 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?
0 Comments
 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?
 Recently, I announced the findings of empirical research conducted over an eight year period. The aim of that research was to discover how many boards are fully aligned in relation to corporate purpose. The findings were staggering: five per cent of the participating boards—yes, one in twenty—were completely aligned in relation to corporate purpose. When asked, every director and executive had an answer, but only five boards (out of one hundred and three, to date) had one answer. How can any board do its job (make informed decisions, and provide effective steerage and guidance) if it has not first agreed on an objective (purpose) to work towards? Compare this situation with that of a plant. The example in the picture—echium vulgare, or, more commonly, viper's bugloss or blueweed—is as good as any. Echium vulgare, a native of Europe, is an introduced species in parts of north-eastern North America, south-eastern South America, and New Zealand. The plant is toxic to horses and cattle, but the bright blue flowers are very attractive to bees. And, despite the toxins in the plant, honey produced from the nectar is very tasty indeed! "So what?" you might ask. To compare a board and a plant seems a little odd. Yes, maybe, but please allow me to explain. E. vulgare, like all other plants, has a single purpose, which is to grow and reproduce. All the plant's energies are dedicated to this single goal, using the resources available to it. Nothing more, and nothing less. In contrast, many companies operate without an overarching and enduring goal, as the research mentioned above shows (save to make a profit). And that begs another question: how can any organisation realise its full potential without first establishing a clearly defined and achievable goal? 'Purpose' has become a hot topic in board, shareholder and stakeholder circles. Some have interpreted purpose to mean mission and vision: an overarching goal the company intends to achieve. Others have a different understanding—one that positions the company as a servant of society, as the question below illustrates: How can a company not be in the business of improving human health and making the world a better place? This question, posed by a US-based leadership consultant, positions purpose as a catalyst to influence or resolve an external societal or environmental situation. In effect, the underlying expectation is that the company prioritises something external and, most probably, well beyond the company's means and ability to influence, much less achieve. The difference between the two understandings is stark, as are the implications. Readers will, probably, gravitate towards one or other, and some may hold such strong views as to be offended by 'the other one'. And that is okay; shareholders and the board can strive to achieve whatever they want—such is their prerogative. What matters is that every board takes responsibility for answering the question, of why the company it is charged with governing exists. Essentially, "For what purpose?" Without this, the company will lack a North Star, and efforts to create a meaningful strategy, let alone allocate resources well and achieve high levels of performance, will be fraught. But, if purpose is clearly stated, and agreed and understood by every director and all key staff, the company will not only attain membership of a most desirable club—the Five Percent Club—the board will have established a robust foundation upon which a coherent strategy can be developed, resources allocated, decisions made, and the full potential of the company pursued. And that, I think, is a good thing.
 The role of company director has become quite visible over the past couple of decades. From hardly rating a mention in the popular press or polite society fifty years ago, public awareness of boards and directors has blossomed in recent times. Questionable practices and failures of various kinds have seen boards become a source of board fascination and disdain—targets of criticism in the eyes of the business media, political class, regulators and, increasingly, the wider public. Activists, institutional investors, proxy advisors, and other stakeholders and supernumeraries have sought to exert influence and press various claims too, on both company priorities and board decision making (think: ESG, disclosures, DEI, climate change, net zero, and more besides). While some boards have responded well to changing circumstances, others have battened down the hatches. Defensiveness can be an important response at times, but it is not a sustainable tactic given the mandate to govern (provide appropriate steerage and guidance to achieve a specified goal). If directors are to steer and guide effectively, they need to consider information, ask questions to check progress and elicit missing information and, having debated various options, make decisions. This is crucial, for the questions directors ask may be the difference between effectiveness and ineffectiveness in role. The following list provides a useful starting point for boards intent on governing with impact:
Do you agree or disagree—I welcome your thoughts on this! Also, what other questions have you found useful?
 I have just arrived back in New Zealand, from ten days in the UK and Europe. My meetings with directors, advisors, academics, students and directors’ institutions had two primary objectives: to listen and to share. The listening aspect was to gain firsthand knowledge of issues and opportunities; the sharing aspect to provide updates on the craft of board work and my experiences as a practicing director. Learnings (a few immediate observations, in no particular order):
Amongst it all, there were some gems:
Several followup visits are now being planned, to advise, assess, educate and speak on topical board and organisational performance matters. If you want to discuss a matter of interest, or check my availability to assist, contact me for a confidential, obligation-free discussion. The headline picture, showing a derelict property in Soho, London, is analogous to the state of governance in many places in Europe: structurally sound but outwardly messy.
 The opportunity to embrace a transport technology that is cleaner, quieter and considerably cheaper to operate (than petrol or diesel alternatives) is attractive—once the initial purchase price hurdle leapt. The purported benefits seem to be significant, but does the reality match the rhetoric? As with any proposal to embrace system-level change, the costs of moving from one technology to another are far from trivial. If an assessment is to be complete, the total lifetime costs (TLCs) need to be considered; that is, the sum total of all costs incurred over a product/system’s lifetime (includes manufacture, operation, disposal). In the case of electric vehicles, what of the economic, environmental and social costs of extracting metals for battery ingredients; logistics and manufacturing; replacement of batteries when they are spent; battery disposal; and, of upgrading the power generation and distribution network to provide adequate electrical power to recharge batteries? Many of these are being quietly ignored, it seems. Not my problem, some argue, as if out of sight is out of mind. This short article argues that when the TLCs are factored in, the benefits associated with a seemingly compelling technology (in this case the adoption of electric powered vehicles and other devices with battery power packs) may not be as great as what has been claimed. And so to the purpose of this muse, which is not to argue the benefits or otherwise of adopting electrically powered vehicles. Rather, it is to table an issue often overlooked by board of directors considering so-called strategic projects: total lifetime costs. When faced with a strategically-significant proposal, boards first need to check for alignment, by testing whether the proposal is contributory to the corporate strategy (spoiler alert: often linkages are tenuous). Assuming it is, directors should satisfy themselves that total lifetime costs have been included. Only then can the question of whether the recommendation should be embraced or rejected be debated. Why might this be important? Directors are duty-bound to act in the best interests of the company. That means taking all relevant information into account. If boards ignore externalities, or abuse the social, environmental and economic capitals consumed in the operation of the company, the governed company is unlikely to endure over the longer term. And in so doing, directors may be exposing themselves, unwittingly, to legal challenge as well.
 Every year, at about this time, sages and futurists of various stripes peer out from their sanctuaries to offer opinions of what the future holds. Many speak or write deterministically, as if they have been blessed with special powers to know or postulate the future with great accuracy. Pronouncements are read with great anticipation by many, and embraced as if categorical. But some commentators are more circumspect; their contingent expressions reveal great maturity and wisdom. “Forecasting is always a hazardous business. … no one can claim that the future is entirely inscrutable.” One does not need to look far to see examples of the difficulties faced by those charged with forecasting and strategising. Over the last two years, for example, undertones of fear and stasis have been prominent. People and companies have frozen in response to pronouncements and dictates from national leaders. Economic and social priorities have been set to one side; the main—nay, only—focus has been on the pesky virus known as Covid19. First, borders were closed and populations were locked down, in an effort to flatten the curve. Some even tried to eliminate the virus. Then, recognising their folly, leaders embraced vaccination to reduce the effects of the virus. Most recently, mandates have seen populations divided into two classes, the vaccinated and the un-vaxxed. Naysayers have jumped in, but many of their predictions have proven to be wrong as well. Meanwhile, economies have struggled and the social fabric has frayed. Amidst this backdrop, boards remain responsible for the performance of the companies they govern. Of those who recognise this (and not all do), some boards wait, perplexed by the unknowns, and others strike out, believing they can control the future, despite a plethora of externalities. Neither response is particularly wise. High performing boards and leadership teams recognise that things change, often unexpectedly. They remain vigilant, watching for weak signals that might portend the emergence of something significant. They hold options open for as long as possible. Then, when it is time, they act, decisively. The types of questions high performing boards ask (and keep asking) include:
While some of these questions may be difficult to answer, boards must persevere. Even partial answers are likely to indicate a more reliable way forward than the lazy option of blindly pursuing the supposedly categorical predictions of mediums, sages and futurists.
 As summer gives way to autumn in the Northern Hemisphere—and soon winter—so various externalities that frame the work of boards and enduring performance of companies continue to press in. Topical externalities include climatic change; shifting geo-political forces; technological disruptions; diversity, equity and inclusion demands; ever-increasing levels of regulation; the emergence of ESG; and, stakeholder capitalism. The challenge for all directors and boards, whether they acknowledge it or not (or even notice or care!), is to respond well in the face of what is patently a dynamic environment—to ensure the fiduciary duty they accepted when agreeing to serve as a director is fulfilled. Steerage and guidance—the essence of corporate governance—requires every director, and the board collectively, to be alert, to both set a course and to respond well in the face of externalities. The mind’s eye needs to be looking ahead, to ensure the reason for the journey remains clear, and that decisions are made in the context of advancing towards the objective. Quite how that should be achieved is the underlying question that has driven my life’s work. Following an extended break from writing—a consequence of dealing with the passing of our patriarch—I have ‘arrived’ back at my desk to think and write again, about organisational performance, governance, strategy and the craft of board work. If you have a question, or would like to learn more about a particular aspect of board work or the impact boards can have on organisational performance, please let me know! If we are to journey far, we need to explore relevant topics and learn together.
 News of Emmanuel Faber's dismissal as executive chairman of Danone, a French food conglomerate, has caused quite a stir. Mr Faber, a fervent proponent of stakeholder capitalism and ESG, had led the company for seven years. Since 2017, he has held both the chair and chief executive roles (a situation disfavoured by many investors, academics and advisors due to concentration of power risk). Though charismatic and influential, the record shows that company performance has languished under Mr Faber's leadership, and staff turnover increased too. Clearly, something was amiss. Sustained pressure from activist investors, disgruntled by Danone's performance (relative to its competitors, over several years), finally elicited in a response. The Danone board decided to separate the chairman and chief executive roles; Faber would remain chairman of the board and a new chief executive would be recruited. But this attempt by Faber to placate the activists while also retaining power was received poorly. Faber was, in the eyes of the activists, a lead actor and, therefore, a big part of the problem. He had to go they thought. Realising this, the board ousted Faber. Proponents of both stakeholder capitalism and shareholder capitalism have taken Faber's demise as an opportunity to come out from their respective corners to argue the merits of their favoured ideology. The purpose of this muse is not to add to that discourse; it is to consider another matter brought in to view by the case at hand: that of misalignment. If a Chief Executive acts against the direction of the board (or without the board's knowledge), or if a board is disunited over a strategically important matter (purpose or strategy, especially), company performance (however measured) will inevitably suffer. Danone is a case in point. Matters of misalignment, either amongst directors or between the board and chief executive, need to be resolved promptly. Similarly, if purpose and strategy are clear, coherent and agreed, but subsequent implementation is poor or ineffective (the saying–seeing gap), the board probably has a leadership problem. Attempts to satisfy all interests—appeasement—rarely achieve satisfactory or enduring outcomes, as Neville Chamberlain discovered in 1938–1939. Directors need to be alert (individually and collectively, as a board); united in their resolve to pursue agreed goals; and, their tolerance for underperformance must be low. If the board is complacent in the face of misalignment or poor strategy execution, and it does not act, it becomes part of the problem. Sooner or later, shareholders will notice, and it is reasonable to expect they will act, to protect their investment.
 Have you ever wondered what it would be like to travel in a plane without any knowledge of where you might be headed? While this prospect may excite some, the idea of flying without a destination or purpose in mind beggars belief for most people. Successful air travel is predicated on knowing the destination; a precursor to the pilot creating a flight plan to make the journey and arrive safely. Air travel is, generally, safe and straightforward when this principle is applied. But things can go wrong, and if they do, pilots must be ready to respond well. For that, years of training and accumulated experience are vital. And vigilance too: continuously reading onboard and external signals to verify progress, and to spot and respond to any emerging problems. Successful governance is directly analogous. Knowledge of the destination and how to get there (purpose and strategy) is vital, as is constant monitoring of both the general direction (to verify progress is being made towards the desired goal) and the current situation (to detect any emerging problems). Boards are, in general, reasonably good at reading and understanding the current situation. But they are not nearly as good when it comes to general direction. Knowledge and agreement around the ultimate goal, how to get there and how progress might be measured remains problematic. If directors and boards lack clarity on these matters, their ability to govern well and ensure the performance of the company into the future is lost. The consequential risks are high. Chances are, the board and the company will be knocked around—moving but not making progress, just like a cork in a washing machine. Does your board have this in hand?
|
SearchMusingsThoughts on corporate governance, strategy and boardcraft; our place in the world; and other topics that catch my attention. 
Categories
All
Archives
April 2025
|
|
Dr. Peter Crow, CMInstD
|
© Copyright 2001-2025 | Terms of use & privacy
|