Tags

  • Published on

    AI: a satisfying elixir, a fizzy diversion, or something else?

    Artificial Intelligence Capitalism Chairman Complexity Corporate Governance Decision Making Effectiveness Entrepreneur Performance Research Tough Questions
    Image description

    This is the first of three articles to be posted on consecutive Fridays through July. Read on to learn about PwC's research(*) on board work and director contributions, and how boards intent on governing with impact might respond to identified gaps.

    Much has been made about artificial intelligence in recent times; familiarity growing to such an extent that ‘AI’ has become ubiquitous, a word in and of itself. Expectations are sky high, that is clear. But what of competency, application, and, crucially, return on investment and beneficial outcomes?

    Over the past 12–18 months, almost every speaking invitation I have received, and every request to curate a capability-building workshop or provide advice, has included, in some way, an expectation that I’d comment on AI in the boardroom. Whether expressed as AI governance, AI powered board decisions, the AI director, or some other variant, folk seem to be rushing, headlong to embrace AI.

    That this is happening is self-evident: just look at social media feeds and newsletters from directors’ institutions. But board directors are not lemmings: they need to think critically about their work (which is, to provide effective steerage and guidance—govern with impact) and their duty to take the company into the future, not run headlong into whatever might be around the corner. 

    PwC's research suggests that, while AI is top of mind in most boardrooms and expectations are very high, some major gaps are starting to become apparent. For example:

    • Currency gap: Over one third of directors surveyed (38%) say they lack adequate education on AI developments, and nearly half (43%) say their top concern is keeping up with the pace of change. 
    • Impact gap: Only 12 per cent of CEOs say they have successfully reduced costs and increased revenues as a result of AI deployments; over half (55%) have seen no progress on cost reduction or revenue increase (including 13 per cent who have seen costs increase with no revenue impact).

    These gaps, and others, have the potential become chasms, unless directors come to terms with the changing environment and boards respond well. Fortunately, directors (individually and collectively) are not devoid of options:

    • Continuing education: If directors are to maintain relevance, they need to detect and critically assess emerging trends, cultural shifts and market preferences.  For this, directors need to commit time to read widely, attend briefings from a range of sources, and ponder options. Five to ten hours per week is not unreasonable. 
    • Purpose and strategy: Many corporate strategies are strategic in name alone; they are more accurately either fluffy vision statements without substance, or detailed plans without a clear sense of direction. In high change environments (especially), directors need to insist on strategic reviews twice or three times per year, to check the continued relevance of previously agreed strategic priorities and projects, and make adjustments if needed. This is not planning, nor is it management. It is reviewing overall direction and pathway, given what lies ahead. Clarity on purpose and strategy will enable the executive to empower teams to explore options to expedite approved strategy, and reject projects that have no direct linkage to the advancement of strategic goals.
    • Frequency of meetings: In high-change environments, a lot can change between board meetings. Directors should consider meeting more frequently during periods of high change, or to oversee a strategically important project. But caution is needed, to avoid real-time dashboards and reporting feeds; the board's job is to govern not manage!
    • Capability and expertise: Boards need to ensure they have the right sort of expertise available, to understand risks and opportunities, and make informed decisions. Annual governance assessments, conducted by a credible third party, is recommended. The findings will help identify capability and expertise gaps, especially in relation to critical thinking, deep sector knowledge, technical expertise, and behaviours necessary to provide effective steerage and guidance in a turbulent environment.

    From all I have read to date (which is a lot), AI tools promise material benefits to companies wanting to gain operating efficiencies and improve customer service. However, emerging evidence suggests AI is not a silver bullet. If directors are to add value, they need to be both informed and vigilant: A useful starting point is to check if (and if so how) any proposal might expedite progress towards the company's purpose and strategy. 



  • Published on

    Who’s looking at you?

    Accountability Boardcraft Corporate Governance Effectiveness Leadership Monday Muse Performance Research Speaking Engagements Value Creation
    Image description

    Have you ever wondered who is looking at your website, and why? My new website was published seven days ago (well, a very similar website), so I decided to look at the analytics, to get an idea.

    To my astonishment, some 40,600 total visits (page hits) have been recorded over the past seven days, from just over 8500 unique visitors. Extrapolated, that points to over two million page hits per year.

    This sounds impressive. I’m not convinced, and closer inspection shows the numbers are not quite what they seemed at first glance. When ‘include Crawlers/Bots’ is de-selected, a clearer picture emerges: the total visitor count drops to 10600-odd. That about three quarters of the traffic to petercrow.com is not by or from real people is good to know. That they are AI-tools and other systems, hoovering around collecting data justifies our investment in appropriate security. That one-in-five visits is from a mobile device suggests our selection of a tool that provides desktop-, tablet-, and mobile-friendly display options—automatically—was a good decision too.

    Turning to the ‘real visitors’ now. If one-in-four Unique Visitors are not bots, about 2100 people visited the some part of the site over the past seven days. Some (most?) will have been curious about the new site. But others looked at one or more Musings articles; and some have checked some other aspect of the capabilities and credentials material.

    Even if one or two per cent of these ‘real people’ are genuinely interested (20 per week), and ten per cent of these get in touch, my decades-long quest (to provoke candid conversations to help boards can govern with impact) has, probably, been worthwhile. Onward.

  • Published on

    On boardcraft

    Accountability Boardcraft Corporate Governance Decision Making Effectiveness Research Value Creation
    Image description

    In recent months, there has been a rising level of interest in Boardcraft. Word is getting out it seems, so a précis is probably timely. Curious? Grab a coffee and read on...

    B​oardcraft is a term I coined: a governance-focused initiative help boards operate well in practice—not just describe on paper what they are supposed to do. At its core, Boardcraft is about treating board work (that is, corporate governance) as a practical craft to help boards move from a compliance mindset to a performance mindset.

    Why is this important? Many boards comply with prevailing statutes and governance codes but they, or the companies they govern, still perform poorly. The underlying problem is a barrier lying in plain sight: one cannot comply their way to performance. 

    ​Boardcraft offers a pathway forward for boards wanting to perform well and govern with impact. 

    The big shift is this: Effective governance is not a product of structures, policies, or independence per se; it emerges from the quality of thinking, interaction, and decision-making in the boardroom. ​What is more, Boardcraft is not something I dreamt up at a whiteboard or while driving my old car: it is the product of ground-breaking research conducted a decade ago. In essence, it helps boards understand:

    • The capabilities, activities and behaviours necessary if boards are to exert influence beyond the boardroom, especially on organisational performance
    • How to make high-quality decisions together
    • How to handle conflict and disagreement
    • How chairs can lead effective discussions
    • The board's role in shaping strategy, not just approving management's proposals

    Ultimately, Boardcraft is a mindset to help boards improve their judgement, oversight, steerage and guidance; work as a functional group and make great decisions (think: positive board dynamics); and, ultimately, drive high levels of organisational performance. In effect, to govern with impact.

    Boards and directors interested to learn about Boardcraft, the Strategic Governance Framework (the underlying foundation), and how to embrace a Boardcraft mindset in practice have several options:

    • Workshops and board development sessions (half-, full- and two-day options, fully curated)
    • Tailored coaching and mentoring for chairs
    • Governance diagnostics (to assess how well a board functions)
    • Real-world case studies, rather than textbook or theoretical models

    What to learn more? Check this article, and get in touch with your questions. I'm available globally.

    PS: The headline picture is not a photo of me; it is an AI-generated image. Pretty good eh?

  • Published on

    Is an elephant [in the room] obscuring our view?

    Accountability Corporate Governance Governance Research Sustainability Value Creation
    Picture
    ​The rise of artificial intelligence capabilities over the past 4–5 decades (you read that correctly, not 4–5 months or even 4–5 years) has brought some awkward questions into stark relief.
    • How might AI enable or impair our strategic priorities?
    • Are the data in management reports to the board accurate, and conclusions credible?
    • As directors, we’re supposed to govern with impact. But what matters most amongst the many priorities in the reports from management—and how might we decide?
    • Are the so-called experts that management keeps putting in front of us actually experts, or are they just AI-junkies who have generated content that appears to be informed?
    These questions, and many others like it, highlight an overarching question that has become very real for many directors, more so as the onset of AI-generated content has started to pervade boardrooms, executive suites and beyond:
    The report behind the question brings the problem into stark relief: Many conclusions developed from academic research and peer-reviewed articles may not be reliable. Indeed, many may not be worth the paper (screen) they are written on, despite the seemingly attractive arguments put up by the authors.
    This being the case, how might directors validate the data and reporting in board packs?
    If boards are to govern with impact, they must first ensure the reports they receive are not only accurate but credible. This is a demanding expectation, but it is the baseline. Fortunately, we are not the first people to ponder this matter: This muse explores some of the core considerations.
    The elephant in the room is not AI, per se; it is the directors’ ability to distinguish between what matters and what does not—the signal and the noise.
  • Published on

    Keeping up appearances

    Accountability Corporate Governance Effectiveness Governance Monday Muse Research Sustainability
    Picture
    Today, on the third day of an intrepid journey through several Eastern European countries, we have been exploring Kraków Stare Miasto—the Old Town—searching for glimpses of how life was lived in the past. Back streets and less-trod paths, away from trinket stands and touts, are my happy place, for they offer opportunities to peer beyond facades and veneers. ​​
    This scene was one amongst several that caught my attention today. The seemingly decrepit building itself was far from remarkable—but then I noticed two signs—clues to what lay inside: a five-star hotel named after a Polish polymath, and a Michelin-starred restaurant. Who knew? 
    As I looked at the building and signage, a woman sauntered past, on the phone to an unknown soul and seemingly oblivious to her surroundings. My mind wandered. Who was she speaking with and about what? Was she a local or a visitor? What were her circumstances?
    The imagery and parallels with board work are stark. Statements written in board packs may seem complete and accurate, but they may not be. Often, there is more to the story than what is first ‘seen’ in the board pack. Depending on how eloquently the papers have been written, directors may find it easy to form opinions quickly—jump to conclusions, even. Directors should resist such urges! Boards have a duty of care to look beyond the facade, to gain a more complete understanding through discovery and debate, before deciding. Some boards do this well; some are well-intended but struggle; and yet others appear to be motivated by looking good (as evidenced by complying with various ‘best practice’ recommendations and corporate governance codes) than doing what it takes to operate as a high-performing unit.
    When the pretence of keeping up appearances is stripped away, how does  the board you serve on stack up?
    Wittgenstein cautioned people to reserve judgement, for what seems to be so may not actually be so.
  • Published on

    The map is not the terrain

    Accountability Corporate Governance Diversity Effectiveness Family Business Governance Language Performance Research Tough Questions
    Picture
    Since time immemorial, man has sought to explore: natural curiosity has led to many discoveries, of previously unknown lands, flora and fauna, and more besides. Innovations and inventions too; discoveries enabling further exploration, and on it goes. Through the arc of history, exploration and discovery has been based upon empirical techniques—going and having a look.
    About six decades ago, Jane Goodall put this approach to work as part of her research to learn more about chimpanzees. Her assessment was, straightforwardly, that if reliable understandings of how chimpanzees socialise were to be achieved, they needed to be watched, directly, over an extended period, as difficult as that might be. The extended period is necessary because behaviours change when a new actor arrives. Thus, Goodall’s study could not begin in earnest until the chimps became more familiar with her and reverted to behavioural patterns thought natural. When behaviours reverted, as Goodall thought they might, several new discoveries not previously known were made.
    The approach Goodall used, and her discoveries, demonstrated the high value of longitudinal ethnographic techniques when studying social groups and their behaviours. And yet, while this has been understood for decades, centuries even, its application to my field—boards—is rare. Instead, since the dawn of board research, the dominant paradigm has been to collect data about directors, the composition of the board and other data, from outside the boardroom, typically from public databases, interviews and surveys. Such approaches have been deemed acceptable because researchers have found it very difficult to enter the boardroom. Given the only place the board and its work actually exists is in the boardroom, and that the board is a social group, surely the gold standard must be to conduct long-term studies of boards in session (through direct and non-participatory observation), as Goodall studied chimpanzees?
    This issue, of using appropriate techniques that explore the subject of interest, not a proxy, was made plain by an ex-military colleague recently; his pertinent remark was, simply, “The map is not the terrain.” What seems to be the case (on the map) may not be the case (in reality). The underlying message was confronting: if you want to really understand, go there, gain first-hand knowledge. And so it is with board research. If we really want to understand how boards work, and how boards actually make decisions and influence performance, not how directors say they do when they are interviewed, watch them over an extended period. Then, possibly, you might be able discern what happens; how directors act and interact; and, even, spot associations between a strategic decision and some subsequent change in organisational performance. The findings will be contingent, of course, because the group is social, the situation complex, and external influences are many and varied.
    To date, fewer than a dozen longitudinal observation studies, of boards going about their work, have been published. And, somewhat awkwardly, the reported findings present a different perspective from that commonly asserted by others informed by research conducted away from the boardroom: The capability of directors (what they bring), the activity of the board (what it does), and behaviour (how directors act and interact), appears to be far more important than the structure or composition of the board.
    Now, as I wait to board a flight, for yet another international trip to work with boards, my colleague’s comment is ringing in my ear. And with it, a question, “What guidance will you rely on, given the importance of governing with impact?”