Tags

  • Published on

    "Involve the non-executive director in strategy"

    Accountability Decision Making Governance Performance Research Strategy
    The board's involvement in strategy has been hotly debated in some quarters in recent years, especially as the focus of attention for business performance has moved from the chief executive to the board. Is strategy the domain of management, or of the board?
    Thankfully, the extreme options (strategy is totally the responsibility of management or imposed by the board) are no longer widely supported. The discourse seems to be coalescing on the more collaborative options of a board-led, managment-led or a joint development process—although the merits of which one of these is 'best' continue to be debated.
    Once directors and managers understand what strategy is (check the graphic), a decision to actively involve the board seems obvious. If the purpose of the board is to ensure the long-term performance of the company, in accordance with the wishes of shareholders, why wouldn't the board roll up its sleeves?
    An increasing number of commentators are now nailing their colours to the mast on this point. For example, this article, published in Director (the Institute of Directors' magazine), recommends that all non-executive directors (NEDs) should be actively looking at all strategy options and be making strategic decisions. I couldn't agree more, but would add that all directors (not just NEDs) should be involved in the process, together. While this recommendation demands more of directors, emerging research seems to suggest the approach is not without merit.
  • Published on

    On the role of the company secretary

    Accountability Decision Making Governance Performance
    This recently published summary of a meeting held to discuss the role of the company secretary caught my eye today. The company secretary has an important supporting role (preparing reports including compliance reports, recording minutes and managing the processes of the board) in most companies. However, some meeting participants appeared to suggest that a greater role was appropriate:
    The meeting followed the publication of ICSA’s report The Company Secretary: Building trust through governance, which found that company secretaries ‘make a significant contribution to board performance’, supporting ICSA’s wish to reinstate the legal requirement for all large private companies to have company secretaries. The topics that were discussed at the roundtable included governance, messaging, tone, teaching, acting as the ‘radar’ of a company and being the ‘bridge’ between the company and stakeholders.
    This conception is helpful, except that it perpetrates the widely-held view that corporate governance is a conformance activity. However, the responsibility to act in the best interests of the company in pursuit of shareholder wishes lies with the board. Thus, a conformance conception provides the wrong basis upon which to understand board and company secretarial contributions.
    Someone needs to have their finger on the pulse in terms of strategy, monitoring, process and shareholder communications. Ideally, these are tasks for the board as it discharges its duties. In those cases where the board is weak, aloof or less than fully engaged, these tasks tend to fall on the company secretary (or even the chief executive in some cases): the requisite processes and compliance tasks still need to be performed. Thus the thinking of many in the governance community including those cited in this report it would seem.
    An expanded conception of the company secretary role may remedy the symptoms (and serve the interests of company secretaries hoping to elevate themselves), but it does not address the root cause. The focus needs to be on the board, its roles and its contribution to business performance. Candid discussions around the board table and, potentially, with shareholders will probably be necessary. However, the benefits of resolving the board's role are likely to be many including that the company secretary would be released to perform their role as first conceived: to provide an outstanding administration and support service.
  • Published on

    Getting over ourselves: a crucial competence for directors?

    Accountability Decision Making Governance Leadership Performance Research
    Board meetings are uncompromising places of work and decision-making. Not only are boards themselves inherently socially-dynamic (they are make up of people, after all!), but every situation is different and directors meet infrequently and they generally need to act on incomplete data.
    Consequently, decision-making effectiveness is largely dependent on directors working well together when the board is in session. However, that is much easier said than done. In fact, recent research suggests that we humans struggle to understand the minds of others, even though we think we are good at it. This renders group dynamics difficult, at best. 
    Image description
    One of the biggest barriers to understanding is egocentrism—we can't get over ourselves. We over-estimate knowledge and capability, including that of others to understand what we say or mean. The problem is exacerbated by the technological world of electronic mail (which strips out tone and meaning), and even more so the abbreviated 140-character world of Twitter and text messages.
    If directors are to make effective contributions in boardrooms they need to get over themselves. Older and more experienced directors are not exempt from this problem—they are just as prone to making assumptions as their younger or less experienced colleagues. 
    Techniques that might be helpful for directors wanting to make effective contributions include meeting together in social settings to learn more about each other; asking questions during board meetings with open hands and a humble spirit; careful (reflective) listening, to limit assumptions and check understanding; and, the demonstration of a collective empathy amongst directors. Perhaps it might even be helpful to appoint a psychologist onto the board! Please note this is not a categorical list—if you have evidence-based suggestions, please feel free to share them.
  • Published on

    48 hours in (close to) paradise

    Accountability Decision Making Governance Leadership Performance Speaking Engagements Strategy
    When travelling, what's your favourite destination? Mine—from a work perspective anyway—is anywhere where board directors and executives who are eager to debate issues of boardroom practice and business performance. Since Tuesday evening, I have been in Dublin, Belfast and Dublin (again) doing exactly that—addressing groups of directors and answering questions. Matters of strategy in the boardroom; diversity; board structure; accountability; and, culture, amongst other topics, were discussed with vigour.
    To work with well over 70 directors and executives, all of whom were motivated by the discovery of board practices that might lead to improved business performance outcomes, has been wonderful. Thank you to the Ulster University Business School and the Irish Times Training for inviting me to visit the Emerald Isle to work with such influential people. That these busy directors and executives gave their time to debate important issues bodes well for the future performance of Irish businesses and social enterprises. I look forward to hearing great stories of success in the months to come!
  • Published on

    The emerging role of the board in business performance

    Accountability Governance Leadership Research Speaking Engagements
    Fifty leading board researchers, directors and company secretaries assembled in London this week to consider the topic Corporate governance for a changing world: capturing long-term value. The event was hosted by Tomorrow's Company and Frank Bold, at Cass Business School. I had the privilege of joining the discussion.
    Dr Roger Barker, Deputy-Director at the Institute of Directors, provided the catalyst for a lively discussion amongst the attendees. He offered some rather provocative comments about boards, short-termism and business performance in the longer-term, as follows:
    • The current [conformance oriented] corporate governance model does not appear to be particularly conducive to longer-term thinking nor value creation.
    • Despite challenges and concerns raised amongst a broad constituency, many people who work in The City (of London) think that the current system of corporate governance is 'good'—they do not recognise short-termism as a problem.
    • Executive pay is essentially an issue of balancing short-term financial engineering against longer-term value creation.
    • Despite efforts by legislators, regulators and stock exchanges (not to mention the OECD itself), the notion of a one-size-fits-all model of company law and corporate governance is not well suited to all types and sizes of companies.
    Several interesting thoughts emerged from the group and plenary discussions that ensued:
    • That the predilection with short-termism is 'probably' the antithesis of sustained business performance over time.
    • That the conformance–performance pendulum has probably swung too far towards conformance. A renewed focus on company performance and longer-term value creation is needed.
    • Despite the best intentions of the authors, codes and associated regulations have not delivered any meaningful business value.
    • The shareholders and boards need to return to basics by focussing on (and agreeing) the purpose of the company and the strategy by which or through which the purpose will be pursued. [This point was music to my ears, for it is consistent with my research findings.]
    I came away from the meeting in good spirits. That a group of influential academics, researchers, directors and company secretaries are both in agreement that the current model of corporate governance is problematic (flawed, even?) and that a new model perhaps via purpose and strategy might offer hope if boards are to make meaningful contributions in pursuit of longer-term value creation and a sustainable future.
    The informal discussion and private comments over drinks after the roundtable session served to reinforce these points; especially that well-intentioned leaders are committed to realising the potential of the businesses they lead or govern and that there is a hunger for 'answers'. My hope is that these messages are both transmitted and heard amongst a wide constituency, and that people get on board. I am committed to playing my part. If you have questions or would like to know more, please get in touch.
  • Published on

    Are the latest OECD #corpgov principles an opportunity lost?

    Accountability Decision Making Ethics Governance Leadership Performance
    Finance Ministers from the twenty most powerful trading nations, the G20, have endorsed a new set of corporate governance principles published by the OECD. The principles provide recommendations on matters including shareholder rights, executive remuneration, financial disclosure, the behaviour of institutional investors and how stock markets should function.
    The OECD principles have been promoted as contributing to more effective corporate governance. That sounds good—but what does 'effective corporate governance' mean and why might it be important? The OECD preamble offers this guidance:
    Good corporate governance is not an end in itself. It is a means to create market confidence and business integrity, which in turn is essential for companies that need access to equity capital for long term investment.  
    Wow, this suggests that corporate governance is a mechanism to protect investors and markets. The responsibility of the board for business performance is not mentioned—thus implying that  corporate governance is not a performance-based mechanism through which to pursue wealth creation. Rather it is positioned as a conformance tool to manage agency costs. What is the likelihood of boards spending time thinking about the purpose of the company, strategy or future performance if they are beholden to a set of conformance-oriented principles? 
    Sadly, it would be appear that these latest OECD principles represent an opportunity lost—for medium-sized and privately-held companies at least.