I have spent four days in Australia this week, meeting with directors, advisors and a couple of institutional leaders in two state capitals. While the weather has been great, a few storm clouds [metaphorically, on the governance horizon] were apparent. Whether these are serious problems, or just differences of opinion, they strike me as being worthy of discussion. I’d be delighted if you would ponder the following situations, and share your thoughts to help me understand why boards, more often than not, erode value.
- Confusion over what governance is: A meeting with a sixty-something director, with over two decades of experience, set me on my backside. He explained that “most of my colleagues understand that corporate governance and compliance are, essentially, interchangeable words”. He went on to say that board directors don’t spend enough time thinking about the future (agreed), and that the solution is to give governance a radical overhaul. When I asked, he said that governance needs to be redefined, “because the expectation is unrealistic.” He suggested advisory boards have a significant role to play, for directors cannot hope to keep up with the pace of change, and someone needs to advise the CEO anyway. I opined that everything he suggested was, in fact, within the remit of governance (to steer, to guide, to pilot), but he wasn’t having a bar of it. Governance, in his mind, is compliance; and the board’s job is to keep the CEO “safe”.
- Regulating one’s way to performance: A meeting in Sydney, with three people familiar with regulatory frameworks—all of whom are professionally trained as lawyers—caught me on the hop. All three agreed that the imposition of codes and regulatory frameworks was necessary, because “statutes don’t go far enough.” The implication was that rules drive compliance, and that compliance with rules equates to performance. In other words, follow the rules and the organisation will thrive. I was shocked. Rules are, I think, boundaries—nothing more. How can one possibly thrive if the extent of their contribution is merely to ensure they live within the rules?
These examples demonstrate, to me anyway, that questions of what corporate governance is, the role of the board and how governance might be practiced are far from resolved. Directors and their advisors seem to be their own worst enemies. Flawed understandings of what governance is (the provision of steerage and guidance, to achieve an agreed strategic aim), and how it might be practiced, remain serious barriers to boards fulfilling their mandate, which is to ensure the enduring performance of the company. Why do some directors’ institutes, advisory and consulting firms, regulators, academics, and media commentators continue to discuss “best practice” and promote various matters that have little if any direct impact on achieving sustainably high levels of organisational performance? Surely attention needs to be on helping directors and boards do their job well, n’cest ce-pas? I have a few ideas to crack this problem, but I’m keen to hear what you think.
