Tags

  • Published on

    Corporate governance in the UK: What is the real problem?

    Accountability Decision Making Governance Performance Societal Wellbeing
    Picture
    When Theresa May went on record recently, the key message for boards was that they needed to pull their socks up lest additional structural measures including employee directors become a requirement for UK companies. Much of the commentary was aimed at the boards of publicly-listed companies, in an attempt to curb (perceived and real) corporate excess in the form of excessive remuneration; hubris; and, a flagrant disregard of some stakeholders. 
    Today, ICSA: The Governance Institute announced that it had written to the Prime Minister calling for the boards of privately-held companies to be held to the same levels of accountability and disclosure as publicly-listed firms. This request seems perfectly reasonable, especially as the UK Companies Act 2006 applies to all companies.
    The UK statute is clear: directors (actually, boards because it is boards that make decisions) are required to  consider the long-term consequences of their decisions and the impact on employees and the community. Good practice suggests that boards should, amongst the things, keep shareholders informed (through the board's annual report to shareholders) of its activities.
    ICSA is right to raise the issue, but will enforced compliance with codes of practice fix the problem?
    If boards act within the law and in accordance with codes of practice as they pursue business objectives, then letters such as the one written by ICSA should not be necessary. But they don't. Some directors and boards take liberties. Enough examples have come to light in recent years (e.g., HSBC, FIFA, Volkswagen, Fonterra, Solid Energy, Toshiba and, most recently, BHS) to suggest that some boards knowingly run close to or beyond boundaries defined in law. But where does the real problem lie? Is it with the law, the principles-based codes of practice; the directors themselves; or, something else entirely?
    Consider this: The road toll has not declined as a direct result of increased enforcement measures but rather a change of behaviour—drivers choosing to driver safer vehicles more carefully. Are boards any different? If boards are analogous to drivers, probably not. Unless and until boards make a conscious decision to embrace company performance as an important priority, and to do so in accordance with both established law and published codes of practice, I suspect the media will continue to be gainfully employed.
    Finally, shareholders have an important and oft overlooked contribution to make. Recent experience suggests that greater care is needed in the appointment process, to ensure only suitably capable directors who are intent on acting in the best interests of the company are appointed to boards. In addition, shareholders should not overlook their right to hold directors to account including dismissing those who fail to discharge their legal duties or exercise requisite care and attention.
  • Published on

    Building board capability: London, in September

    Accountability Conferences Governance Performance Research
    How time flies. In just two weeks' time (14–20 Sept), I will be back in London again—this time to attend the Organizations with Purpose conference at the London Business School (thank you for the invitation), and to continue discussions with ICSA: The Governance Institute and others intent on building board capability. To serve boards and directors in the UK is truly an honour—I am looking forward to sharing ideas with colleagues and clients, and to meeting new acquaintances as well.
    While my diary is filling fast, I have room for a few more discussions. Please get in touch if you want to discuss emerging board practice trends, explore the possibility of me speaking at an event or with your board, or learn how to use my latest research findings to improve board practice and business performance. I'd be delighted to hear from you and look forward to scheduling a meeting (daytime or over dinner, whatever is best for you).
  • Published on

    Come hither employee directors?

    Accountability Decision Making Governance Performance
     British Prime Minister, Theresa May caught the attention of many recently when she raised the possibility of requiring companies to reserve positions on company boards for employee directors. This proposal, which was suggested amongst other measures as a means of curbing perceived corporate excess in the UK, has received a mixed response, including support from the Institute of Directors and wonderment from others.  
    Increased diversity has been associated with improved decision quality, so including employee directors at the board table should be to the organisation's advantage, shouldn't it? On the surface, yes. However, experience tells us that one of the very real challenges of reserving places on boards, be it via a gender-based quota mechanism (e.g., Norway) or to provide a voice for an interest group (e.g., parent representatives on school boards), is that people bring baggage. Representation is a problem: candidates appointed because they meet the representation criteria often struggle to act in the best interests of the organisation when they take their position at the table.
    The conflict (of interest) that employee directors face is even tougher to manage because it is directly personal. On one hand, employee directors are paid to perform work and implement strategies, while on the other they are expected to make decisions in the best interest of the company. Decisions made in the boardroom may not be to the employees advantage (e.g., to close a loss-making division, resulting in job losses). To expect an employee director to subordinate their personal and collegial interests in favour of what might be best for the company is likely to be a tall order; it may not even be realistic.
    Yet the German experience (one of the most successful economies since World War II) suggests that the inclusion of employee directors can be made to work. But the German system of corporate governance is framed on the notion of two-tier boards, and employee directors sit on upper (supervisory) board not the executive board where the important strategic decisions are made. Also, supervisory boards normally only meet a few times each year, meaning the focus is more directly one of oversight, in a manner not dissimilar to an annual general meeting of shareholders in the unitary system. 
    If the corporate excess that May has called out is to be corralled (as it should be), the underlying basis of corporate governance (the means by which companies are directed and controlled) should be reviewed. A holistic review is needed to ensure the addition of specific measures (e.g., representative positions) does not inadvertently introduce other problems like suboptimal decision-making. Any review needs to extend beyond board structure and composition to the behaviour of directors and the activities of boards. Directors themselves also need to take responsibility for their actions; invest time understanding the business of the business; and, take their commitment to act in the best interests of the company seriously. I've written and spoken about this many times in the past. If directors embrace these suggestions, enforced structural provisions (e.g., representative groups) may no longer be required. But this relies on directors behaving well and doing 'the right thing', a reliance that has a chequered history.
  • Published on

    Poor corporate governance or plain fraud? Where's the line?

    Accountability Decision Making Ethics Governance Performance
    South Africa's flag carrier, South African Airways, has hit turbulence. Severe turbulence. The airline, which is in financial trouble as a result, most probably, of some poor decisions in the past, has been negotiating a debt refinancing package. However, the package reportedly contains some unusual characteristics (read: extremely high fees). Now, a staff member has blown the whistle; the board has been called out; and, the matter is being investigated. 
    Even a cursory inspection suggests that something is amiss, and badly so. Problems that seem to stem from poor decision-making at the top of the organisation appear to be endemic. Whether the underlying driver is greed, hubris, corruption, ineptitude or something else remains to be seen. Regardless, South African Airways is in trouble. The board appears to be missing in action and the 'corruption' word has been mentioned making situation very messy, to say the least. 
    Sadly, SAA is not an isolated case. Recently, Sir Philip Green fell from grace; and, it was not that long ago that FIFA, Toshiba and Volkswagen suffered 'setbacks'. It's little wonder that hard working people have any time for boards of directors. The sources of governance failure are well-storied. However, the natural response—hard law—has done little to improve things (because people who want to generally find their way around things that inhibit them). Different measures are required, perhaps starting with culture, values and purpose. Board appointment processes also need to change. Unless and until 'bad eggs' are exorcised from boardrooms and held to account, the actions of a few will, no doubt, continue to make life hard for the rest of the director community.
  • Published on

    On purpose, strategy, execution: Together is best

    Accountability Decision Making Governance Leadership Performance Strategy
    Last week, I had the privilege of spending an entire day with the directors and executives of a highly-regarded architectural practice. The large practice has developed a great reputation over several decades for creating 'meaningful' architecture—buildings and spaces that 'fit' the surrounding environment, and that people enjoy living and working in. The job at hand was to facilitate a strategy development workshop, working with eleven capable and motivated men and women to select a course to guide the further growth and development of the practice. In essence, the day was about looking up and looking out.
    Using the StratCross framework and summaries of PESTEL and SWOT analyses completed prior to the workshop, we got stuck in. Before we knew it, the time was 4:30pm and the intense but enjoyable workshop was over. As we packed up, several directors indicated that the workshop had been "hugely valuable", "challenging" and "galvanising", and that they were looking forward to seeing the fruits of their labour. On the way home, my thoughts wandered, reflecting on the day and why it had been so much fun. Here's a few observations that came to mind. You may find useful for your next retreat or planning session:
    • All of the attendees had a comprehensive understanding of both the business of the business and the wider environmental context within which the practice operates. They had done their homework—and demonstrably so. Also, and unlike some boards that I have worked with, everyone wanted to be in the room and to make a contribution. These two factors were foundational to creating an environment which encouraged the informed, healthy debate that seemed to flow naturally throughout the day.
    • Directors (especially) were quick to latch on to the importance of the first question, "Why does the business exist?" It was as if they knew that if strategy is built without a clear and agreed purpose, the resultant output (i.e., the strategy) would be reduced to, simply, a collection of activities. 
    • The attendees recognised that many architectural projects take several years from initial ideation to completion, and some can take more than ten years. Consequently, a long-term view is necessary. This spilled over to the discussion of how far ahead the strategy should look. The group was happy to look more than ten years out, on the basis that goals would take time to realise and the proviso that the resultant strategy was not prescriptive (it was not) and that it was reviewed regularly. 
    • During the afternoon, a couple of the attendees (one director and one manager that I noticed, there may have been more) voiced a desire to build action plans and get underway. They said liked what they saw at the high-level but were concerned that the good work could be for nought unless clear action plans were developed and a commitment to execution ensued. Others agreed this was vital.
    • Despite some of the managers operating at fine levels of detail in their day-to-day work, the group as a whole agreed that "less is actually more helpful". Why write 20 or 30 pages of detail when 3–5 pages can actually provide a more holistic understanding? This demonstrated a clear awareness that strategy is a 'big picture' activity, and that detailed action plans and operating budgets are supporting documents that are the responsibility of managers. 
    • Finally, together is best. Every the director and executive was 'present' in the room throughout the day. Also, there was no sense of 'us and them' nor any visible expression of 'power'. Rather, the attendees worked together collaboratively, functioning as a group of peers committed to achieving an outcome. Compare that with common practice, which suggests that distance and a clearly-defined separation between board and management is appropriate.
      (Note: The action of one manager who collected everyone's phone as the workshop started may have contributed to this. If nothing else, her action triggered a bit of light-hearted banter to kickstart the day!)
    So, overall it was a good day, with some observations to boot. While most attendees came away hopeful of an even brighter future for the practice, they also realised that, despite a coherent strategy (to be written up in the coming days) and a commitment to execution once approved, success is not automatic—unlike the arrows in the picture imply. A realistic way to end the day.
  • Published on

    Guidance for coping with change

    Accountability Decision Making Diversity Governance Performance Societal Wellbeing
    In 1970, Alvin Toffler's book Future Shock was published. It quickly became a bestseller. Toffler died recently, triggering a series of articles and reflections (including this one published in the New York Times) about his life and 'the book'. Toffler had an amazing ability to look well ahead of almost all of us, to think critically, and to make some sense of it all. Consider these observations by Manjoo in his reflection:
    Alvin Toffler ... warned that the accelerating pace of technological change would soon make us all sick.
    Yet in rereading Mr. Toffler’s book, as I did last week, it seems clear that his diagnosis has largely panned out, with local and global crises arising daily from our collective inability to deal with ever-faster change.
    That societies are racing with great speed to embrace new ideas and innovations, yet without the ability to cope with the consequences of high rates of change, might be one of the great problems of our age. Perhaps those in influential positions in society have a responsibility to shift their gaze, from their own ambitions towards altruistic ideas that serve the greater good? This is by no means a call to embrace utopian principles nor uniformity because we are all different. Much pragmatism is needed if society is to continue to endure. 
    Leaders—of all types but especially business leaders, company directors, politicians and academics—could do well by (re)reading Future Shock. We need to talk about stuff, because we all have much to learn.