- Published on
Morally-accountable governance?
Much has been made in recent weeks of the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Social and mainstream media has been awash with commentary, both about the situation on the ground, and of various moral and ethical issues arising, not to mention significant geopolitical and balance of power impacts.
The Western world has rallied in support of Ukraine. Governmental–, corporate– and community–level responses have been announced and taken including accepting refugees, providing humanitarian support, and organising fund-raising and community support. Governments have imposed economic and trade sanctions as well. Many companies have decided to withdraw from the market. Others have chosen to remain, for a variety of reasons. Some, who initially held the line, have subsequently changed their mind after feeling the effects of a backlash. Directors have resigned from boards too, signalling they have no interest in continuing to serve on the boards of Russian companies.
To say the situation is fluid and outlook is uncertain is an understatement. In cynefin–speak, the appropriate descriptor is 'chaotic', meaning rapid response is appropriate: searching for the 'right' answers is futile.
Despite the ambiguity and uncertainty, directors must continue to make decisions, to govern. In a crisis, most boards, rightly, focus on the here and now. Strategy and strategic initiatives are put to one side, and accountability may languish too. All available resources are applied to understanding and stabilising the situation.
But after the heat has subsided and the situation is brought under control, boards need to take stock. They owe a duty of care (to themselves but also shareholders and legitimate stakeholders), for both their actions and those of management. Were the decisions made and actions taken during the crisis appropriate given the information to hand and prevailing situation at the time?
The review may find the board operated within statutory and regulatory boundaries, and that decisions taken in averting the crisis were reasonable. But what if decisions and actions are found to have crossed moral or ethical boundaries? Where should accountability lie? The question of moral accountability cuts across personal and professional reputation, organisational culture, and market confidence.
And to the future, where should the board's moral compass point, what conduct is appropriate, and how should the board's actions be assessed?
- What moral standard should directors be held accountable to (if any)?
- What might morally-accountable governance look like, in practice?
A specific one I am struggling with is that of security at the work/ home barrier. The pandemic normalised home working for highly vetted and security cleared individuals where their workings, machines, data and access would not have been allowed outside of the company/ government walls before. The work environment whilst at home had a barrier to unknown and unvetted individuals.
With the Ukraine conflict creating millions of refugees, most humans want to do their part, including opening their homes. Humanity is something that is very special.
However, statistics show that there will be bad actors who will take advantage of this, trying to get in as refuges into homes where the individuals work with high security clearances.
What do we do, what can we do, should we do anything?
By extension, should we revisit trades and other services who have regular access to homes where secure work now takes place from. How do we know our supply chains believes and implements the same policy we do?
I'm no expert on the technicalities of things-cyber, so wont comment further. However, I've alerted a couple of people who are leaders in the field. Hopefully, they'll add insight soon.
On the more general level, connectedness seems to be necessary if humanity is to thrive. To isolate is to die. Historically, connectedness as achieved by being together and sharing information in verbal or written form. In the last 150(?) years, electronic means of communication have been added. Smart people and smart organisations recognise 'bad' actors may appear, so they erect defences to protect themselves. This is far from new... humans have sought to defend themselves since the birth of civilisation. The challenge, of course, is to ensure the barriers are appropriate given the situation.