Tags

  • Published on

    Is gender reporting the right thing to focus on?

    CEO Chairman Decision Making Diversity Governance Phd Productivity Research
    The debate surrounding the benefit of women on boards is starting to heat up. Eight days ago, NZX announced it's decision to require gender diversity reporting for all publicly listed boards. Yesterday, an article by Richard Baker asserted that "gender diversity is not essential to the good running of major companies". Today, Denis Mowbray challenged the NZX proposal. He said it is "intellectually lazy" to isolate a single characteristic (like gender).

    I agree with Baker and Mowbray. Governance is a socially dynamic phenomenon, with many variables and much complexity. Numerous researchers and practitioners have investigated structural and composition factors over many years. More recently, world-class governance researchers, including Leblanc, Huse and Nicholson, have investigated behavioural and process factors. To date, the research findings have been inconclusive, and causality with performance is yet to be established.

    Despite flights of fancy from some commentators, slow progress by researchers, and much frustration all round, the search for a link between governance and company performance is of enormous practical importance. Therefore, efforts to understand the mechanisms within the governance phenomena, and any relationship with company performance, must continue. However, the research agenda much be changed. Attention must move away from consideration of individual characteristics—toward a holistic consideration of governance—if further insights are to be gained and any clear understanding is to be achieved.

    My doctoral research efforts attempt to build on Leblanc and Nicholson's work. I plan to use a longitudinal multiple-case study approach (to understand the processes, behaviours and dynamic interactions within the governance system) to focus on the way Boards make decisions. Strategic decision-making has been postulated to be an important factor in the governance–performance relationship. If this is correct, a link between a strategic decisions and subsequent improved company performance should be apparent, after some longitudinal delay. The challenge will be to determine whether or not strategic decision-making can be attributed to the Board.

    So where does this leave us? I certainly don't have any silver bullets, and progress is likely to be frustratingly slow. Boardroom diversity is important, however I suspect a focus on decision-making and related factors will reveal more about board performance than arguments about the number of women at the board table. Let's push on.

  • Published on

    Too many irons in the fire?

    Chairman Corporate Governance Effectiveness Governance Integrity Research Time Management

    Periodically I hear directors introduce themselves with "I'm a professional director". Sometimes, they add "I sit on NN Bboards", where NN could be as high as eight or even ten (boards). Wow. Presumably this means all of their income comes from director fees, and somehow more Boards is better or more prestigious. Am I impressed? Not really.

    The core role of any director is to maximise the performance of the company they serve. But how can they do this effectively if they spread their time across as many as eight or ten boards? Ten boards means a maximum of two days per company each month. In this scenario, how can any director possibly understand the issues and strategic options sufficiently well to contribute effectively around the board table? 

    Governing a company is demanding. It takes time to understand the issues. Can a director have too many irons in the fire? The stories starting to emerge in the media suggest the answer is a clear "yes".

  • Published on

    The Three C's of Effective Boards

    Accountability Chairman Corporate Governance Governance

    Earlier this week I attended a dinner function with 16 others, to hear a well-regarded Director and Chairman share his thoughts and experiences about leading the Board of a high-growth company. Amongst some great insights, he suggested three areas that Boards of high-growth companies need to focus on closely:

    • Capital: Boards need to ensure the company has sufficient capital to fund its growth plan. Otherwise, growth will be limited by available funds, and that inevitably means slower growth, and may mean important market opportunities are missed.
    • Capability: Boards need to ensure the company has sufficient people capability to execute its growth plans. That means recruiting a CEO capable of leading the company effectively, both now and in the future. It also means encouraging the CEO to recruit high capability people into key roles, lest the growth of the company outstrip the manager's ability to execute.
    • Culture: Driving growth is often hard work, so everyone needs to be on-board. The Board needs to ensure (through the CEO), that everyone is working to the same goal, and that they are signed up to an agreed set of brand/company values. People who can't sign up should be given the opportunity to "get off the bus".

    Sounds easy on paper! What do you think?