Over the past eighteen months, many commentators, critics and self-styled experts around the world used the onset of the coronavirus pandemic to promote new ways of working; postulating that working from home is somehow better or more productive than working in a group setting (in an office or boardroom, for example). Zoom became a 'thing' (lockdowns being the catalyst, of course); Microsoft Teams, too. Proponents have suggested that the conduct of board meetings and annual meetings via video link (virtual meetings) saves time and money, and increases participation. But, as the weeks and months have passed, the novelty of working separately has began to wear off. Stories of frustration have emerged, with widespread claims that decision quality and productivity has suffered. Staff and managers who once asserted the benefits of #WFH—even to the extent that people would not have to commute to office space any more—have gone quiet. Younger staff are pining to be together again; social magnetism at work. And what of boards and their effectiveness? Can boards maintain high levels of productivity and decision quality when directors cannot meet together in person for extended periods? Might the availability of high quality video links and board portal software supplant the need to meet together in a boardroom? In considering these questions, let's acknowledge that the board is a social group, and social groups work better when they are together. Not having to travel to a meeting is attractive to many, but proximity trumps distance in relationships, n'est-ce pas? Also, decisions are made the under tutelage of the board chair, following interaction to discover, discuss and debate. But body language, non-verbal cues and unspoken reservations are difficult to discern when on-line. What is more, the wider context within which the board and company operate is dynamic and generally complex, and ambiguity is prevalent, due to missing information. If boards are to be effective (measured by the board providing steerage and guidance in pursuit of agreed company purpose; making smart decisions; holding management to account for execution; and, verifying progress towards agreed strategic goals), directors need to be on their game. For this, they need to be competent in role; be actively engaged (individually and collectively); know why they are there; understand the business of the business, the company's strategy and the strategic implications thereof (just one in six directors do); and, exercise control constructively—all of which is made easier if they meet together. Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, I'd love to hear your thoughts and experiences!
3 Comments
3/7/2021 03:06:34
I agree with your point about a board being a social group and the challenge of having access to fewer social clues when meeting remotely.
Reply
Thanks Joella. ‘Trust but verify’ needs to be a maxim, both of boards in relation to management reporting and engagement, and more generally in relation to company performance, I think. If relations between the board and management are sound, the interaction across the nexus is easier. But that does not obviate the challenge directors face, the chair in particular, when working remotely from each other.
Reply
Dr Stuart Farquhar
3/7/2021 23:56:59
I suspect that like most evidence on boards and on workplaces there is no one size fits all. Some boards may work better in person, some virtually, some in a mixture of the two. Equally, there are likely to be occasions when in-person meetings are essential but these may become rarer than prior to the pandemic. We should be careful not to rush back to pre-pandemic working.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
SearchMusingsThoughts on corporate governance, strategy and boardcraft; our place in the world; and other topics that catch my attention. Categories
All
Archives
January 2025
|