Tags

  • Published on

    Update: Boards, gender diversity and company performance

    Accountability Decision Making Governance Performance
    The question of whether companies with gender-diverse boards perform better than companies devoid of gender-diverse boards has been debated with passion for many years now. The locus of much of the early discourse was women on boards. However, the rhetoric has matured in recent times. 
    Whether motivated by political, social or cultural ideals, the weight of opinion amongst consultants and practicing board members now points to a positive correlation between various diversity attributes (sex, gender and ethnic identity, inter alia) and company performance. But is this a reliable reflection of reality? Wittgenstein's aphorism provides a useful reminder that all may not be exactly as it seems:
    From its seeming to me—or to everyone—to be so, it doesn't follow that it is so.
    Recently, Katherine Klein, a professor of management at The Wharton School, reviewed the findings of rigorous peer-reviewed studies and meta-analyses, in search of a more complete understanding. Her conclusions, which include the following comment, paint a rather different picture from normative opinion:
    Rigorous, peer-reviewed studies suggest that companies do not perform better when they have women on the board. Nor do they perform worse. Depending on which meta-analysis you read, board gender diversity either has a very weak relationship with board performance or no relationship at all.
    Klein also discussed possible reasons and implications of her findings. Boards and nominating committees would be well-advised to read Klein's commentary, understand the nuances and contextual factors and, most importantly, debate the implications for practice.
    Postscript: Another review of the board diversity literature is available in my thesis (see pages 39–40). 
  • Published on

    The importance of culture and technology to business success

    Accountability Decision Making Governance Performance
    "In our world now, the primary mover for reproductive success—and thus evolutionary change—is culture, and its weaponised cousin, technology."
    The words in this quotation, originally published in National Geographic (*), stood out when I first read them recently. They seemed to lift themselves off the page, as if to highlight their significance. The penny dropped when I realised the quotation is applicable well beyond the [biological] world from whence it emerged. 
    Take boards of directors for example. The quotation suggests that board effectiveness (and, by implication, company performance) is more likely to be influenced by board culture and appropriate technology than any static attribute such as a particular board structure, composition or governance code. This intuitively attractive proposition enjoys widespread support in the academic literature, and case studies of actual board experiences have been reported.
    Yet board and company failures abound, which begs an awkward question. Why do some boards continue to prioritise structure and compliance (with statutes and codes of practice) over culture and technology, especially when a stronger focus on the latter is more likely to lead to increased board effectiveness and, importantly, better company performance?
    (*) D.T. Max (2017). Beyond Human, National Geographic, April 2017, p.49.
  • Published on

    The distinction between governance and management

    Accountability Decision Making Governance Performance
    Bob Tricker, named by Sir Adrian Cadbury as the godfather of corporate governance, is a hero of mine. While he did not 'invent' the term (Richard Eells did, in 1960), Tricker did do most the heavy lifting—helping all of us who followed understand what corporate governance is and, crucially, what it is not.
    Sadly, some directors, consultants and academics have lost sight of Tricker's useful guidance; wandering off to propose all manner of definitions and descriptions. Thankfully, Tricker and a few others have continued to carry the baton, periodically reminding us what corporate governance actually is. Recently, Tricker put pen to paper again, writing this short piece to call out a common mistake: of conflating governance and management. That these two terms are used interchangeably has become a real problem. ​
    A key insight from Tricker's most recent article is that corporate governance is what the board does. In contrast, management is what managers do. Sometimes, the two distinct roles (director and manager) are performed by the same person (an executive director, for example). In such cases, the person performing both roles must be diligent in the extreme, to correctly discern the particular hat they are wearing at a given moment in time. 
    Thank you for the timely reminder Bob.
  • Published on

    What will the Wells Fargo review turn up?

    Accountability Decision Making Governance Management Performance
    One of the biggest corporate news stories to break in 2016 was the Wells Fargo 'fake accounts' scandal. Many commentators, including me, wrote op-eds. At the time, I wondered whether the company had lost sight of its corporate purpose (reason for being), or if greed and hubris had permeated the corporate culture. These were speculations based on partially formed publicly-available snippets of information. Thankfully, the company initiated a far-reaching review, to try to get to the root of the problem. 
    ​Now, six months after the scandal was uncovered, the post-scandal investigation is reportedly wrapping up. Hopefully, the underlying causes will be identified, and credible recommendations to restore customer and market confidence in this once-fine brand will be presented. I look forward to reading the report.
  • Published on

    Insights from a #corpgov nomad, in the UK

    Accountability Decision Making Governance Performance Research Speaking Engagements
    This is the second of two instalments summarising observations from my recent two-week skip across Western Europe. This summary covers the UK leg of the trip. You can read the first instalment here; the European leg.
    The trip was framed around four objectives, namely, to share learnings from my recently completed doctoral research and discuss the implications for boards; fulfil some speaking engagements; discuss emerging trends with boards; and, attend a training course. After travelling between cities (actually, countries) every day during the first week, the second week was much more settled. I was based in London for two-and-a-half days for meetings at institutions and with directors. The balance of the week saw me at Cambridge University, for a training course. Here's a brief summary of the key observations:
    • Director recruitment: The criticism levelled by many aspiring directors—that many board appointments are based primarily on prior relationships and not director competency or 'fit'—remains rife in the UK. Despite a plethora of calls for more a robust process, the dominant question asked by many boards and nomination committees continues to be "Well, who do we know?"
    • Institutions: Directors' and governance institutes (including the Institute of Directors and the ICSA: The Governance Institute) continue to promote themselves as champions of board performance and director professionalism, supported by a bevy of training courses, press releases and contributions to emergent practice. However, almost half of the directors that I spoke with (most of whom are members of at least one institution) have concerns over the direction and focus of directors' institutes. They noted that institutions have become somewhat self-centred, losing sight of their stated purpose of serving the interests of members and promoting the profession. Remedial suggestions included holding directors accountable for performance and any acts of malfeasance (including de-badging miscreant members of their chartered status); moving the discourse away from populist topics to substantive matters; and, weaning boards off the notion that compliance with corporate governance codes is a valid measure of good performance. 
    • Performance: The long-held understanding that the primary responsibility of the board of directors is to recruit the chief executive and to oversee management remains the dominant logic in the UK, especially in the publicly-listed company community. Whereas many commentators and directors (including me) promote a performance-based understanding (whereby the board commits to determining and pursuing a value-creation agenda) most boards remain comfortable limiting their contribution to monitoring and controlling the performance of their chief executive.
    • Board evaluations: Directors are increasingly aware of the emergent expectations of shareholders and other stakeholders; that a periodic assessment of board performance is appropriate. However, while directors' institutes have for some time recommended that boards submit themselves to scrutiny, most directors that I spoke with indicated that they remain uncomfortable with formal external evaluations. Privately, they harbour concerns that the results may be used to expose poor practice and, potentially, be used to remove under-performing directors. Sadly, it seems that preservation (of income and status) remains the dominant logic for many directors.
    • Blueprint for Better Business: After spending a week-and-a-half delivering presentations, meeting with boards and fulfilling advisory engagements my last two days in the UK were spent at Murray Edwards College, Cambridge, at an immersion workshop run by the Blueprint for Better Business organisation. The motivation for attending was straightforward: to understand the organisation's proposition more fully, especially to determine its applicability in practice. I came away convinced, to the extent that QuarryGroup will become a facilitator of the blueprint to businesses in Australia and New Zealand (at least) from 1 May onwards.
    If you would like to know more about these observations, please get in touch.
  • Published on

    Insights from a #corpgov nomad, in Europe

    Accountability Decision Making Governance Performance Research Strategy
    In the last two weeks I have visited six countries spread across three timezones; slept in seven different beds; experienced snow, sunshine and rain; attended an intensive training course at Cambridge, one of the world's top universities; delivered six formal presentations; and, participated in more than 50 significant discussions about organisational purpose, corporate governance, strategy and board effectiveness. It's been invigorating! Along the way, I've been fortunate to gain many insights, a few of which are summarised in the points below:
    • The understandings of corporate governance and expectations of boards in Europe is changing. Whereas the focus in the past has been on ensuring management did its job well (an agency-based perspective), the boards and directors I spoke with indicated that they are starting to wrestle with the challenge of understanding the purpose of the company and how the value-creation mandate might be fulfilled. Several folk added that their usage of the term 'corporate governance' has changed, returning to the early usage: a descriptor for what boards (should) do when in session (i.e., in board meetings).
    • Related to the first point, boards in several European countries (well, in Belgium, Netherlands and Finland anyway) are starting to think more carefully about the longer-term implications of their decisions. This is in stark contrast to the short-termism that continues to pervade US and Canada boardroom and shareholder culture.
    • De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB, the Dutch Central Bank) is increasingly taking a formative view of supervision, expecting financial institutions to not only demonstrate compliance with established statutes and codes, but also to demonstrate how value is being added to the banking community and beyond in the future.
    • Many people (both in public forums and private conversations) volunteered that diversity is important if boards are to make high quality decisions. However, the same people quickly added that their usage of the term meant diversity of thought, not gender or any other observable form of difference between group members. 
    • KPMG, IIA and people from several other Finnish agencies were very interested in the implications of the proposal that board involvement in strategy is good for both effective board practice and business performance. It seems that the findings from my doctoral research hit a spot, with both strong support and many questions about the mechanism-based model of corporate governance and the opportunity the model presents to help boards understand how influence can be exerted from the boardroom.
    These are but five significant insights to emerge. If you'd like to know more, please get in touch. 
    This is the first of two postings, covering the first week of my nomadic journey. Here's the second instalment.