Tags

  • 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

    Christmas wrappings

    Corporate Governance Director Development Family Business Leadership Speaking Engagements
    Picture
    The end of 2023 is nigh; consequently, minds have turned to end-of-year celebrations, various secular and religious festivals, and, inevitably, reflections.
    Twenty twenty-three has been a standout year for me for several reasons, not the least of which have been many expressions of encouragement, support and endorsement as I have sought to help boards govern with impact. That I have had the opportunity to contribute is a delight. But more than this, the seemingly simple fact that directors, boards, shareholders, institutions and others invite me to advise, assess, educate, speak and otherwise provide counsel, is a great honour. Thank you to everyone who has sought me during the year and entrusted your situations to me. These are cherished interactions.
    As I sit back, in these final hours of the 'business' year, I have found myself pondering 'reach'. This, a response to a question from a friend who, knowing of my recent trip to Kenya, wanted to know how many countries I had visited in 2023. When I checked back, this is what I discovered:
    • Contributions in person: 12 countries.
    • Contributions via video link: 23 countries.
    • Air miles accounts (yes, plural): 265,000km. 
    • Time out of New Zealand: 14 weeks.
    Superficially, this sounds like a busy year. And it has been. But, I hasten to add these data are neither targets nor badges of honour. They are, simply, footprints: evidence of my travels as I have sought to help boards govern with impact over the past year.
    Looking to 2024, my intent is to continue to serve—subject to boards and directors wanting guidance, of course! For now though, my objective is more selfish: it is relax, read and recharge, in readiness for what lies ahead. ​Best wishes as you close out 2023, and turn the page to reveal 2024.
  • Published on

    Ten days in the UK & Europe: A snapshot

    Accountability Corporate Governance Diversity Family Business Leadership Research Strategy Value Creation
    Picture
    I have just arrived back in New Zealand, from ten days in the UK and Europe. My meetings with directors, advisors, academics, students and directors’ institutions had two primary objectives: to listen and to share. The listening aspect was to gain firsthand knowledge of issues and opportunities; the sharing aspect to provide updates on the craft of board work and my experiences as a practicing director.
     Learnings (a few immediate observations, in no particular order):
    • Directors say they are finding it hard to distinguish between signal  and noise—that which is material to monitoring and verifying performance and progress, and that which is, essentially, argumentation from stakeholders asserting preferences with only tenuous associations with sustainable performance.
    • ESG remains 'hot', although everyone I asked said the marketplace was fracturing. Acolytes are becoming more assertive, especially in their expectations that companies prioritise net zero, climatic change response, and equity above all else. Others are less convinced, as they are yet to see any increase in company performance or alpha. The gap between the groups is growing too—adherents have started using the 'anti-ESG' moniker, in an effort to claim the high ground. Detractors have not been silent either, saying the discourse needs to move away from what they describe as ideological fervour to pragmatism and common sense. 
    • Increasingly, directors are questioning whether quarterly board meetings (common in Europe) is actually a good idea. The directors I spoke with said they find it really difficult to keep up with compliance matters, much less contribute well to strategic items. The power balance leans reasonably strongly in favour of the CEO too.
    • Calls for optionality to be removed are becoming more commonplace. (Optionality meaning all directors of companies of substance should be required to be professionally qualified, in the same way as doctors and lawyers need to achieve and maintain a relevant professional accreditation.)
    • Geopolitical turbulence is front of mind (greater in Eastern Europe than Western Europe). The situation is exacerbated by economic headwinds and energy security concerns (think: gas and electricity supplies) despite Europe emerging from a mild winter. The UK and France (in particular) are also struggling with high inflation, strikes and, in France, a proposal to raise the age of retirement. Given the uncertainties, many leadership teams have shortened their strategic horizons and some have become quite defensive.
    • The Credit Suisse bailout by UBS unfolded before my eyes—I was in Zürich the day after the failure. Like many other failures, this one came as little surprise to insiders; the company has endured scandals and criticism for some years. (My early assessment: the board appears to have been asleep at the wheel.)
    • Directors continue to struggle with what corporate governance is and how it should be practiced. Sadly, the confusion observed during this trip is as widespread as in the past. Directors' institutions have a critical role to play, to clearly and straightforwardly assert what corporate governance is and, critically, what it is not. 
    Amongst it all, there were some gems:
    • ​Several directors spoke passionately about their work, and how efforts to engage more actively, with an underlying sense of purpose, is starting to make a difference.
    • Researchers are moving focus, from quantitative studies using public data, to trying to get inside boardrooms to observe boards in action (ie: the practice of governance).
    • Advisors to General Counsels, CEOs and SME founders have recognised a different conversation is needed to appeal to boards and directors. I was pleased to offer a few insights and suggestions.
    • I had the delight of delivering a guest lecture to forty or more researchers and students at Leeds Beckett University. The Q&A was fascinating—a candid exchange with people passionate about helping boards govern well.
    Several followup visits are now being planned, to advise, assess, educate and speak on topical board and organisational performance matters. If you want to discuss a matter of interest, or check my availability to assist, contact me for a confidential, obligation-free discussion.
    The headline picture, showing a derelict property in Soho, London, is analogous to the state of governance in many places in Europe: structurally sound but outwardly messy.  
  • Published on

    Ramping up, for the year ahead

    Accountability Boardcraft Conferences Corporate Governance Family Business Performance Productivity Speaking Engagements Value Creation
    Picture
    And with little more than a blink, January 2023 is, nearly, done. January is, for me, a time to relax, reflect on the year past, spend time with family and friends, read and get ready for what lies ahead. 
    In the last ten days, things have started to ramp up again: international calls, my first board meeting for the year, and local enquiries—all indicators that minds are turning to board work and the pursuit of sustainable performance once more. ​Soon, I shall be travelling again too, in response to requests to discuss corporate governance, board work, and the role of the board in realising organisational potential.
    After a good break, I not only feel ready for what lies ahead, but excited at the opportunity to help boards and directors, academics and regulators grapple with some complex issues. The first three trips for the year are scheduled, as below—and planning is already underway for several more in the months to come.
    While events and engagements are being loaded into the diary daily, some gaps remain, mainly in Singapore and England. So, if you want to take advantage of me being in your neighbourhood, best to get in touch soon! If you want to talk or meet, but the timing doesn't suit, let me know anyway—there will be opportunities later in the year.
    Dates
    Location
    6–9 February
    Melbourne and Sydney, Australia
    12–15 February
    Singapore, Singapore
    13–25 March
    England, Scotland, Romania, Switzerland, Czechia
  • Published on

    Observations from interactions with 520 directors

    Accountability Conferences Corporate Governance Director Development Effectiveness Family Business Governance Performance Research Speaking Engagements
    Picture
    Today marks the beginning of a lull following a busy programme of international and domestic commitments since early February. Over a 110-day period, I have spent time in Australia (four times), England (twice), the US (twice), Germany (twice), Ireland, Sweden and Lithuania—and at home in New Zealand; interacting with over 520 directors, chairs and chief executives from 19 countries. Formal and informal discussions at conferences, seminars, masterclass sessions, education workshops, dinners, advisory engagements and board meetings were instructive to understanding what's currently top-of-mind for boards around the world. The following notes are a brief summation of my observations. I hope you find them useful.
    Diversity and inclusion: These topics continue to dominate governance discussions in many countries. But, and noticeably, the discourse has matured somewhat over the last six months. The frequency with which the rather blunt (and often politically-motivated) instruments of gender and quota is mentioned is starting to subside, as directors and nomination committees start to realise the importance of diverse perspectives and options to inform strategic thinking and strategising. Long may this continue, as board effectiveness is dependent on what boards do, not what they look like.
    Big data and AI: What a hot topic! Globally, boards are being encouraged by, inter alia, futurists, academics and consultants to get on board (if you'll excuse the pun) with the promise that developments in this area will change the face of decision-making and improve corporate governance. Some assert that these developments will obviate the need for board of directors in just a few years. The directors I spoke with agree that these tools can help managers make sense of complex data to produce information, even knowledge. But these same directors have significant reservations when it comes to strategic decision-making. Automated systems are poor substitutes for humans when it comes to making sense of (even recognising) contextual nuances, non-verbal cues and other subtleties. Unless and until this changes, the likelihood that boards will continue to be comprised of real people engaged in meaningful discussion remains high.
    Corporate governance codes: The number of corporate governance codes introduced in markets has been steadily rising over the last decade. Most western nations, and a growing number of Asian and developing nations, have implemented codes to supplement statutory arrangements. Many directors and institutions around the world continue to look to proclamations that the UK is the vanguard when it comes to corporate governance thinking and related guidance: the recently-updated UK corporate governance and stewardship codes are held up as evidence of good practice. While the quality of board work in the UK has improved over the last decade, a strong compliance focus continues the pervade director thinking—across the business community in the UK and beyond. The reason is stark: codes are little more than rulebooks. Further, rules don't drive performance, they define boundaries. The more time boards spend either complying with the rules or finding ways to get around them, the less time is left for what actually matters, company performance. In many discussions over the past few months, I've pointed people to the ground-breaking work of contributors such as Bob Tricker, Sir Adrian Cadbury and Bob Garratt. These doyens provided much-needed impetus to help boards understand their responsibility for company performance. The emergent opportunity for regulators and directors' institutions is to consider alternative responses to ineptitude and malfeasance: instead of creating more rules all the time, why not hold boards to account to the existing statutes, most of which seem to be eminently suitable?
    Best practice: Many individual directors (and boards collectively) are starting to move beyond 'best practice' as an aspirational goal. Further, directors and boards are demanding to hear educators and thinkers who are also practicing directors, not trainers delivering off-the-shelf courses. Context is everything. The evidence? When a director asks to explore the difference between theory and practice you know something in his prior experience has missed the mark. Practising directors know that the board is a complex and socially-dynamic entity, and that the operational environment is far from static. Directors' institutes, consulting firms and trainers need to stake stock and move beyond definitive 'best practice' claims, lest they be left behind and become monuments to irrelevance. Enough said.
    Governance remains a fashionable topic: ​If I had a dollar every time I've heard 'governance' promoted as a career in recent months, or the term used in discussions (including, sadly, often inappropriately), I would be really well off. But the act of invoking a term during a discussion is no panacea to whatever situation is being discussed. More capable directors are needed to contribute to the effective governance of enterprises, of that I am sure. But the established pattern of selecting directors from a pool of seemingly successful executives—as if a reward—is folly. The findings from a growing number of failure studies from around the world attest to this. The role of a director is quite different from that of a manager or executive. Managers and executives have hierarchical authority and decisions are made by individuals. In contrast, directors lead by influence and decisions are always collective. The challenge for those aspiring to receive a board appointment is to set their managerial mindset aside, to enable a more strategic mindset and commitment to the tenet of collective responsibility to emerge. 
    Picture
    Standing back from these interactions, the board landscape seems troubled. But I remain hopeful. Progress is being made (albeit more slowly than many would wish) and a pattern is slowly emerging. Increasing numbers of directors are acknowledging that the board's primary role is to ensure performance goals are achieved, and that the appropriate motivation for effective boardroom contributions is service, not self. 
    The challenge is to press on. If the number of requests from those wanting to understand what capabilities are needed in directors, what boards need to do before and during board meetings, and desirable behavioural characteristics is any indication, boards are getting more serious about making a difference—and that points to a brighter future. If a tipping point can be reached, arguments centred on board structure and composition that have dominated the discourse can be consigned to their rightful place: history. I look forward to that day.