Tags

  • Published on

    Is a functional board of directors always necessary?

    Governance Leadership Performance
    This muse is the second in an occasional series: to ask some potentially provocative questions about the prevailing assumptions that surround boards and corporate governance. (The case for diversity was the first.)​
    Picture
    The concept of a board of directors, and the practice of (typically absentee) company owners nominating representatives to look after their interests is not new. Indeed, the motivation for the concept—to protect and represent owners when ownership and control were separated—is well over a century old. However, an underlying assumption has developed alongside the core motivation, whereby a functional board (i.e., one meeting regularly and conducting 'corporate governance') is considered to be necessary if company is to grow and develop. Many consultants have successfully traded on this assumption in recent years; making a lot of money helping owners set up boards and governance practices—even though many of the boards and related practices they helped establish add little except cost.
    The statutes of most Western countries require companies to have at least two directors (although only one is needed in New Zealand). A collective of directors is called a board. A board is a necessary requirement. But what of the practices of corporate governance? What if the owners work in the business on a day-to-day business? Is the formality of board meetings, reporting and and associated practices—and the administrative overhead—actually required? What value does it add? Is a functional board of directors always needed, let alone desirable?
    When no separation exists between ownership and control, the underlying basis for formalised governance practices is not apparent: the shareholder (the owner, if you will) is directly present making decisions. Some of the tasks often associated with the board (setting direction, making major decisions, fiduciary responsibilities) are still required for sure, but these activities can readily be undertaken by the owner-manager. If an owner works directly in the business they own, and if they seek out experts (lawyers, accountants, industry experts, coaches, strategists, et cetera) for advice, what additional value is to be gained from adding the rigour of a formal governance framework? Would it not make more sense to limit the (formal) practices of corporate governance to those companies with absentee owners, and to those with aspirational owners who want share the decision-making risk?
    Please note that this is not an argument against boards for all smaller businesses. If the entity is a company, a board is required. It is the formal practice of corporate governance that may not be. ​
    I recently had the privilege of leading a strategy development session with the owner of a large logistics company. His motivation was straightforward: to establish a functional board to secure some additional expertise and to share the decision-making 'burden'. We had a great time together as we worked through the issues. To see the eyes open and pennies drop as the owner, a couple of his team and two outside advisors began to realise what might be possible with a functional board in place was a delight.
    Contrast that experience with another recent discussion. The two owners of a successful and profitable business approached me for some advice after they were told "you need a board" by a consultant (whose business is to set up boards). They could not see the benefit of establishing a formal corporate governance framework given their aspirations. (Their stated intention was to continue to work in the business for the foreseeable future.) After discussion, I suggested they consider the option of surrounding themselves with expert advisors that they call on from time to time instead. ​
    So, where does this leave us? We need to get our thinking straight: to understand when a functional board (i.e., one undertaking the practices of corporate governance) is necessary, when one is helpful, and when one is, quite frankly, a burden. Otherwise, we run the very real risk of treating the whole world as it it were a nail on the basis that we have a hammer in our hand. All that will do is squash some very capable owners under a burden of cost and compliance: a burden that they don't really need.
  • Published on

    Should we think about boards like we think about cake? 

    Governance Performance Research

    I have shared the following story twice in the last 24 hours. It resonated with those that heard it, so much so that I thought a wider audience might also appreciate it.

    My wife provides a useful sounding board for my research work. However, she tells folk that she's no governance expert. I suspect she knows way more than she lets on. Here's why. While we were on vacation recently, we chatted about my doctoral research a couple of times. One time, out of the blue, she offered this analogy:

    Aren't boards a bit like cakes? A cake only becomes a cake after the ingredients are combined and the mixture is baked. A cake cannot be explained by describing each of the individual ingredients, or even the mixed dough. Why pull something apart to explain it, when it only makes sense when it is complete? 
    I thought this was a really profound analogy. It provides a timely reminder that we need to think about boards and the context within which they operate—the company—in a holistic way, if the goal is to explain how they influence performance outcomes. A close inspection of individual attributes of boards won't give us that.
  • Published on

    On corporate governance: circa 2012 and 2014. What's changed?

    Governance Performance Phd Readings Research Strategy
    I got a little bit fed-up with writing today, so I decided to read back through Musings, to see how the corporate governance discussion has changed over the last couple of years. Sadly, many of the topics discussed two years ago are still being discussed. Sure, the prevalence of articles about boardroom performance seems to be waxing, and the number of quota-based gender proposals has waned somewhat. That a very similar set of topics is being discussed is a shame. It suggests we are making slow progress. The following muse, originally written in October 2012, illustrates the point fairly well.
    Have you noticed the rising tide of news stories about corporate governance in recent months? While some have highlighted the fraudulent behaviours of some boards and directors, most of the articles have focussed on efforts to improve the quality of governance around the world. 

    Much of the current discussion is focussed on regulation and diversity. Some regulators, including those in Singapore, believe that good regulatory frameworks are key to investor confidence. Many others, including Hong Kong's Exchange HKEx and noted academic Dr Richard Leblanc, are promoting diversity as a means of improving the quality of governance. I applaud these moves, but question whether regulation and diversity are the variables that will reliably deliver the main goal of good governance: better company performance. Regulation, for example, is a compliance tool not a growth tool. While they provide important safeguards for shareholders and stakeholders, they don't help companies to grow.

    My conclusion, having reading hundreds of research reports and peer-reviewed articles, is that behavioural factors, social context and an active involvement in strategic decision-making are far more important than regulatory, structural or composition factors. As such, this is where our efforts to improve governance performance should lie. Ultimately though, the bottom line remains the same. Shareholders—whether professional investors or small business owners—need to know that the board is fulfilling its mandate to maximise company performance. If regulation or diversity helps achieve that, then well and good. If not, then let's move our attention to other factors—quickly—for the good of our economy and society.
  • Published on

    Diversity and performance...adding some context

    Governance Performance Strategy
    Several days ago, I mused about one of the most coherent arguments for diversity that I have read for a long time—you can read it here—so much so that I applied Leigh's thesis to boardrooms. However, I forgot to include an important link to an older post that discusses some other elements that appear to be important if boards are to have an influence on the achievement of company performance outcomes. Sorry, hopefully this short post makes amends!
  • Published on

    What is "corporate governance culture", and how is it relevant?

    Governance Leadership Performance Strategy
    Ah, culture, an oft misunderstood and sometimes misrepresented word. In the last few decades, a lot has been said about culture in business. Drucker's comment, that culture eats strategy for breakfast, is widely quoted. Given the importance of strategy to the achievement of objectives, culture must be really important! 

    Many of us know about culture, but what is it? You might like to read what others think culture is before you read on, because I have just come across a rather troubling variation: corporate governance culture. Yes, that's right. Corporate governance culture. It's mentioned here. Craft makes some good points in his article, but this term seems to imply that boards have their own culture, which leaves open the possibility that the rest of the company has a different one. That doesn't sound right.

    Craft suggests that the vital relationship between culture, strategy and performance is at the heart of good governance. We nearly agree. I suggest that the vital relationship between culture, strategy and boards is at the heart of effective performance. Same elements—different arrangement. But then Craft moves on, and in so doing he loses me:
    The only way in which a company is able to ensure that it is delivering the right type of business growth is through performance analysis and appraisal.
    Really? Performance analysis and appraisal are both rearward facing activities. How does looking backward only ("the only way...") help if you want to go forward? Bob Garratt's book, The Fish Rots from the Head, tells us most of what we need to know. Culture starts at the top, in the boardroom, and it pervades outwards from there. If boards expect to influence the achievement of company performance outcomes, they need to engender a company-wide culture and wrestle directly with strategy (which is "the art of command" after all). So, let's leave cute terms like "corporate governance culture" where they belong—on the cutting room floor.
  • Published on

    The case for diversity in boardrooms

    Governance Performance Phd Research
    Over the past few years, I have read many articles propounding the benefits of diversity in the corporate boardroom. Much research has been conducted by well-regarded scholars and consultancy firms, and some great results have been achieved. Many correlations between a diversity variable (gender, race, religion, socio-economic, other) and some aspect of board or company performance have been identified. However, most of the articles also claim—either directly, or, more often, tacitly—that improved outcomes occur because the board is diverse.

    To say that company performance improves because there is a woman on the board (for example) is akin to claiming that red cars go faster because they are red. Such claims stretch things a bit far. They are also patronising to women. There is a world of difference between a correlation and causality. The debate needs to move from talking about the correlation between diversity and performance (most but not all research supports this linkage), to investigating why and how diversity is helpful to improved performance.

    One of the most coherent arguments for diversity that I have read in a long time was made by Andrew Leigh, Australian Federal MP, recently. A copy of his speech, delivered at a Progressive Policy Institute meeting in Washington, D.C., is available here. Leigh says that diversity opens hearts and minds to possibilities—a wide breadth of experience and thought is what is important, if high quality outcomes are the goal. In essence, Leigh's thesis is that better outcomes occur when diverse experiences and thought are brought to bear, not because some flavour of diversity is present. I agree. The challenge now is to apply Leigh's argument to board research, to discover what underlying mechanisms are necessary to effective governance and improved business performance.