Tags

  • Published on

    What difference do independent directors actually make?

    Governance Performance Research
    I see the Italians have updated their corporate governance code. The new code, most of which comes into effect on 1 January 2015, requires, amongst other things, publicly listed companies to have at least two independent directors. This sounds like a good move; one which is consistent with codes elsewhere, including New Zealand and Australia for example. The basis for requiring at least two independent directors (also called outside directors in some jurisdictions) on the boards of publicly-listed companies sounds robust: independence is said to be conducive to improved decision-making and to transparency, and two directors have more chance of exerting influence than one lone voice.
    But what of the holy grail question? Do independent directors enhance business performance? 
    Many practitioners think that the approach to discussions, debate and decision-making by independent directors is more deliberate and objective (than executive/insider directors), primarily because independent directors are thought to be less emotionally involved in the day-to-day business and that they have less to gain or lose. Over the last three years, I have read upwards of 50 research papers on independent, non-executive and outsider directors.  While the research is not unequivocal, the general tenor seems to bear practitioner perceptions out. 
    However, the impact of independent directors on business performance far less clear cut. A variety of conclusions are apparent in the research. Cause has not been established. It's a bit like saying that female directors cause companies to perform better. Increasingly, people are realising that board performance is more likely to be contingent on what directors do in certain situations than on who they are or any specific board structure or composition. Like gender, the independence attribute is likely to be a proxy for something else. We need to discover what that might be, so it can be used to qualify the suitability of director candidates and inform board performance assessments. Only then will the writers of codes be able to move beyond the reasonably blunt instrument currently in use: proxies.
  • Published on

    London and Europe, in early Spring

    Governance Leadership Performance Strategy
    I am sitting the United Lounge, in the new Queen's Terminal at Heathrow, awaiting the departure of my flight home after a very productive trip to England and Europe. In the last ten days, I have been fortunate enough to speak at the European Conference on Management, Leadership and Governance in Zagreb; refine aspects of the doctoral thesis; meet with executives from the US and UK to discuss board practice matters; discuss research opportunities with UK-based researchers; and, catch up with some research colleagues and make some new acquaintances. To top it off, I attended a Holy Communion Service at St. Paul's in London and was taken on a most wonderful tour of Winchester (the ancient capital of England), including the Cathedral where the da Vinci Code movie was filmed. While trips away can be physically and mentally demanding, and I am looking forward to returning home, my mind is thinking ahead to the next trip, such is the wealth of opportunity that presented itself over the last ten days. Here's a small selection:
    • I have been asked to address a class of Masters-level students at the University of Winchester.
    • A confidential recruiter has begun exploring the possibility of an appointment to a UK-based board.
    • An opportunity to collaborate on a research project, to explore the leadership–board nexus in multi-national companies has emerged.
    • I have been asked to make two presentations, to a board and to an executive team (two different companies), on the topic of strategy in the boardroom. 
    As a result of these opportunities (and a couple of others that I'm not at liberty to mention), I plan to return to the UK and Europe in the early Spring (probably in mid-March), hopefully with my freshly minted doctorate in hand. I expect to be based in London, and may stop over on the East Coast of the USA en route.
    If you would like to explore aspects of strategy in the boardroom, board practice or business performance; or to arrange a meeting or a presentation, please contact me directly. I can travel to any major centre in the UK, or in Western or Central Europe, if required. I look forward to hearing from you.
  • Published on

    Public consultation: OECD Principles of Corporate Governance

    Governance Performance
    The OECD is partway through a process of updating its Principles of Corporate Governance document. The current document dates from 2004. In the decade since, much about the way boards could, should or actually do work seems to have changed (although whether business performance has improved as a result of these changes remains an open question!), so an update makes good sense. A public consultation process opened on 14 November. It remains open until 4 January 2015.
    The link to the OECD's call for submissions is here. I intend to make a submission and encourage you to do so  if you are knowledgeable of corporate governance, board practice and business performance matters. The submission address is dafca.contact@oecd.org.
  • Published on

    ECMLG2014: Closing reflections

    Conferences Governance Management Performance Phd Research
    The 10th European Conference on Management, Leadership and Governance is over. The conference organiser, Academic Conferences International, and the host, VERN' University, did a great job hosting the event in Zagreb, Croatia. I now have returned to London, ahead of some meetings with researchers and business people before flying home later in the week. Some reflections on the conference:
    • Conference numbers were steady when compared to the last couple of years. However, the quality of the papers, and the quality of the questions and informal discussions was up on recent years.
    • Notwithstanding the generally high standard, several papers should never have been accepted on to the programme. The session that I chaired was one of those that suffered in this regard: one speaker mounted a personal crusade on the topic of corruption. He vehemently rebutted questions and comments from the floor during question time even though those asking the questions and making the comments had supporting references (and the presenter did not). I hope the organisers work a little harder on the review process in the future, to ensure this type problem does not occur again. It lowers the tone of the conference unnecessarily.
    • The divide between what researchers know and what practitioners think they know is wide. It seems academic researchers continue to be quite cautious in terms of their approaches to knowledge creation, and practitioners are quite cavalier (making claims without any robust supporting evidence). This is particularly apparent in the corporate governance space, where practitioners are quite happy to claim a causal link between various structural responses (women on boards, number of independent directors) and company performance, even though the research community has produced conflicting evidence in each case.
    • Personally, I was able to test several aspects of my current research, both in the paper that I presented, and informally over food and drink. The feedback was really helpful to the refinement process. Also, I received several approaches to collaborate on some projects in the future which is quite exciting.
    • I was pleasantly surprised at the state of the Croatian economy, the openness of the people, and the general condition of Zagreb. The Berlin Wall came down 25 years ago, signalling the fall of communism in central and eastern Europe. While the Croats have embraced western ways in the cities at least, they seem to have done so without losing their rich heritage. The resultant meld appears to be quite rich.
    Sharp-eyed readers will notice that I have not reflected on my own paper, or on the session that I chaired. The reason for this is straightforward. It's pretty hard to offer anything approaching an objective critique of one's own paper, and the prospect of making comprehensive notes (to inform the blog summary) when also chairing the session is 'too hard'. If you would like a report on the session or my paper, or would like any other information about the conference, please contact me.
    Next year, the conference is being hosted by the Military Academy in Lisbon, Portugal. I met Luis and Carlos when they announced the location and the date (12–13 November 2015). They are great guys and, if the professionalism and commitment they demonstrated in Zagreb is any indication, the 11th edition of the conference promises to be a fantastic event.
  • Published on

    ECMLG2014: The importance of values to performance (day 2 keynote)

    Conferences Governance Leadership Management Performance Research
    Jadranka Ivankovic, a Croatian businesswoman and VERN' University scholar, opened the second day of ECMLG 2014 with an important message: that values, and a strong values-set, are often the difference between success and failure in business.
    Speaking from an informed point of view (as a member of the Management Board of Podravka, a food manufacturing company), Ivankovic provided a timely reminder that the best strategy and management systems alone provide no guarantee of business success. Rather, successful business performance requires hard (management: plans, systems, actions, results) and soft (leadership: attitudes, values, culture, behaviours) expertise, at least.
    Ivankovic outlined how Podravka went through the process of creating, adopting and embedding a set of values in the very heart of the company. Something like 500 of the 5000 staff were directly involved, in focus groups; in informal discussions; in presentations and in communicating and championing the adopted values once they were agreed by the board. She suggested that the most successful companies are values-driven, and that if a company truly values its values set, there is actually only one boss: the values!
    While Ivankovic's message was not ground-breaking per se, it provided a timely reminder that businesses are actually constructions of people, and that without committed people, aligned to a common way of thinking, behaving and acting, then business success can be only but a dream.
  • Published on

    ECMLG2014: Boards need to start valuing information as an asset

    Conferences Governance Leadership Research
    Nina Evans, of University of South Australia, presented an interesting paper on the importance of information as an asset to business. In so doing, she commented on the difficulties that managers often have in justifying the effective management of information assets.
    Information assets are intangible resources used in business including all tacit and explicit knowledge and information that is generated by, held by and used by the business. Information assets can be stored in a plethora of forms including in a person's mind; in hard or electronic format; and, on computers or in libraries. They are one of just four classes of asset (and therefore, levers) that managers have available to drive business performance (physical assets, information assets, human assets (people) and financial assets).
    Evans suggested that if information assets are managed well, then operating costs can be significantly reduced, and business credibility can be increased. However, many managers treat information assets as being within the domain of the information technology department of businesses, and technical people often like to 'control' access. Further, while executive managers and boards often ask about the status of the other asset classes, they rarely enquire about the status of the information assets of the business. She went on to suggest that several barriers exist:
    • Lack of awareness of the value that information assets can deliver
    • Poor enabling systems
    • That information assets are highly contextual—that a piece of information might have high value today but low value tomorrow
    • Poor management and communication capability within the technology teams (particularly the CIO), to demonstrate how the effective management of information assets can enhance the achievement of business strategy and company performance
    Evans closed by sharing the results of some preliminary quantitative analysis work. She said that companies that manage their information assets well stand to gain at least $20,000 per employee per year in direct operating benefit. This means that a 1000-person company can expect to add at least $20,000,000 per annum to its bottom line, if the information assets are managed well. If this is correct, this is huge! Nina Evans and I had a preliminary conversation after her talk. It would appear that a collaborative project, to combine Evan's work with my board performance research, may well generate some useful guidance for boards and executives in the future. Watch this space!