 Have you ever stopped to wonder why so many companies fail to realise the potential they aspire to? When I speak with directors, the desire to operate at high levels of performance is palpable. In my experience, most say they aspire to have a great impact. But when one looks more closely, a great many boards struggle to break the shackles of average: they are constrained by confusion over the role of the board, impaired by dysfunction within the boardroom, and/or expectations are misaligned. A recent survey (conducted by PwC) highlights the characteristics of high-performing boards:
This is quite a list! Yes, it is. But most of these characteristics are consistent with the findings from ground-breaking board research conducted over a decade ago. That research concluded that if the board is to have any impact beyond the boardroom (especially on firm performance), three things matter:
Board structure and composition is relatively less important, to the point of being insignificant. This finding (now known as the Strategic Governance Framework, see this article for a summary) emerged from a peer-reviewed long-term observation study of boards going about their work—one of a small handful conducted to date. As with studies conducted by the late Jane Goodall, my study sought to get as close as possible to the subject of interest (the board) to observe them in their 'native' habitat. That meant direct observations, for the board only exists when the directors meet. Since that time, the Strategic Governance Framework has shown itself to be a useful mechanism to help ambitious boards move beyond orthodoxy and box-ticking, to realise organisational potential. But the embrace of such a mechanism is not without its challenges: it means stepping away from the perceived safety of 'best practice' recommendations—a daunting prospect of some. Ultimately, boards must decide: is compliance with contemporary recommendations, codes and regulations sufficient to discharge duties owed, or is more required? For those who decide more is required, the Strategic Governance Framework may be worthy of consideration.
0 Comments
 Today, on the third day of an intrepid journey through several Eastern European countries, we have been exploring Kraków Stare Miasto—the Old Town—searching for glimpses of how life was lived in the past. Back streets and less-trod paths, away from trinket stands and touts, are my happy place, for they offer opportunities to peer beyond facades and veneers. This scene was one amongst several that caught my attention today. The seemingly decrepit building itself was far from remarkable—but then I noticed two signs—clues to what lay inside: a five-star hotel named after a Polish polymath, and a Michelin-starred restaurant. Who knew? As I looked at the building and signage, a woman sauntered past, on the phone to an unknown soul and seemingly oblivious to her surroundings. My mind wandered. Who was she speaking with and about what? Was she a local or a visitor? What were her circumstances? The imagery and parallels with board work are stark. Statements written in board packs may seem complete and accurate, but they may not be. Often, there is more to the story than what is first ‘seen’ in the board pack. Depending on how eloquently the papers have been written, directors may find it easy to form opinions quickly—jump to conclusions, even. Directors should resist such urges! Boards have a duty of care to look beyond the facade, to gain a more complete understanding through discovery and debate, before deciding. Some boards do this well; some are well-intended but struggle; and yet others appear to be motivated by looking good (as evidenced by complying with various ‘best practice’ recommendations and corporate governance codes) than doing what it takes to operate as a high-performing unit. When the pretence of keeping up appearances is stripped away, how does the board you serve on stack up? Wittgenstein cautioned people to reserve judgement, for what seems to be so may not actually be so.
 The ways board directors prepare for board meetings is changing. Gone are the days when most directors simply turn up for the meeting, open the supplied packs and rely on their instinct as they sit through presentations by management (read: work it out on the fly). Most directors these days are well-intentioned, having diligently read papers before the meeting (having received them via a portal tool, PDF stack or thick package of printed materials). Some of these directors augment their reading with additional enquiries, in an effort to fill in blanks or formulate suitable questions to ask during the meeting. Though a small coterie still rely on their instinct to listen carefully and discern in real-time (read: work it out on the fly, during the board meeting), the world is moving on, and rapidly so. The emergence of AI assistants is proving a boon for smart directors: they are embracing a new generation of tools to enhance their preparation—on the basis that better preparation is an antecedent of better decisions. Preparation takes time, of course, and many directors say, "It'd be fine if I had the time." My response is curt: "Given the duties you owe, and the importance of governing with impact, what else might be more important than preparing well?" In the spirit of collegial learning, how useful are Shekshnia and Yakubovich's insights, and how are you using AI to augment your board meeting preparations (if at all)? Please comment below.
 I had a fascinating conversation yesterday, with an esteemed board chair I have known for some years. Our wide-ranging exchange saw us dip into several topics of mutual interest including family and my recent 'elevation' to grandfather-hood; an upcoming advisory engagement; the importance of ongoing education for directors, especially in relation to 'soft skills'; techniques to chair a board meeting well; and board agendae. During the flowing conversation, Robert (*) said he had recently chaired a meeting in which a couple recommendations within what he called the “QuarryGroup Report” (a board/governance assessment that I completed last year) were to the fore. Referencing the recent meeting, Robert said the agenda was packed, and that management had put up many papers to support the agenda items and ensure directors were well informed on what it deemed pertinent matters. He added that the meeting agenda was too full for meaningful discussions, let alone informed decisions. When I asked how he handled the situation, he referenced the QuarryGroup report. He said three items stood out as having strategic implications for the business and decided that is where the board should spend its time. He spoke with several directors after the board pack was issued and, in board alone time immediately prior to the meeting, confirmed the three items would take precedence. Through this action, Robert asserted control over the board's meeting. Management had proposed an agenda and prepared papers based on what it had thought important, which is OK, but Robert and the board had a different perspective. Some readers may wonder about Robert's actions. Is it reasonable for a board chair to propose ignoring items or altering an agenda? Surely, management understands the key issues that need attention better than the board? I suggest the guiding principle to inform a response is this: The role of the board is to govern (to steer, to guide, to pilot). And, if the board is to have any hope of providing effective steerage and guidance, directors need to understand their role, and they need to apply their minds to the major issues and opportunities that lie ahead and make decisions accordingly. For this, the board needs to drive the agenda and ask management to prepare reports accordingly. Research shows that if this does not happen, the likelihood of the board influencing the performance of the company is low. When I asked Robert how compliance reporting and historical performance was handled (the board's 'control' role), he calmly said, "That is what committees are for." I smiled, for I was in agreement. What are your thoughts on this? Does the principle described hear apply everywhere? (*) name changed.
 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?
 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.
 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:  |
SearchMusingsThoughts on corporate governance, strategy and boardcraft; our place in the world; and other topics that catch my attention. 
Categories
All
Archives
December 2025
|
|
Dr. Peter Crow, CMInstD
|
© Copyright 2001-2026 | Terms of use & privacy
|