Tags

  • Published on

    Company Director: a profession in waiting?

    Accountability Corporate Governance Governance Performance Tough Questions
    Picture
    The professionalisation (sorry, a horrible word) of governance has been a topic of discussion for many years. Some directors, when describing what they do, prepend the adjective form of the word, to indicate their full-time paid work is a [company] director, and to indicate their commitment to 'professional' standards (the implication being that some are not). Others abhor such usage.
    Many directors are diligent and highly engaged in their work. So why the felt need to professionalise? Studies of company and board failures reveal a consistent pattern of contributory factors, including hubris and overconfidence among directors; low levels of board-management transparency; lack of a critical attitude, genuine independence, appropriate expertise and relevant knowledge in the boardroom; and, tellingly, low levels of commitment by directors. Consequently, public confidence is mixed.
    If the practice of governance is to become highly regarded, standards need to be lifted and applied. But can or should governance (that is, the practice of directing) be elevated to the status of 'profession', as medicine, law and accountancy are? And what, exactly, is a professional director? How is one different from an 'ordinary' director (or any other type of director)? What difference might professionalism make? Are better outcomes any more likely? In considering these questions, let's first define some terms:
    • A profession is a paid occupation, especially one that involves prolonged training and a formal qualification. Members possess special knowledge and adhere to ethical standards.
    • Professionalisation is the action or process of giving an occupation, activity or group professional qualities, typically by increasing training or raising required qualifications.
    • A professional is a member of a profession. Typically, they are required to profess commitment to a code of ethics, and apply their knowledge in the service of others. 
    Individuals wanting to become a medical doctor, for example, must first successfully complete several years of university-level training, after which they become a trainee intern, are provisionally registered and start to practice. A commitment to the Hippocratic oath is necessary. Doctors are also required to formally register with an approved institution, pass professional member- and fellow-level exams and complete approved professional development (on-going). Usually, a formal disciplinary process is available if an individual is found to have flouted professional standards. Law is similar, and accountancy too. On this measure, it's clear that doctors (and lawyers and accountants) are professionals; stakeholders (patients, clients) can have confidence in their work.
    But what of directors and governance? Two observations are relevant. First, almost anyone can become a director, and do so with no training! In most jurisdictions, any person over a specified age (18 years old in New Zealand), who is not an undischarged bankrupt nor is before the courts, may become a director. That's it! There is no mandatory training requirement, nor is membership of a professional body or ongoing professional development necessary. Second, many directors' institutions around the world have, over the past few decades, sought to promote governance as a profession. Their good work has resulted in charters being established, and members being invited to commit to ongoing professional development and to operate in accordance with a code of ethics. But these well-intended efforts have been met with mixed success to date. Optionality seems to be part of the problem. Variable quality training programmes, and ambiguity around the primary purpose of the institution appear to have been contributing factors too.
    If governance is to become recognised as a profession, as many have argued is needed, minimum standards need to be instituted, and optionality withdrawn. Prospective directors should be required to complete approved (formal) training and pass exams; serve as an intern; gain (and maintain) formal membership of an approved institution; and commit to continuing professional development. Flawed understandings of the role of the director and what corporate governance is and how it should be practiced need to be corrected too, and the power games, hubris and ineptitude apparent in some boardrooms rectified.
    But, in the end, the question of professionalising governance remains contentious. Some experienced directors don't see the need, believing they are competent. Others don't want to be scrutinised. And some directors and observers continue to argue fervently in favour, because they think the likelihood of better outcomes should be much higher.
    What do you think?
  • Published on

    On slowing down: From speed to success

    Accountability Corporate Governance Decision Making Effectiveness Governance
    Picture
    I returned today from two overnight trips (both were to attend board meetings, meet shareholders and discuss various company matters with management). It was great to get out and about again—to sit together around a board table, meet staff and see the businesses operating following the constraints imposed by the Covid-19 lockdown.
    While I was away, a Netherlands-based colleague sent a note saying she'd just started reading through Musings, from the beginning. Why someone would go back and read all of my writings since March 2012 is beyond me, but she has chosen to do so. She said that while many writings resonated, one piece in particular stood out as being as relevant today as when it was first written, in 2012.

    Amongst other things waiting for my attention [having arrived overnight] was an article originally posted by Tony Schwartz on the HBR Blog Network. The article set me thinking. Why are we, in this so-called modern age of productivity, so busy trying to fit so much in to our lives? We use electronic diaries to keep track and save time, but they've come to rule our lives. We seem to be constantly running; going faster, but getting nowhere. If I drive down the road quickly, my attention is devoted to the road. I don't see the wider vista, just the road. I drive to the view immediately in front of me. And guess what? I stand a real chance of missing vital turning points.

    Have you ever wondered why car rally drivers have navigators beside them? Simply, they are driving too fast to also concentrate on bigger things like overall direction and goal.

    According to Schwartz, “Speed is a source of stimulation and fleeting pleasure. Slowing down is a route to depth, more enduring satisfaction, and to excellence.” This is profound stuff. What do you aspire to? Speed and all its short-term trappings? Or significance? Perhaps it is time to slow down and find out.

    Chantal's comment, and my subsequent re-reading of this piece, set me thinking once again about the impact of speed and busyness on decision quality.
    How can any director make effective contributions in the boardroom if they are so busy, or moving so quickly, that they do not have time to consider the wider context? The prospect of an electronically-enabled world sounds enticing to many. But is it built on a solid foundation? Are board decisions any better than before?
    Directors owe a duty of care to ensure the enduring success of the company governed. For that, they need to create space to think deeply and critically about longer-term options. They ignore this maxim at their peril.
  • Published on

    Towards more effective decision-making

    Accountability Corporate Governance Decision Making Effectiveness Governance
    Picture
    Earlier this week, I had the privilege of framing a discussion on board decision-making with a group of board directors and Digoshen Impact Partners. (Digoshen is a global learning platform to empower experienced and aspiring directors.) The following comments summarise the key points mentioned during this week's session.
    At the core, the board of director's main job is to ensure the performance of the enterprise it governs. For that, the board needs to consider information, ask questions and make decisions, strategic decisions. This sounds straightforward. But many boards struggle; and more so in a highly-dynamic environment. For example:
    Given these research findings, it's little wonder effectiveness is low. The seemingly unending trail of missteps and company failures tells a sorry story. But boards have options; they hold the ultimate decision-making power and, therefore, are by no means powerless. Boards intent on achieving high levels of decision effectiveness may wish to embrace the following suggestions (discussed during the session):
    • Preparation and managing expectations: Directors need to prepare well, which includes reading papers carefully, and making other enquiries and asking questions in advance of the meeting. Also, the board chair should ensure adequate time is allocated during the meeting, for healthy debate.
    • Check alignment: Directors need to consider how the proposal to be decided upon fits with the company’s purpose and strategy, and what benefits will ensue. (This assumes the company has an agreed purpose and strategy, and that it is understood and resourced. Many don’t.)
    • Analyse consequences carefully: Directors need to think holistically. Check several perspectives (and the consequences), to ensure the effects and impact of the decision are known before the decision is taken. Also check the costs and impact of not making a decision, and the 'do nothing' option. Some options that look initially, may be detrimental over the longer term.
    • Committees: The assessment of a proposal by a committee of the board is useful to ensure a more robust analysis and recommendation, leaving the full board to concentrate on higher-level risk and alignment questions.
    • Appoint a devil's advocate: Allocating the advocatus dialobi role ahead of a debate can help ensure assumptions, biases and various points of view are challenged. The board chair needs to remain alert during such discussions however, to ensure vigorous debate does not descend into conflict between directors.
    • Be prepared to postpone: Sometimes, it's good (even necessary) to postpone a decision until better information is available or directors have had more time to ponder options and implications.
    • Trust is fundamental: An open, trusting culture amongst directors is crucial, to support the exploration of multiple perspectives and high quality debate in the boardroom. Tension between directors is OK, conflict is not.
    • Decisions are always collective: The board is a collective of directors, and decisions are taken by the board, not individuals. Therefore, all directors need to agree with the decision—or offer their consensus at least. If any lesser threshold is applied, cliques may form and the effectiveness of the board as a tight unit will be compromised. Directors who cannot agree to support a decision after it is made need to consider leaving the board.
    • Monitor and verify: Post-decision reporting requirements need to be clearly defined before the decision, so that the board and management clearly understand how progress will be monitored, and how if the expected benefits (from the decision) are being realised, or not.
    One final point. Boards are social groups that operate within a stratified social setting, the company and more broadly the wider marketplace. Thus, the actions and outcomes that follow are contingent on many external factors. Things can (and do) change quickly. Therefore, boards need to keep their eyes open, to ensure they have contextually relevant information to hand to make an informed decision; and to remain diligent after the decision, to ensure the expected benefits of the decision are in fact realised.
  • Published on

    Governing at distance: one director's experiences

    Decision Making Effectiveness Governance Performance
    Picture
    The rapid spread of the COVID-19 virus has shaken communities and commercial activity around the world, to the very core. Since late February, strict restrictions on human movement both between countries and, now, within communities have been imposed, in the hope of containing the virus and, in one case, of eradicating it. The scale of the impact on lives, social structures and economic activity has yet to be measured, but it will be large, I suspect. The scars will remain tender for some time in many cases. 
    Unsurprisingly, many people have been inventive in response to the situation they now find themselves in. Neighbours are meeting at a distance, and internet traffic has grown exponentially as people have taken up online entertainment options and relied heavily on social media to keep in touch with each other. All of this is to be expected; humans are social beings, after all.
    The vacuum left from the pausing of economic activity has been filled by creative thinkers and opportunists offering all manner of webinars, 'best practice' check lists and other forms of guidance to help individuals, groups and businesses reconfigure their lives and businesses. The Internet is now awash with them. Some are well-informed and helpful, but most of the ones I've seen are little more than attention-seeking noise.
    My own work patterns have changed too, mainly as a result of the restrictions on movement now in place. These include using electronic communications tools such as video conferencing in place of in-person board, coaching and other client meetings; and the telephone and email to keep in touch with colleagues and clients. The following points summarise my experiences as I have sought to govern at distance this past month:
    • Online board meetings are hard work. Zoom has become, overnight, 'the' tool of choice for teams and workgroups who need to meet together. I have used zoom many times since the lockdown, including numerous one-on-one interactions, two board meetings, a panel interview and discussions associated with a CEO recruitment. The one-on-one interactions and the panel interview were very productive. But the board meetings were more demanding: one was reasonably productive, the other was hard going. Let me explain:
      • In one board meeting, the chief executive, board secretary and directors all connected in from different locations—no two people we seated together. This meant that everyone was interacting with the computer screen. Also, the participants all know each other well; they are a tight unit, underpinned by high levels of trust and confidence in each other. The meeting was three hours long (a little shorter than the normal in-person meeting). The shorter-than-usual agenda was dominated by matters associated with the crisis, and the chair stopped the meeting every hour so participants could stretch, grab a drink and use the bathroom. These things (everyone connecting remotely, a tight agenda, comfort breaks, trust and confidence) laid a foundation for a focussed discussion and some good decisions. However, looking at a computer screen for three hours was both physically and mentally demanding, especially when using headphones or earbuds. My concentration reserves were exhausted by the end of the meeting. Also, interaction between the chair and board secretary, who normally sit beside each other, required a few conscious interruptions, whereas normally such exchanges did not interrupt discussion at all.
      • In the other meeting, the chair and one of the directors were located remotely from the remainder of the directors and the business manager. Some of the directors had not previously used video-conferencing in a group situation. The directors seated together looked at the computer screen when the chair was speaking, but otherwise they tended to look and interact with each other. Also, the computer screen the group was using was located in an open office space. While no one else was in the room for much of the meeting, three or four people did pop their heads in and, once, a person used the room as a thoroughfare. The two main observations from this experience were that the two directors located away from the others did not engage as fully as they normally do, and that interaction quality was compromised due to both the unfamiliar surroundings and the interruptions. 
    • Technical challenges can get in the way. Brief sound delays or video outages break meeting flow, and people, naturally, loose concentration quickly. If distortion and background noise are to be minimised, good equipment and connections are a 'must'. I've also found that if people place their laptop or tablet (or, worse, their phone) on a table-top, the result can be disconcerting—the view up people's noses makes concentration difficult! It is far better to place the device on top of a box or pile of books to lift the camera to eye level. 
    • ​Most things take (me) longer. I have led three video conference meetings in the last week or so, two of which were scheduled board meetings. Though unintended, my behaviours were a little bit different from that in in-person meetings. Differences included summarising the discussion more often; calling on people by name to draw them out (normally, a visual cue was sufficient); and adopting a more formal approach to meeting protocols, especially moving and putting resolutions. Consequently, meeting flow was impaired somewhat, relative to in-person experiences at least.
    • Business productivity is down, not up. Managers have told me that everyday interactions are proving more difficult as a result of people being in different locations, and that supply chains are not running smoothly because movement is restricted (despite logistics being named as an essential service). Also, operational staff are taking more care as they go about their work; observing distancing (curiously the 2m distance requirement is often closer to 3–4m in practice!) and personal hygiene protocols. Consequently, goods are not arriving when expected and business processes are taking longer than normal, with the follow-on impact on productivity.
    • Most boards will (probably) revert to type. ​The human condition is driven by social interaction—we are not created solitary creatures. Yet the COVID-19 outbreak has forced us apart—social distancing (actually, physical distancing as I noted several days ago). Various correspondents have predicted that working from home will become normal, permanently; and that videoconferencing will supplant in-person exchanges. I am not convinced of either. The human need to be together is too powerful. Also, communication effectiveness is constrained when you can't see another person's eyes or gestures, or have a brief side discussion with a colleague. Almost all of the directors and executives I have spoken with over the past ten days have said they are looking forward to returning to a level of normalcy, which, for them, specifically means in-person interactions.
    One final point. These are my experiences. Some may be familiar, others less so. Regardless, if you have any questions or comments, please get in touch. If you are prepared to add your experiences, as similar or different as they may be, I'd be delighted to hear them and am sure others would be too. Please leave a reply below.
  • Published on

    Sunlight, and the insolvency line

    Accountability Corporate Governance Effectiveness Governance Tough Questions
    Picture
    The global onset of the COVID-19 virus has precipitated a wide range of reactions in the community, from ambivalence to anxiety. Many governments have stepped in to support their citizens. Some have imposed community-wide lockdowns and social distancing protocols in an effort to break the spread of the contagion; others have implemented rigorous testing and quarantine regimes to identify and isolate those affected.
    Business leaders have been considering their options too. Working from home has become a 'thing', as has the use of video conferencing and other online tools. Amongst the many responses, one in particular caught my eye this week: proposals by the directors' institutes of several countries—notably Australia, New Zealand and Britain, and Germany and others as well—to temporarily suspend director liability in the case of insolvency.
    Superficially, this sounds like a reasonable idea. When a force majeure event strikes, the impact on sales, working capital and jobs may be very significant. The effect may be immediate, especially if the company is prevented from trading due to a lockdown. If the affected company cannot restructure its cost base, draw on financial reserves or secure finance quickly, business continuity will be at risk. Insolvency may follow, and all jobs will be lost. Thus goes the argument. But on the flip side (there always is one), the suspension of director liability and allowance to trade whilst insolvent may open the door for abuse, despite the honourable intention of keeping the economy functioning. ​
    Insolvency has always been a red line for boards and companies. This proposal makes it porous, by absolving directors of responsibility for trading while insolvent. Some questions worth considering as lawmakers assess the proposal:
    • What is an acceptable level of insolvency, both in financial terms and time?
    • How will the suspension of liability provisions be monitored and policed?
    • How will any suspected abuses be detected and dealt with?
    • How will the judiciary distinguish between a crisis-induced insolvency, and one resulting from recklessness?
    • When the COVID-19 scare has run its course and a level of normalcy is reached again, will the proposed provision be removed, promptly and in full? Or will a further period of grace be allowed?
    ​While a force majeure event can catch even the most well-run companies out, those with strong balance sheets and highly-engaged boards are better placed to respond well. They probably do not need the protection of the proposed provision, because they are more likely to have a robust risk assessment and mitigation framework in place, and strategic risks will have been assessed at most board meetings. ​But those companies being run close to the wire, or with inadequately engaged boards or weaker systems, may be caught flat footed. And if they are, what then? Should directors be protected, or be held to account? ​
    Lawmakers need to tackle these types of questions, and resolve ambiguities thoroughly. If they don't, expect scurrilous directors to exploit the inevitable loopholes—to defend against other, board-induced, problems such as ineptitude, incompetence, negligence or malfeasance, for example. ​
    Enquiry is appropriate, regardless of the catalyst, because sunlight, as they say, is a great disinfectant.
  • Published on

    Governing well, in the face of a crisis

    Accountability Corporate Governance Decision Making Governance Performance Value Creation
    Picture
    Information (and mis-information) about the spread of COVID-19 around the world is clogging our airwaves, inboxes and social media feeds as quickly as the virus itself is spreading. But amongst it all, there are some things we can hold as self-evident. Many people are suffering, some are dying. New phrases are entering the lexicon, such as, social distancing (should be physical distancing, I think) and self isolation. Governments are responding with a variety of controls to limit movement. Borders have been closed, and lockdowns are being imposed in some areas. Airlines have reduced capacity, grounding fleets. Many businesses, especially SMEs, are in turmoil. People are on edge—lives have been put on hold.
    While COVID-19 has spooked many people, not to mention the stock markets and wider economy, life must go on—and it will, albeit with some adjustments, of course.
    The challenge for those who direct the affairs of companies—boards—is one of governing well in the face of what is, patently, a very different environment from that which existed even two weeks ago.
    Businesses face continuity and safety risks every day. Routinely, staff and managers spot, assess, prioritise and respond to operational risks every day; that is their job. But when risks have strategic implications (i.e., an occurrence is likely to have a major effect on strategy execution, future business success or even company viability), the board must become involved. COVID-19 is one such risk. The board needs to understand the potential short- and longer-term impact (using information from credible sources and tools such as scenario planning, for example), consider various options and make informed decisions.
    Some practical questions that the board may wish to consider include:
    • Has management made changes to the work environment (including remote working options, physical barriers, closing sites, etc.) to ensure the safety of all staff, customers, suppliers and any visitors?
    • What additional financial resources need to be released to support continued business operations, and how will they be provided?
    • What is the likely impact on short- and longer-term income, and do any adjustments need to be made to reduce operating expenses (including, potentially, suspending or releasing staff) to maintain viability?
    • What capital projects can be deferred to release funds to support working capital demands?
    • ​Should the board itself use on-line meeting or video conferencing tools instead of meeting in person?
    • Should the board meet more frequently, rolling its sleeves up in support of management and for more timely decision-making?
    One final point. COVID-19 is no longer a strategic risk. It is upon us. Boards everywhere need to deal with it as well as they can, given the most reliable information available, with the best interests of the company to the fore. That means providing close support to management; more so if big decisions are needed, such as releasing staff or partial closures. However, and most importantly, boards should not panic. Neither should the board react to suggestions being advanced by some that an event such as the COVID-19 outbreak should be seen as a catalyst to redefine corporate governance. Corporate governance remains corporate governance—the means by which the company is directed and controlled. What might be appropriate though is a review, to consider how the board practices corporate governance. But that should wait until the current crisis in in hand. Fix the problem first, then learn from it.