The 33rd Governance Institute of Australia national conference was held in Sydney recently. Previously, the Governance Institute (GIA) was known as Chartered Secretaries Australia, an outpost of the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators (ICSA). The name change, implemented several years ago, implies that the body is moving beyond serving the company secretary as its core constituency. 
Picture
I attended to observe; meet others; serve as a panelist (topic: The pursuit of productivity, see picture); debate topical challenges for boards; and, learn more about the practice of corporate governance, especially the GIA's role in encouraging boards in their value-creation mandate. As this was my first GIA conference, some post-conference reflections are appropriate:
  • The conference was somewhat smaller than I expected. Whereas over 450 people attended the New Zealand Institute of Directors' conference in 2016, the GIA conference attracted fewer than 200 'governance professionals' (more on this term below). The paucity of company directors was also surprising, especially given the GIA's claim to be "the only independent professional association with a sole focus on whole-of-organisation governance".
  • During the conference, I asked several people about the term 'governance professional'—my presumption being that it is a reference to the role of director and, possibly, an attempt to differentiate the GIA from the Australian Institute of Company Directors. However, this did not seem to be the case. While not excluding directors, the intention is to embrace a far wider group of people and roles—risk managers, company secretaries and other staff who perform reporting, compliance and administative activities; those who are "not served by the AICD" as one person politely suggested.
  • The repositioning of governance as a whole-of-organisation phenomenon is curious, especially when corporate governance is understood to describe the structure and functioning of the corporate polity (i.e., the board of directors) or, as Sir Adrian Cadbury so ably wrote, "the means by which companies are directed and controlled".  Why the GIA has chosen to extend the understanding of governance well beyond the boardroom to include functions of management, operations and leadership is something that remains unclear (to me at least). However, I will continue to watch developments with interest.
  • The GIA, like the IoD, IoDNZ, AICD, NACD and a growing number of commentators now advocate the board's role in ensuring company performance. However, the frequent use of 'governance frameworks' and compliance-oriented language during the conference served to undermine this aspiration somewhat. It suggested that the mindset of many remains planted in conformance—when 'corporate governance' is uttered, many still internalise the tasks of 'monitoring' and 'compliance'. Clearly, more work is needed if boards, directors and managers are to embrace the value-creation mandate of boards. 
  • The speakers assembled by the conference organisers were, in general, fantastic. Most delivered insightful commentaries and updates on topics of interests to directors and company secretaries. The audience also had the opportunity to engage speakers and panelists, which seemed to be appreciated.
  • The conference was well-organised (one of the better ones that I have attended in recent years). The adoption of a conference app (something I haven't experienced before) was a novel and useful development—delegates could simply reach fo their smartphone or tablet rather than fumbling pieces of paper and lugging a heavy conference pack around. 
  • Toby Travanner's contribution as conference emcee was outstanding. Organisers of other Australian-based conferences who are looking for a top-shelf front-man should consider Toby.
In sum, the conference revealed some interesting insights (see summaries in other blog entries below) and attendance was well worthwhile. However, I couldn't help but wonder whether the organisers missed an opportunity—to engage the group that actually carries ultimate responsibility for company performance; company directors.  If the GIA is to make further progress towards its stated purpose, it is vital that company directors are active participants in the discourse.