling. Already this year, I have accepted invitations to contribute in Southern Africa, Australia, Eastern Europe, and Central Europe. Now, I am delighted to add North America too. In July, I will return to the USA, to deliver a keynote at the International Corporate Governance Network conference. Alongside the ICGN conference, I am available for private meetings with boards and directors based anywhere on the East Coast. The dates are July 14–16th, and July 21–23rd. (*) The ICGN conference (July 17–18th, in New York) is 'the' conference for leaders across the institutional investor, sovereign and superannuation fund, and board/governance communities. This year is the 30th anniversary of ICGN's founding, an important waypoint to consider the role and impact of boards and shareholders; approaches to board work; shareholder and stakeholder interests; sustainability; enduring performance; and 'doing the right thing'.
 The truth, they say, is a good thing, for it will set you free. This seems reasonable, even self-evident to many. But what is truth? Is it a thing (a fact) or a process? Is it deterministic or does it emerge? Is it absolute or relative? And, in a social context, is truth even possible or desirable? The pursuit of truth conjures the notion of a deterministic 'answer' to a question or problem, without worrying too much about (or even considering) the context within which the truth claim exists. Consider darkness. Does being unable to read a book on the patio at twilight mean it is dark? How might this expression of darkness compare with the darkness inside a sealed cavity into which light cannot penetrate? And what of degrees of truth? If just one instance is discovered to be false, does that mean the entire truth claim needs to be set aside? Complicating matters, something may be 'true' but unpalatable, such as, genocide or rotten eggs. Now, consider health. What does it mean to be healthy? For some, maintaining a balanced diet and sleep pattern is sufficient. For others, health involves strenuous exercise and physical fitness. Yet others pursue mental health, a sound mind and great relationships. Is the threshold one of having food, shelter and security; or is a higher order of fulfilment necessary to be healthy? And, how might health and truth relate to each other? Is truth a necessary condition for personal health, or are there situations in which truth might need to be secondary to health? Are truth and health even related? And what of truth and health in an organisational setting? Are the comparisons similar or different? Who decides and what factors should be considered in the decision process? In the past two years, I have come face-to-face these types of questions on many occasions:
Selecting between two tough options is never easy. The 'least bad' option doesn't sit well in many cases. But as in life, decisions in organisations need to be made, more so in boardrooms. If boards are to provide effective steerage and guidance in pursuit of an agreed outcome, they need to roll their sleeves up, understand the options and make a decision. But with what reference point to the fore? Should boards prioritise being 'right' (legalistic, truth), or should they select options more likely to lead to sustainable outcomes (organisational health)? If boards are to govern with impact, the high road is, in most cases, the better option.
 Boards are under pressure. Every time news of another corporate failure hits the news waves, attention is focussed on the board. Such attention is justified; ultimate responsibility for company performance lies with the board after all. That five out of six directors do not have a comprehensive understanding of the business of the business they are charged with governing suggests that boards deserve the scrutiny they get. Regulators have responded by instituting a raft of regulations—and directors' institutions and others have promulgated codes and ‘soft’ guidance too—in the hope of improving board practice. Activists have not been idle either, voting against those perceived to be ill-equipped to contribute well. To date, actions taken have had the opposite effect in many cases. The rising tide of regulations and codes, and activism, has seen many boards adopt a siege mentality. What is more, many boards struggle with the seemingly straightforward task of making smart decisions to ensure future business success. Research published by Henley Business School nearly a decade ago showed fewer than one in three boards have sufficient cognition, cohesion, commitment and knowledge to reach a conclusion, much less make a smart decision. If the level of understanding of the business amongst directors is low, and the quality of the board's decision-making is weak, it is little wonder aspersions are being cast and board effectiveness is being questioned. Reputations are on the line, and rightly so. Boards are by no means powerless, of course. My global research reveals a common pattern amongst the most effective boards: they are aspirational, and they ask great questions to inform their decision-making. Five questions, in particular, stand out:
If boards are to have any hope of governing with impact, directors need to understand the operating context (market and competitors), emerging trends and disruptions (situational awareness), and the business of the business. They also need probe and verify (that is, ask good questions and cross-check), to determine whether the decision under consideration is not only meritorious, but well-aligned with, and contributory to, the agreed corporate purpose and strategy. Anything less is a dereliction of duty, n’est-ce pas? How does you board measure up?
 I like exploring: old towns and villages, and the countryside; enjoying the landscape, clambering along trails and even into river beds to look more closely at flora and fauna. The pictures that form in my mind’s eye provide important context to understand the scene, and what may have gone before. Take the above image for example, a photograph I took a few weeks ago, having stepped off the path while walking towards a disused railway. This seemingly innocuous scene is of a fast flowing river, in a gorge. But more than that, it is just along from an abandoned gold mining settlement and an extraction plant (who knew?), and it has a name: the Ohinemuri River, this section is in the Karangahake Gorge. If the picture is studied more closely, details not apparent at first glance can be seen: plants in bloom, logs dumped from an earlier flood event, and an adjacent highway. Some details seem inconsequential, like the red blooming plant, others are far more significant (the river obviously floods from time to time, the gorge ‘hosts’ a major highway). Clearly, the act of looking ‘into’ the picture, not simply at it, reveals much. And so it is with board work: to look beyond what is written in board papers, to consider what is not written, the wider context within which the company operates, and still-weak signals that may portend trends and potential disrupters is crucial, if the board is to secure a more complete understanding and, ultimately, make more informed decisions. While some boards behave as if such things do not matter, effective boards know better. They are alert to both macro trends and issues (this recent report, from INSEAD, offers helpful insight), and more immediate matters such as sales figures, staff engagement and customer satisfaction trends. When was the last time you scanned the horizon to understand the wider context within which the company you serve operates, and how long has it been since the board thought deeply about the future, and the various risks and opportunities that might effect the company and its prospects?
 I had the good fortune to catch-up with a dear friend and professional associate yesterday; someone I have not had the chance to interact with for nearly nine months. Tony and I chatted about all manner of things: his new barn (read: man cave and office); our exploits with Rosa (read: 1951 MG Y-type); geopolitics; ChatGPT; and more besides. What was fascinating was that we both found ourselves chatting as if the last time we spoke was yesterday. Before we knew it, some 75 minutes had passed by. My father told me that this is a good thing; a sign of true friendship. One aspect of our conversation that piqued my attention was Tony’s investigations around artificial intelligence and board reports—or, more specifically, his application of large language model tools to discern and make sense of board reports. The rapid progress over the past twelve months is a sight to behold. Tony summarised his experiments and findings. Did you know that if you feed ChatGPT a set of board papers and ask it to summarise the key points, including nuances and appropriate questions to ask in a board meeting, the likelihood of the responses being both insightful and relevant is high? You can also use it to discern whether directors have read and understood the board papers! I have been a sceptic about the application of AI tools for some time but, on the strength of what was outlined, I’m ready to believe ChatGPT (or Claude, or other) can be a real boon for directors struggling to make sense of large data sets. While context eludes ChatGPT (and all other LLMs), and meaning and reasoning too, the direction and pace of travel seems to be reasonable. Certainly, progress is rapid. I went to bed after our call pondering a plethora of options, including whether board directors might be supplanted by machinery in future. Of this, I am doubtful. But where LLMs could be quite valuable is to distinguish between lights in the distance: those that are sunlight at the of the tunnel, and those that are a train heading towards me at great speed. And so, with 2025 underway, is your board ready for what lies ahead? Can it, for example, confidently distinguish between [sun]light at the end of the tunnel and a train headlight? Has it carefully considered options having read widely, invoked various tools including AI tools and debated options; or, does it remain reliant on what management feeds up in the board report? To rely on management reports as the sole source of ‘truth’ is not smart; it never has been. PS: this is Rosa:   One of the most satisfying aspects of my work involves sharing insights gained from 'live' experiences, in the hope they might be of some value to others. Whether it be facilitating a boardroom discussion, advising a chair, delivering a keynote, leading a capability building workshop, or chatting with a colleague, the call to share my knowledge and experience is strong. So, when Mark Banicevich, Founder of Governance Bites, contacted me for a chat, I was agreeable, more so as we had previously explored various aspects of board work (the recordings are available: here, here and here). The topics Mark wanted to explore included boards in crisis situations; ethical dilemmas in governance; and, governance in developing nations. A date was agreed, and the 'record' button was pressed. Now, all three of the fireside chats have been published. You can watch them here ⬇️. If you have any questions having watched them, or want to check something out, please feel free to contact me directly. Boards in crisis situations: Ethical dilemmas in governance: Governance in developing nations: |
SearchMusingsThoughts on corporate governance, strategy and boardcraft; our place in the world; and other topics that catch my attention. 
Categories
All
Archives
July 2025
|
|
Dr. Peter Crow, CMInstD
|
© Copyright 2001-2025 | Terms of use & privacy
|