Tags

  • Published on

    Making space, to grow some more

    Accountability Corporate Governance Director Development Effectiveness Monday Muse Performance Tough Questions
    Picture
    I have been watching the leaves on a potted plant go a little yellow in recent days. Something is not right; the plant has been suffering, clearly—but why? Had I been over- or under-watering it? Or have I applied the wrong amount of fertiliser? After checking with sources more knowledgeable than me (a book in my library, but also Google), the penny dropped. The plant had become root-bound, a victim of its own success. Simply, the pot had become a constraint. The resolution? A bigger pot, to provide space for the plant to thrive once more. Now, we wait.
    Boards and companies are analogous to the pot and plant in this illustration. The pot holds the plant and provides space for it to thrive and grow. Sometimes, a new pot is the change needed if the plant is to thrive. And so it is with companies: sometimes changes are needed at the board table to reinvigorate decision-making, steerage and guidance.
    Whereas plants tend to droop, go yellow or otherwise signal poor health, tell-tale signals that it might to be time to make adjustments in a boardroom tend to be visible too. Examples include:
    • Directors no longer ask probing questions—or any questions—indicating they may not have prepared adequately or simply lost interest.
    • Director expertise no longer matches that required to properly assess performance, hold management to account, or consider investment proposals.
    • The company ‘out-grows’ the director, especially in relation to complexity and required expertise.
    • One or more directors start behaving erratically, including non-attendance.
    • Relationships amongst directors or with management become fractured.
    • An action or behaviour leads to a loss of trust.
    • Emergence of conflict amongst directors.
    • Directors starting to 'die on the vine' (long tenure).
    • Strained relations with powerful shareholders (especially relevant in closely-held private companies, family businesses and PE-owned firms).
    While this list is far from exhaustive, it is indicative. Notice many of the signals (that a director is out of their depth or no longer fit to serve) tend to be behavioural. But how might any shareholder or supernumerary know the real situation given boards tend to meet and operate behind closed doors? Something might seem to be amiss, but what, and who?
    A governance assessment (note, not a board evaluation) can be a useful tool to assess the effectiveness of the board and the governance 'system', and to diagnose any underlying problems. These should be conducted annually, by a credible independent assessor. Recommendations emerging from such an assessment need to be taken seriously. Boards that dismiss evidence-based recommendations out of hand, or make cursory adjustments only (the "sweep it under the carpet and hope for the best" tactic), should take a good look in the mirror. The response is itself  a clue—defensiveness tends to confirm that all is not well. 
    When something doesn't quite seem right, check it out. Directors serve at the pleasure of shareholders, and replacement is always an option. Often, it is a very good option; sometimes, it is the best option. Normally, a simple majority is all that is required to both appoint and remove a director. To give the director the benefit of the doubt is rarely the best option. Finally, if a decision is taken to remove a director, act on the evidence quickly, but do so quietly. 
  • Published on

    On commitment: how far will you go?

    Accountability Decision Making Family Business Governance Performance Tough Questions
    Picture
    Several times in the past year, I have been asked for advice, even to intervene, in situations where relationships between board members have become strained, or shareholders have fallen out—with each other or with board members—over differing expectations around returns and/or succession. Each situation has been both complex and demanding, for they involve people and human emotion.
    The following vignettes are illustrative of the types of things that can go wrong and the ensuing behaviours of various actors:
    • ​Four directors of Christchurch City Holdings Limited have resigned following a relationship breakdown with CCHL’s shareholder, the Christchurch City Council. Reports suggest the shareholder wanted dividends paid at levels the board thought was above what CCHL could sustainably provide. Despite considerable effort to resolve the matters, four directors have decided that the demands are unreasonable; enough is enough, and they have walked away. One, Abby Foote, is an esteemed director and Chartered Fellow of the Institute of Directors.
    • A large-scale family company has been experiencing some difficulties, and several ‘next generation’ leaders think the patriarch should step aside. The company has a long history of success and balance sheet growth, and it has enjoyed a positive reputation in the market. But now, the patriarch, who thinks he is still the best person to run the business despite poor health, has become a stumbling block. The sole independent director can no longer claim to be independent either, as she has been captured by the patriarch. Family members are frustrated, and company performance is languishing.
    • The shareholders of a business active in agriculture and forestry in two countries have found themselves at odds over the future of the business. The largest livestock unit has struggled to make a profit in recent years, and the trees on the main forestry block are reaching maturity. Some brave decisions need to be made to secure the future of the business. Some of the shareholders have sought advice from a consultant, and they seem to be comfortable with the advice (to harvest the trees to fund continued dividend payments that they have come to rely on), despite a clear conflict of interest (the consultant is a shareholder of a lumber milling business that stands to gain from the harvest). Other shareholders want to engage some independent advice and take a longer-term approach to sustainable performance and value creation.
    As is typical in board and shareholder matters, options are many and resolutions are far from clear cut. What options might a capable independent director consider in such circumstances?
    • Should they try all reasonable options (such as the CCHL board appears to have done), but reserve the option of resigning if a satisfactory resolution cannot be achieved; or,
    • should they steadfastly remain loyal to the shareholder who appointed them, even if they disagree and are no longer being effective; or,
    • ​should they continue to try to achieve a resolution having noted the duties owed and fiduciary responsibility, despite the risk of legal challenge and reputational damage?
    These are questions of commitment and duty. Directors need to not only recognise this, but consider options amidst ambiguity, and work within the constraints of the law and what is ethically acceptable. Essentially, these questions ask how far a director is prepared to travel, how hard they are prepared to work, how long they might prepared to wait before enough is enough. Are they prepared to make decisions that may be unpopular or even unpalatable, because such decisions are in the best interests of the company? Will they go to the ends of the earth, so to speak? Or does the preservation of reputation rank more highly than acting in the best interests of the company—essentially, will they bail when the possibility of reputational damage arises (as several directors of Wynyard Group reportedly did just before the company failed several years ago)?
    Directors would be well-advised to have asked themselves these questions before they accept an appointment. They should also be prepared to act (step away) if the thresholds they set themselves are surpassed, or if they no longer have the expertise or courage to act.
    Of the directors you know, how many possess the wisdom and maturity to act diligently, in the best interests of the company?
  • Published on

    When things go wrong...what can be done?

    Accountability Corporate Governance Decision Making Effectiveness Family Business Governance Performance Research Value Creation
    Boards, and an oft-mentioned but mysterious concept—governance—are topical. Daily, it seems, these terms feature in our newspapers and on social media, usually because something has gone wrong. And when it does, ​the chattering class is not slow to react. Typically, the targets of their comments are the board and management of the organisation.  That seemingly strong organisations suffer significant missteps—or even, fail outright—on a fairly regular basis is worrisome; the societal and economic consequences are not insignificant. What can be done?
    Recently, the inimitable Mark Banicevich invited me to discuss boardroom success and failure, and to offer guidance that boards wanting to lift their game may wish to consider. 
    Hopefully, our discussion is helpful and enlightening. Regardless, I welcome questions and comments, either here or send me an email.
    This is my second conversation with Mark (the third will be published in May). If you missed the first, you can access it here: Governance around the world.
  • Published on

    Around the world, in twenty minutes

    Accountability Corporate Governance Director Development Governance Leadership Sustainability
    Recently, I had the great fortune to sit with Mark Banicevich, a business leader, to record a set of three fireside chats for his Governance Bites series. Mark was keen to get my take on several topical aspects of boards and governance.
    The first of the three conversations is now available to watch. (The second and third conversations in the series will be posted in April and May.) In this conversation, we explored board work in various jurisdictions, noting differences and similarities along the way. 
    While a 20-minute whistle-stop conversation is hardly sufficient to do the task justice, I do hope it encourages you to explore further, and is a catalyst for some conversations. ​
    And, may I ask... is the commentary helpful or not? What do you agree or disagree with? I'd be glad to hear your thoughts, either in the comments section below, or directly, if you prefer.
  • Published on

    The words we utter: Do they matter?

    Accountability Corporate Governance Governance Leadership Value Creation
    Picture
    As regular readers know, I read widely; topics I explore span (in addition to core themes of corporate governance and strategy) include philosophy, neuroscience, business, history, military strategy and more besides. I usually take notes, as an aide memoire for later reference. 
    Some articles are memorable, others less so. This one recently-published article piqued my attention because it reminded me of a question I face most weeks: "What do you do?" Most enquirers expect to hear a job title or a profession, to enable them to 'position' me, which is fine if the 'job' is a well-known profession or vocation, such as a doctor, teacher, plumber or lawyer. But what about a director, or an advisor? Is offering a one-word response helpful? Might it enlighten or obfuscate? 
    For those who understand the roles of director and advisor, one-word descriptors are adequate. But for others (the majority, even most?), the response is more likely to an awkward smile, as if to say, "I wonder what one of those is or does? Does he mean a company director, a movie director, an orchestra conductor, or something else?" or, "What is an advisor? It sounds like a fancy name for a consultant." What an unhelpful interaction!
    Clarity and simplicity are vital if we are to communicate effectively. And the effectiveness of what we utter—whether our message got through—is determined by the listener not the speaker.
    ​With this in mind, I try to read the person before answering. If they appear knowledgeable of business matters, I tend to say I work with boards, sometimes adding that I help them see around corners and govern with impact; an advisor. But if not, I say I'm a troubleshooter who works with business leaders, or something along those lines. One thing I never say: I'm a consultant—they are people who make decisions and implement things for others. I don't. Rather, I ask questions to gain insight and make suggestions. Whether the client takes up the advice or not is their decision. 
    So, returning to the headline question. The words we utter: do they matter? Yes, they surely do, if we are to communicate well. 
  • Published on

    For what purpose?

    Accountability Corporate Governance Decision Making Effectiveness Management Performance Strategy
    Picture
    Recently, I announced the findings of empirical research conducted over an eight year period. The aim of that research was to discover how many boards are fully aligned in relation to corporate purpose. The findings were staggering: five per cent of the participating boards—yes, one in twenty—were completely aligned in relation to corporate purpose. When asked, every director and executive had an answer, but only five boards (out of one hundred and three, to date) had one answer. How can any board do its job (make informed decisions, and provide effective steerage and guidance) if it has not first agreed on an objective (purpose) to work towards?
    Compare this situation with that of a plant. The example in the picture—echium vulgare, or, more commonly, viper's bugloss or blueweed—is as good as any. Echium vulgare, a native of Europe, is an introduced species in parts of north-eastern North America, south-eastern South America, and New Zealand. The plant is toxic to horses and cattle, but the bright blue flowers are very attractive to bees. And, despite the toxins in the plant, honey produced from the nectar is very tasty indeed!
    "So what?" you might ask. To compare a board and a plant seems a little odd. Yes, maybe, but please allow me to explain. 
    E. vulgare, like all other plants, has a single purpose, which is to grow and reproduce. All the plant's energies are dedicated to this single goal, using the resources available to it. Nothing more, and nothing less. In contrast, many companies operate without an overarching and enduring goal, as the research mentioned above shows (save to make a profit). And that begs another question: how can any organisation realise its full potential without first establishing a clearly defined and achievable goal?
    'Purpose' has become a hot topic in board, shareholder and stakeholder circles. Some have interpreted purpose to mean mission and vision: an overarching goal the company intends to achieve. Others have a different understanding—one that positions the company as a servant of society, as the question below illustrates:
    How can a company not be in the business of improving human health and making the world a better place?
    This question, posed by a US-based leadership consultant, positions purpose as a catalyst to influence or resolve an external societal or environmental situation. In effect, the underlying expectation is that the company prioritises something external and, most probably, well beyond the company's means and ability to influence, much less achieve.
    The difference between the two understandings is stark, as are the implications. Readers will, probably, gravitate towards one or other, and some may hold such strong views as to be offended by 'the other one'. And that is okay; shareholders and the board can strive to achieve whatever they want—such is their prerogative.
    What matters is that every board takes responsibility for answering the question, of why the company it is charged with governing exists. Essentially, "For what purpose?" Without this, the company will lack a North Star, and efforts to create a meaningful strategy, let alone allocate resources well and achieve high levels of performance, will be fraught. But, if purpose is clearly stated, and agreed and understood by every director and all key staff, the company will not only attain membership of a most desirable club—the Five Percent Club—the board will have established a robust foundation upon which a coherent strategy can be developed, resources allocated, decisions made, and the full potential of the company pursued. And that, I think, is a good thing.