Peter Crow
  • Home
  • About
  • Musings
  • Research
  • Contact

Does it matter what directors look like?

30/5/2017

6 Comments

 
Guest blog: Dr James Lockhart (College of Business, Massey University, New Zealand)
Picture
During the late 1990s and early 2000s the hot topic in corporate governance was independent directors.  Independent directors, it was proposed at the time, were the very panacea for performance improvement. It didn't really matter what the problem was the solution was independent directors, preferably a majority of them—and fast!
Much effort went into defining an independent director and veritable lists emerged of the much needed characteristics and attributes, especially concerning ownership (the lack thereof); earnings from ownership (the lack thereof); or, employment or former employment (the lack thereof). Sadly, in all that enthusiasm the single most important attribute—independence of thought—was seldom mentioned.
Fast forward a decade: now its diversity’s turn. Diversity, it is now proposed, is the panacea for improvement. Just like independent directors in the past (where no systemic evidence emerged supporting the assumption that independent directors actually improve performance) business is besieged with the idea that diversity on boards will enhance performance. All of the board diversity research conducted to date has been from outside the boardroom. We know that because there have been only four longitudinal studies conducted within the boardroom—one in Norway by Morton Huse; one by a serving board member (no conflicts there); one by a British colleague (Silke Machold); and, one by Peter Crow. 
So what is being measured? Just like the independent director research, the diversity research has reduced the boardroom to a simple input-output model. Diversity then refers to the measurable appearance of directors, such as, skin colour, ethnicity, sex, age, qualifications, professional backgrounds, and so on with a focus on sex, colour and age. But does diversity of appearance produce a diversity of opinion? Does diversity of appearance produce different strategic decisions that would not have been considered or not approved in the absence of such diversity on boards? ​
Given that we don't know how effective men are in the boardroom, it is implausible to argue that we know the effectiveness of women. That is not to suggest we don't need more women on boards—we do. But the focus of the discussion ought to be one of building better boards, boards that are focused on wealth creation, and boards that deliver the company’s aspirations.
As with the independent director argument that preceded it, repetition seems to matter—if something is repeated often enough it will eventually be believed. ​The discussion is being fuelled by the post-modern/neo-Marxist views currently dominating the B-school landscape, one that will acknowledge diversity everywhere other than amongst Caucasians. And with that, the point is lost. The focus of corporate governance should be on performance, in organisations where the thinking folder is overflowing, not what people look like.
About Dr James Lockhart:
James is a Senior Lecturer at Massey University’s Business School, and a credentialed and practising company director. He teaches and researches in strategic management and corporate governance, and is responsible for the delivery of the College’s business internship and professional practice (Management) courses. He currently holds two directorships; is on the Defence Employers Support Council; and, is a Chartered Member of the Institute of Directors in New Zealand.
6 Comments
Robert Barker
31/5/2017 01:12:04

What a thoughtful and concise expression of what is wrong with corporate governance theory -- it has no bearing to reality, only to what the proponents want. Roberto Romano at Yale started identifying "quack corporate governance" after Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, but I fear that the world is moving to a place where there are fewer rational options for finding board members that actually care about the investors.

Reply
Peter Crow
31/5/2017 08:00:18

Thank you Robert. James and I have known each other for six or seven years now. He has consistently 'called out' weaknesses in the system, and we both have written many articles and addressed many audiences on this and related matters. I'd be delighted to explore matters further—send me an email if you'd like to take up this offer.

Reply
Henry D. Wolfe
1/6/2017 08:53:27

Peter - I am posting the same comment here that I posted on LinkedIn. I think James has it exactly right. He has made the same argument that I have been making for years regarding both independence and diversity. Neither provide the right focus. What does provide the right selection criteria is competence in the context of the value creation drivers of the particular business that is being governed. Couple that with a couple of directors selected for general value creation skills and experience and you have a much better board. That said, the current governance model is ultimately the problem as it does not provide the right context for the selection criteria I have proposed. Nor does this model provide the right focus even if the selection criteria were shifted toward my suggestions. Ultimately, the entire model must shift toward one that approximates the private equity governance model before any real change in performance will be seen on a consistent basis. As I may have mentioned previously, I have just completed writing a book entitled "Governance Arbitrage" that addresses this very subject. I am now staring the long slog toward getting it published.

Reply
Peter Crow
1/6/2017 12:35:06

Thanks Henry, appreciate you taking the time to consider James' commentary and post your thoughts. We (you, me, James) are "together" on this matter. The normative model (as deployed) is part of the problem. This emerged in my doctoral research as well. In the last 2–3 years, I've had many conversations with incumbent directors and boards who privately admit something is badly wrong. The high and growing level of interest suggests that people like James, you and me are likely to be in demand for some time to come. My best to you.

Reply
Ted Santos
9/6/2017 06:58:34

A few years a ago I wrote an articled titled, Why Diversity on Board Can’t Happen. I somewhat addressed the issues this article has pointed out. My article focused more on the responsibility of the chairman.

At the same time, there is a bigger problem on boards. As pointed out in the Linked In comments, private equity boards outperform publicly traded companies. On publicly traded companies, many boards are plagued with myopia. I’ve discussed this problem with a number of retired CEOs of Fortune 500s. Because of this myopic view, financial engineering, buying back shares and organizational restructuring are the flavors of the decade.

This myopic view is also instrumental in board member selection. They choose people who think the same, but different. And that’s considered diversity.

The myopic view is colored by a mindset or paradigm. That mindset blinds directors from selecting people who see the world from a so-called counterintuitive perspective. In other words, most boards miss the opportunity to select people like Steve Jobs or a Nikola Tesla. As a result, opportunities are missed, companies have to play catch up or some things are never considered.

Directors are so concerned with getting along or keeping the peace that the shareholder becomes a secondary priority. A very strong and influential chairman is required to manage a truly diverse board. And directors have to take a stand for long term shareholder value. Currently, directors take a more powerful stand for being comfortable.

Reply
James Lockhart
12/6/2017 13:07:09

It has been two weeks since I posted some observations on the current board diversity argument to Peter’s Blog, Peter cross-posted it to LinkedIn.
My observations while generally well accepted were also challenged. In the first instance one author wrote, “I think he has got the focus right (performance) but the argument very very wrong”.
OK. So let’s assume then we have agreement that the focus of the board ought to be on business performance (and I will distinguish between business performance and board performance – leaving the latter discussion for another day). This leaves the comment that the argument was “very very wrong”. I was likening the current promotion of diversity on boards to that of independent directors a decade ago. Governance research has yet to demonstrate systemic evidence in support of independent directors – that is unequivocal. Some studies do, some don't, some can’t decide. What we do know, is that the only observational studies conducted in the board room are very rare – I listed the four longitudinal studies published to date, there have also been some singular interventions including those by Richard Leblanc, Bev Edlin and Karen Martyn (the latter two were also completed here at Massey University). The overwhelming majority of governance research has reduced the board-business performance nexus to a simple input-output model. Not only has identifying the relationship between structural antecedents and subsequent business performance been a fruitless task, it lacks much credibility – hence the genre of black box research that has been promoted by Richard Leblanc, myself and a few others – researchers must get into the boardroom to see and learn what is actually going on. I am not aware of any research, conducted in the boardroom, with the intention of exploring/understanding the impact of women on boards – hence the observation that we don't yet know how effective men are in the boardroom, and that it is implausible to argue that we already know the effectiveness of women, or minorities or any other group. Women (or minorities) may be more effective than men in the boardroom – we don't know.
The second challenge included a comment that, “the article sounds more like the ‘pseudo governance’ theory that it sets out to critique… the intellectual equivalent of striking an effigy of pricking a voodoo doll in the vain and nonsensical hope of inflicting damage to the real thing”. The governance research community has been remiss in challenging the moribund ‘best practice’ panaceas offered in multiple jurisdictions as being facts. Again, it is fascinating to observe the messenger being confused for the message. We don't know. Period. It would be wrong for the governance research community to claim otherwise, unless of course that community (or members of it) have an alternate agenda – bias - to which I eluded.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Search

    Musings

    Thoughts on corporate governance, strategy and the craft of board work; our place in the world; and, other things that catch my attention.

    Categories

    All
    Accountability
    Conferences
    Corporate Governance
    Decision Making
    Director Development
    Diversity
    Effectiveness
    Entrepreneur
    Ethics
    Family Business
    Governance
    Guest Post
    Language
    Leadership
    Management
    Performance
    Phd
    Readings
    Research
    Research Update
    Societal Wellbeing
    Speaking Engagements
    Strategy
    Sustainability
    Teaching
    Time Management
    Tough Questions
    Value Creation

    Archives

    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    November 2019
    October 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012

Peter Crow PhD CMInstD

Company director | Board advisor
© COPYRIGHT 2001–23. TERMS OF USE & PRIVACY
Photos used under Creative Commons from ghfpii, BMiz, Michigan Municipal League (MML), Colby Stopa, MorboKat
  • Home
  • About
  • Musings
  • Research
  • Contact