Tags

  • Published on

    NACD announces "long-term value creation" commission

    Governance Performance Phd Research Strategy
    The National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD) has announced the establishment of a Blue Ribbon Commission to investigate the board's role in driving long-term value creation. You can read the full announcement here.
    Twenty-six "distinguished corporate leaders and governance experts" have been appointed as commissioners. Surprisingly, no corporate governance academics have been appointed. This begs the question of how the BRC intends to go about its work, and to conduct empirical research in particular. I hope the opportunity to investigate what value creation is—and how it is created—is not lost.
    I'm in two minds about this investigation. On one hand, it confirms the profession has a serious problem: that we simply don't know how boards add value or influence performance begs the question of what directors and boards actually do. On the other hand, congratulations are due to the NACD taking the bold step of commissioning the investigation. The subject is topical (in the last six months alone, I have been party to well over 100 conversations and debates on the topic of strategy in the boardroom), to the point of being somewhat personal (the subject is at the heart of my doctoral research).
    Consequently, I intend to watch developments closely especially as the commission seems to be very similar to a study undertaken last year. If asked, I will make my research findings available to the BRC.
  • Published on

    Boardroom authenticity: are director actions consistent with their claims?

    Accountability Governance Performance Strategy
    The NYSE has just published the results of its 12th annual director survey. The survey, conducted by Spencer Stuart, makes for interesting reading. For example, strategy and performance features as a "perennial concern" of respondents—directors claim a strong interest in strategy. However, the responses do not bear this out. When asked to identify board actions that are critical to company performance, the top six responses from directors were:
    Directors say they know strategy and performance is important. That's clear. So why, when directors are asked specifically, do 'monitor' and 'control' activities feature more highly? Ouch! Why are some director's actions inconsistent with their claims?
    Do you notice anything unusual these responses? Apart from reviewing the strategic plan (presumably developed by management), none are practices of strategic management at all! If the board is responsible for business performance, why isn't it directly involved in the development of strategy, or monitoring strategy implementation, or verification of business performance goals? Why don't these elements, which are crucial to any influence the board might exert on business performance (watch for my forthcoming research), feature at all?
    • Regular CEO evaluation 96%
    • Strategic plan review 91%
    • Review of bench strength 83%
    • Capital use review 83%
    • M&A analysis 73%
    • Meeting on-site managers 62%
  • Published on

    Directors, you are accountable—the Supreme Court says so

    Accountability Ethics Governance Performance
    Is the worm starting to turn? After many years of relative calm—save a small number of judgements including this example from the New Zealand finance sector—directors seem to be facing increased levels of scrutiny, including being held accountable for actions (or inaction).
    A new judgement, by the Supreme Court in England, places a stake in the ground for British companies. The seven judges determined (unanimously) that directors were responsible for their actions, and that where those actions were fraudulent directors should be held personally accountable. No doubt some directors will throw their arms up in horror, asking how they could possibly know everything in order to make informed decisions. Yet directors are responsible for the overall operation and performance of the business they govern. Therefore, directors have a duty of care to become informed before they make a decision. 
    The Jetivia–Bilta judgement provides a timely reminder to directors. Precedents have now been set in several countries. The buck stops with us (yes, I am a director too). Directors need to ponder the implications carefully. Thankfully, those who are not happy to carry the responsibility and accountability that goes with every appointment have an 'out'—they can (and should) resign.
  • Published on

    It's time to act: Boards need to focus on leadership and strategy

    Governance Performance Strategy
    Governance researchers and some more forward thinking directors have known something for a long while: that boards can add considerable value to business. However, most directors see their role on the board as being one of monitoring and compliance—to keep the chief executive honest and make sure they don't take the company to rack and ruin.
    Calls for boards to put their energy into things that actually matter—leadership and strategy—are becoming commonplace now. Here's one recent example. I have been writing about it for some time as well (see here and here for examples). My doctoral research suggests that boards that are actively involved in strategic management practices (the development of strategy in particular) are more likely to influence business performance than those that embrace the monitor and control mindset. Thankfully, the basic principles of strategy haven't changed much in 30 years, so directors should find it relatively straightforward to come to up speed—but only if they want to.
    Clearly, the drum is beating. How will you respond? 
    If you'd like to understand what an involvement in strategy might mean for your board and business, or you would like some more information, please contact me.
  • Published on

    ICAEW posts excellent discussion on capital market changes and impact on corporate governance

    Accountability Governance Leadership Performance
    The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) has recently published an informative series of documents to help directors and executives respond to changes in capital markets and how they affect the foundations of existing corporate governance frameworks. The material is great. Here's a series of links to the source documents:
    While the intended audience is the ICAEW membership, the commentaries are useful for company leaders in other jurisdictions—if not directly then certainly as discussion starters around board and executive tables. If you are based in England or Wales and have any technical questions, please contact the ICAEW. If your business is based outside the UK and you would like to organise a facilitated discussion to explore how to take advantage of the suggestions, I'd be happy to help.
  • Published on

    The uncooperative Co-operative Group

    Accountability Governance Performance
    A couple of days ago, I posted this tweet, a thinly-veiled criticism of some unseemly behaviours in the Co-operative Group boardroom. The hashtag #hubris was subsequently associated with the tweet, perhaps suggesting that others had similar concerns over what is going on. Leveraging the recent safe deposit box raid in Hatton Garden, Peter Hunt suggested that the "great Co-op Group heist" was a "mighty stitch-up". Strong words indeed. Now Jill Treanor has urged chairman Allan Leighton to reverse the board's plan to put forward three (of it's own) candidates for three vacant positions. This has all become quite messy—it smells of nepotism, egos and power games.
    That the incumbent board (or factions within the board, at least) is clinging to power by putting forward three of its own nominations for the three vacancies is hardly good practice. However, that shareholders let the board get away with it is tantamount to dereliction of the shareholder's 'duty'. 
    Normally, shareholders would be expected to contribute nominations, and then to select directors through some agreed election process. In this case, the tail (certain directors) seems to be wanting to wag the dog (the shareholders). If the shareholders are interested in the performance of the business and in certain outcomes being achieved, they need to assert some control over the nomination process. However, if the shareholders remain passive, the board is free to act as it sees fit—within the bounds of the law and the Co-operative Group's constitution, of course.
    One final point. If the shareholders do wish to act, and any of the incumbent directors resist such moves, the shareholders could consider taking the somewhat bolder step, of replacing the uncooperative directors. The good of the company is at stake after all—and let's not forget who the company actually belongs to.