Tags

  • Published on

    Important #corpgov conference, this week

    Conferences Governance Management Performance Research
    Are you interested in emerging research on boards and corporate governance, and its practical application in boardrooms? If so, two upcoming conferences may appeal (I will be speaking at both of them):
    Session summaries will be posted here, so check back later in the week for update, and then again in a couple of weeks time, on 12–13 November. Please let me know if you are interested in a particular paper or session: I will do my best to attend and report on it for you.
  • Published on

    Is it better to give, or to receive?

    Conferences Governance Phd Research Time Management
    Do you know the origin of the well-known saying 'it's better to give than receive'? This phrase (from the Bible) calls our focus into question: are we better to have an outward mindset for the benefit of others, or to concentrate on self? This dilemma has been front of mind over the last twenty-four hours. The following list is a snapshot of the important giving and receiving tasks that I need to complete over the next seven days:
    • This morning: Re-read parts of my doctoral thesis, working through various scenarios that might be raised during the oral examination. This is a receiving task—it's for my benefit.
    • This afternoon: Start work on the slide deck to accompany my paper to be presented in Brussels next week. This is a preparation task, ahead of a giving activity.
    • This evening: Fly to Hamilton to ahead of presenting on the Institute of Directors' Company Directors Course tomorrow. The task at hand is threefold—to present the Strategy Day material, facilitate discussion and share insights. This is primarily a giving task.
    • Wednesday: At the home office, making final preparations for the oral examination.
    • Thursday: Drive to Palmerston North, for the oral examination of my doctoral research. After three-and-a-half years effort, it all comes down to this meeting. No pressure!
    • Friday: Finalise the slide deck for the EIASM presentation and write a letter to confirm an important speaking and facilitation engagement—both after some reflection on the outcome of the previous day's activity, no doubt.
    • Monday 26: Leave for Brussels via London, to attend and speak at the 12th European Institute of Advanced Management Studies Corporate Governance Workshop. Summaries of this giving and receiving activity will be posted here later next week.
    So, a busy seven days lies in wait, with some important giving and receiving tasks along the way. My week highlights a dilemma faced by many busy people: where should one's priorities be placed? All of the tasks are important—but are any more important? If compromises are required, what should prevail? Better to spend time preparing for the teaching and speaking commitments, or the examination—to give or to receive? If you are facing a similar challenge this week, what yardstick will you use to make your choices? ​
  • Published on

    "Leave a little bit in the tank, you may need it at the end"

    Governance Phd Research Research Update
    One of the delights of my high school years—close to forty years ago now—was to run. Mostly, I ran 1500m on the track and cross-country events. While I did experience the winning tape a few times, most events saw me finish off the podium. I was a capable but not great runner. Perhaps it was the genes, or technique, or perhaps I didn't prepare sufficiently well. 
    My lingering memory from those enjoyable days was a piece of advice offered by a quietly spoken coach, at a regional event, "Leave a little bit in the tank, you may need it at end." ​
    To that point, I had run hard from the gun, out in front quietly hoping to have enough energy to keep going until the end. To hold something back seemed counter-intuitive. What if others ran ahead? Could they be caught? I was torn, but took the coach's advice anyway.
    Three runners jostled for position for the first three laps of the race. With the coach's words still front of mind, I ran with the group, even though I could have gone faster. As the pace increased on the last lap, I held position. Then, part-way down the finishing straight I gave it everything—slowly pulling ahead to reach the tape first! That little bit left in the tank from earlier in the race had fuelled the final dash to the line.
    The parallels with my doctoral research journey—to discover how boards can influence business performance—are clear. The oral examination is just ten days away now. The journey to date has been arduous yet fulfilling, and not without its challenges and setbacks as you might expect. With the oral examination now in sight, should I go all out or hold a steady pace? Will the oral signal the finishing tape has been reached or will the examiners require emendations?
    ​Regardless of the examiner's decision, the goal is to finish well. Thus, the next ten days are being spent re-reading material, pondering options and working through scenarios—all with the wisdom of my coach of old ringing in my ears.
  • Published on

    Back to the drawing board: what is corporate governance?

    Governance Research
    Have you noticed how frequently the term 'corporate governance' is bandied about these days? References are commonplace in magazine articles, research papers, codes and regulations; and the term is frequently mentioned in everyday conversation. However, the term is used in different ways in different contexts, to the point that there are a plethora of understandings of what governance in a corporate context is or might be.
    This lack of consensus of what corporate governance is has all sorts of implications for boards of directors in practice—not the least of which is the confusion it causes. Are boards to pursue performance or conformance outcomes (or both), for example?
    This well-written article (recently published in the New York Times) highlights some of the issues that boards and shareholders have to deal with as a consequence of the ambiguity. These include whether chairman–CEO separation increases company value or not; whether the number of independent directors is material to improved company wealth outcomes or not; and, that some investor groups see corporate governance as a means of controlling boards.
    The original basis for boards (a proxy, following a separation between ownership and control of decision-making), as espoused by Berle and Means in 1932, appears to have been lost somewhere along the way. That corporate governance is now considered to be a panacea for the ills of the business world (or so it seems) doesn't help either. 
    ​The board governance community appears to have two options: to persist with seemingly flawed (structure, process, policy) assumptions in search of consensus (and risk further 'governance wars'), or to return to the drawing board to re-assess what corporate governance actually is.
    If we return to the drawing board, the most important tasks of the board (setting of strategy and oversight of management in pursuit of shareholder value) could provide a useful foundation of any re-assessment—so long as the socially-dynamic interactions that occur in boardrooms and the competencies of effective directors are incorporated in the analysis. An interesting possibility might be to re-conceive corporate governance is a multi-functional mechanism that is activated by boards in session and through which business performance outcomes are pursued.
    ​Might a mechanism-based conception be a useful starting point from which to re-conceive what corporate governance might actually be and how boards might influence business performance? Quite possibly. In fact, this possibility is one of the main outputs of my doctoral research. I'll be able to discuss it in more detail after the thesis is examined. If you'd like to join the mailing list to learn more, or to explore its application in practice, please let me know.
  • Published on

    The board chair's dilemma: what would you do?

    Accountability Decision Making Ethics Governance Performance
    Each month, Julie Garland McLellan, non-executive director and board consultant, invites several people to respond to a tricky board or governance situation. This month (Oct'15 issue), she crafted a challenging relationship dilemma with an ethical twist, and I was asked to provide a response. Thanks for inviting me to contribute Julie. The dilemma and my response are replicated here:
    The dilemma:
    ​Ximena chairs a government utility business that operates large primary industrial processes and is also involved in construction of new assets. Safety is a key issue and the board have zero appetite for any physical harm to staff, contractors or innocent bystanders. As board Chair Ximena also chairs the remuneration committee and has recently incorporated some nominations work into the charter and activities to better support the government with their desire to involve boards in director succession planning.
    The HR Director recently asked Ximena for a meeting at which she told Ximena that staff were concerned by the CEO’s activities outside of work. Specifically the CEO is involved in White Collar Boxing and the HR director feels this is not appropriate given the culture of the workplace and the visible support the organisation, and many other government companies, has given to anti-domestic violence campaigns. The HR Director also checked the terms of the company’s key man insurance policy and discovered that this would be voided for injuries or death resulting from action sports activities that include boxing. The HR Director has asked that Ximena talk to the CEO about ceasing his involvement with the sport.
    Ximena is concerned but cautious. She knows that the CEO, who was brought in from commercial industry, and the HR Director, a long serving public sector employee, have often differed in their opinions and that, whilst both are professional, there is scant respect and less regard between them. But she has to admit that a boxing CEO might not sit well with the ‘A Fight is Never Right’ campaign the company has just sponsored.
    Is this the CEO’s private business or an issue for the company and its board: What should Ximena do?
    ​
    Peter's response:
    ​Broadly, Ximena has four options:
    1. To ignore the HR Director’s appeal, by pushing back. However, this may see the issue ‘leaked’ to the public domain, especially given the HRD’s lack of respect towards to the CEO. If this were to occur, the board may be faced with a bigger problem - a damage control action. This option also provides tacit endorsement of the CEO’s actions.
    2. A private conversation will enable Ximena to hear the CEO’s perspective, ask questions and make suggestions. The CEO may not see the matter as a problem! Contingent on the quality of the working relationship, the chairman should be able explore options, present the wider perspective and reach an agreement over how best to proceed.
    3. To ask the CEO to meet with a board committee does two things. It signals to the CEO that the board is treating the matter seriously, in pursuit of a workable solution. However, it also sets a precedent whereby staff can approach the board directly. Staff need to take their concerns to the CEO first.
    4. To launch a full (presumably formal) investigation. This is probably an over-reaction.

    The most tenable option is probably the private conversation. While legal private activities are not and should not be the concern of the company, activities that may be considered to be incompatible with the company’s purposes, values or culture, or may call the company’s reputation into question or bring it into disrepute need to be curbed - particularly as the CEO is a highly visible role. Through their actions, they set the cultural tone of the organisation.
    Notwithstanding which option is eventually selected, the tension between the CEO and the HRD is a problem that needs to be resolved. The scant respect and regard is a harbinger of low trust, empathy and teamwork; thus rendering the working relationship difficult, at best. Whether the two parties are able to work together productively in the future is probably moot, especially as the HRD went around the CEO to the chairman directly. The HR Director probably needs to consider her tenure with the business.
    If you want to understand more about these options, or if you think you might need assistance with a challenging board situation, please get in touch.