Tags

  • Published on

    Our own worst enemy?

    Accountability Corporate Governance Decision Making Director Development Effectiveness Governance Performance Tough Questions
    Picture
    I have spent four days in Australia this week, meeting with directors, advisors and a couple of institutional leaders in two state capitals. While the weather has been great, a few storm clouds [metaphorically, on the governance horizon] were apparent. Whether these are serious problems, or just differences of opinion, they strike me as being worthy of discussion. I’d be delighted if you would ponder the following situations, and share your thoughts to help me understand why boards, more often than not, erode value.
    • Confusion over what governance is:​ A meeting with a sixty-something director, with over two decades of experience, set me on my backside. He explained that “most of my colleagues understand that corporate governance and compliance are, essentially, interchangeable words”. He went on to say that board directors don’t spend enough time thinking about the future (agreed), and that the solution is to give governance a radical overhaul. When I asked, he said that governance needs to be redefined, “because the expectation is unrealistic.” He suggested advisory boards have a significant role to play, for directors cannot hope to keep up with the pace of change, and someone needs to advise the CEO anyway. I opined that everything he suggested was, in fact, within the remit of governance (to steer, to guide, to pilot), but he wasn’t having a bar of it. Governance, in his mind, is compliance; and the board’s job is to keep the CEO “safe”.
    • Regulating one’s way to performance: A meeting in Sydney, with three people familiar with regulatory frameworks—all of whom are professionally trained as lawyers—caught me on the hop. All three agreed that the imposition of codes and regulatory frameworks was necessary, because “statutes don’t go far enough.” The implication was that rules drive compliance, and that compliance with rules equates to performance. In other words, follow the rules and the organisation will thrive. I was shocked. Rules are, I think, boundaries—nothing more. How can one possibly thrive if the extent of their contribution is merely to ensure they live within the rules?
    These examples demonstrate, to me anyway, that questions of what corporate governance is, the role of the board and how governance might be practiced are far from resolved. Directors and their advisors seem to be their own worst enemies. Flawed understandings of what governance is (the provision of steerage and guidance, to achieve an agreed strategic aim), and how it might be practiced, remain serious barriers to boards fulfilling their mandate, which is to ensure the enduring performance of the company. Why do some directors’ institutes, advisory and consulting firms, regulators, academics, and media commentators continue to discuss “best practice” and promote various matters that have little if any direct impact on achieving sustainably high levels of organisational performance? Surely attention needs to be on helping directors and boards do their job well, n’cest ce-pas? I have a few ideas to crack this problem, but I’m keen to hear what you think.
  • Published on

    Chairmanship: a mechanical process, or a deft art?

    Accountability Corporate Governance Decision Making Leadership Performance
    Picture
    Board are funny things. They are comprised of selected individuals (directors, board members) charged with meeting together to consider various matters for the purpose of making decisions. While it is true to say directors meet, decisions are made by the collective whole—the board—not individual directors. Therefore, every decision is unanimous. Complicating matters, boards only 'exist' when directors meet, and board work is, largely, endogenous; so, they need to be coordinated—someone needs to 'drive' the board. ​​​
    The term 'chairman' (also, 'board chair, 'chair' or sometimes, 'chairperson') is the term used to identify the board member who carries such responsibilities—these being to convene the board’s meetings, ensure duties are discharged, and that steerage and guidance (that is, governance) is effective. But, as all directors are equal in law, the chair's role is exercised through influence, not command in any controlling sense. Given this, how should a board chair, well, chair the board? ​
    While there is no one 'best' way of chairing, the following characteristics are conducive to better outcomes:
    • Build relationships: Effective chairs nurture trust and respect within the board; with management (especially the chief executive); and, with shareholders and legitimate stakeholders. 
    • Understand the business and the wider landscape: This includes corporate strategy and operations, organisational culture, competitive landscape, and emerging trends and disruptions.
    • Lead on purpose and values: The board needs to set the direction and the basis for decision-making and conduct. Sometimes, tough (even unpopular) decisions are needed, to ensure alignment and to secure in the long-term interests of the company.
    • Boardroom culture: Exercise tact and sensitivity, and maintain decorum. Respect confidences and maintain utmost confidentiality when required. Emotional intelligence, situational awareness, maturity, wisdom, and the ability to draw out the best in others are critical to effective chairmanship.
    • Show decisive leadership: Empathy and understanding is important, but only to a point—for these attributes do not drive decisiveness. Sometimes, assertiveness from the chair is required.
    • Learning and development: Effective chairs know they don't know everything—far from it—and things change anyway. Consequently, they tend to have a continuous learning mindset.
    • Nurture a broader skill set: Technical skills are necessary, but they are far from sufficient. The best chairs read widely and they encourage other directors to do so as well.
    • Embrace multiple perspectives: Eliciting different points of view during ideation and when debating topics is crucial if the board is to guard against groupthink. Cognitive diversity is important too; it has been shown to be an antecedent of higher quality decisions.
    • Listen: Chairs should speak last, having drawn and heard from others. When the time comes to speak, do so clearly and succinctly, and encourage colleagues to do likewise.
    • Manage time:​ Start on time, ensure the board moves steadily through the agenda and where practicable finish on or near time.
    • Ensure continuity: Consider succession, especially for the chief executive role but also for the chair.
    Governance is tough because, inter alia, things change, sometimes unexpectedly; boards often need to make decisions without all the information they want; linkages between decisions and outcomes are contingent; and, directors' duties are unbounded. 
    If boards are to govern with impact, chairs need to be alert: to ensure directors are actively engaged, and that they identify and consider relevant information, think critically and, together, make smart decisions in the best interests of the company. The chairs' priority is to convene the board and its work, and keep directors on track and the organisation safe. For this, a deft hand is needed.
  • Published on

    Governance and ESG: what’s driving what?

    Accountability Corporate Governance Decision Making Effectiveness Governance Performance Sustainability
    Picture
    I’ve been holidaying in Scotland this week, the first of two in the Highlands after whistle-stop visits to Edinburgh and Glasgow. I prefer the countryside over cities, the wide-open spaces and the scenery. The vistas in Scotland are especially magnificent, especially if the weather is fine, which it has been this week. Today, I saw the Jacobite Steam Train in action as it crossed the famous Glenfinnian Viaduct—well almost in action, for the chance of a wayward spark starting a fire in the adjacent bracken has limited this famous tourist experience to a push-me pull-you configuration with a heritage diesel locomotive bringing up the rear. The question, in my mind and the minds of others witnessing the viaduct crossing, was, “Which locomotive is actually doing all the work?” Or, more plainly, what is driving what? From the picture, the answer is not immediately obvious. However, the very presence of the diesel locomotive provides an important clue. And so it was. Today, the Jacobite Steam Train excursion was, in fact, the Jacobite Steam Train experience, powered by diesel.
    The visual imagery provides a powerful analogy for something else I saw today; a press release issued by the Institute of Directors entitled, “ESG must not neglect governance!”
    The headline implies that governance (from the Greek, meaning to steer, to guide, to pilot) is little more than a component of ESG (a means of measuring corporate performance). This, despite governance being the term that describes the work of the board of directors (the means by which companies are directed and controlled). But, reading on, the situation is not quite as it first seemed. Dr. Roger Barker, head of the policy unit, acknowledged the importance of boards taking non-financial (so-called, ESG) factors into account when making decisions. But he also noted the emergence of an “ESG industry” that has started to control various agendas, with little interest in the enduring performance of the company. And, with it, boards are being subordinated to a lesser role. Barker issued a strong call: to subsume governance within ESG may well result in the important work of the board in driving business performance becoming neglected.
    Bravo, Dr. Barker! This is exactly what institutions need to be telling their members and others interested in corporate performance: ESG is a measurement and reporting mechanism, no more and no less. The board of directors is duty-bound to ensure the performance of the company, now and into the future, a high calling. If it is to discharge its duties well, the board needs to remain in control, driving the agenda. In doing so, the board should consider various externalities including social and environmental factors), of course, but it should not be beholden to them or to those applying the pressure.
  • Published on

    Artificial intelligence and board work

    Accountability Corporate Governance Decision Making Effectiveness Governance Research Update Tough Questions
    Picture
    Several times in the past six weeks, I have been asked to share some thoughts on artificial intelligence and board work; specifically, the impact of emerging AI capabilities on corporate governance and, even, the need for board of directors. The rapid emergence and now widespread awareness of ChatGPT has been a catalyst for many of these enquiries, it seems. I have been fascinated by the unfolding situation, not only because of a longstanding interest (I studied artificial intelligence at university nearly four decades ago), but also the speed by which awareness has spread, and expectations climbed to such stratospheric heights, is unprecedented. Claims have been made that computer-based tools will soon supplant the need for human directors and, with it, board meetings. Some, especially those with jaundiced perceptions of boards, their work and any value they add, have confided this may be a good thing. Others have reserved judgement—for now at least—saying the situation is far too fluid and complex to make anything approaching an informed or reliable decision, much less widespread change.
    That so many people are questioning 'conventional' corporate governance practices feels a little bit like ground hog day. While I do not claim any particular expertise in the topic of artificial intelligence, I have read widely, asked many questions (of myself and others) and pondered both the purported capability and potential impact (of artificial intelligence) on board work. ​
    The departure points for my enquiry has been, as always, definitional. What is artificial intelligence, and what conception of governance does one hold? My responses to these questions are as follows:
    • Artificial intelligence: the development of computer-based capability to perform tasks that normally require human intelligence. In effect, the simulation of [aspects of] human intelligence by machines.
    • Governance: the provision of steering and guiding an organisation [towards an agreed goal], by the board of directors. In effect, governance is the work of the board—the means by which companies are directed and controlled.
    So, the proposition to be considered is, "Can a computer replace a social group charged with steering and guidance an organisation in a complex and dynamic environment?"
    Those people wondering whether AI might be a viable mechanism to support or even replace boards have much to ponder. What is the role of a board of directors in companies? How might the operating context beyond the organisation be assessed? Where does accountability for statutory compliance and overall performance lie? And, to whom should the Chief Executive and management of the company report? If one holds the view that the board is the ultimate decision-making authority within a company (a responsibility delegated by shareholders), and that this (decision-making despite uncertainty and ambiguity) is 'core business', the board has a vital role to play.
    My early training in computers and technology taught me that computers respond to instruction; they cannot 'think' autonomously or handle ambiguity, and they lack feelings and intuition. They do what they are 'told'; if the 'telling' is poor, the result is likely to be poor: the phrase "garbage in, garbage out" springs to mind.
    But that was then. Computing power is far greater today than it was even five years ago, much less forty. Has the evolutionary development of computing capability reached the point whereby computers can displace humans? For a large and growing list of tasks  and activities, yes, of course. The analysis of data is a relevant case in point. But for many other enquiries, the answers remains a resounding no. How might a computer make sense of the unspoken feelings, intuition and biases of staff, customers and board directors, and reach a credible decision? For this, a much higher order of capability is necessary. And, with that, I stand with those reserving judgement. 
    What of the future? AI may become a viable mechanism to expedite board decision-making, of course. But the likelihood  of directors being supplanted any time soon is low (those failing in their duties excepted). For that, artificial general intelligence (AGI) is likely to be necessary, and some moral and ethical questions will need to be resolved as well. If that is achieved, I may take a stronger position.
    ​Regardless of whether this muse is sound or not, directors, shareholders, regulators and their various advisors need to be alert, because the situation may change quite quickly.
  • Published on

    Ten days in the UK & Europe: A snapshot

    Accountability Corporate Governance Diversity Family Business Leadership Research Strategy Value Creation
    Picture
    I have just arrived back in New Zealand, from ten days in the UK and Europe. My meetings with directors, advisors, academics, students and directors’ institutions had two primary objectives: to listen and to share. The listening aspect was to gain firsthand knowledge of issues and opportunities; the sharing aspect to provide updates on the craft of board work and my experiences as a practicing director.
     Learnings (a few immediate observations, in no particular order):
    • Directors say they are finding it hard to distinguish between signal  and noise—that which is material to monitoring and verifying performance and progress, and that which is, essentially, argumentation from stakeholders asserting preferences with only tenuous associations with sustainable performance.
    • ESG remains 'hot', although everyone I asked said the marketplace was fracturing. Acolytes are becoming more assertive, especially in their expectations that companies prioritise net zero, climatic change response, and equity above all else. Others are less convinced, as they are yet to see any increase in company performance or alpha. The gap between the groups is growing too—adherents have started using the 'anti-ESG' moniker, in an effort to claim the high ground. Detractors have not been silent either, saying the discourse needs to move away from what they describe as ideological fervour to pragmatism and common sense. 
    • Increasingly, directors are questioning whether quarterly board meetings (common in Europe) is actually a good idea. The directors I spoke with said they find it really difficult to keep up with compliance matters, much less contribute well to strategic items. The power balance leans reasonably strongly in favour of the CEO too.
    • Calls for optionality to be removed are becoming more commonplace. (Optionality meaning all directors of companies of substance should be required to be professionally qualified, in the same way as doctors and lawyers need to achieve and maintain a relevant professional accreditation.)
    • Geopolitical turbulence is front of mind (greater in Eastern Europe than Western Europe). The situation is exacerbated by economic headwinds and energy security concerns (think: gas and electricity supplies) despite Europe emerging from a mild winter. The UK and France (in particular) are also struggling with high inflation, strikes and, in France, a proposal to raise the age of retirement. Given the uncertainties, many leadership teams have shortened their strategic horizons and some have become quite defensive.
    • The Credit Suisse bailout by UBS unfolded before my eyes—I was in Zürich the day after the failure. Like many other failures, this one came as little surprise to insiders; the company has endured scandals and criticism for some years. (My early assessment: the board appears to have been asleep at the wheel.)
    • Directors continue to struggle with what corporate governance is and how it should be practiced. Sadly, the confusion observed during this trip is as widespread as in the past. Directors' institutions have a critical role to play, to clearly and straightforwardly assert what corporate governance is and, critically, what it is not. 
    Amongst it all, there were some gems:
    • ​Several directors spoke passionately about their work, and how efforts to engage more actively, with an underlying sense of purpose, is starting to make a difference.
    • Researchers are moving focus, from quantitative studies using public data, to trying to get inside boardrooms to observe boards in action (ie: the practice of governance).
    • Advisors to General Counsels, CEOs and SME founders have recognised a different conversation is needed to appeal to boards and directors. I was pleased to offer a few insights and suggestions.
    • I had the delight of delivering a guest lecture to forty or more researchers and students at Leeds Beckett University. The Q&A was fascinating—a candid exchange with people passionate about helping boards govern well.
    Several followup visits are now being planned, to advise, assess, educate and speak on topical board and organisational performance matters. If you want to discuss a matter of interest, or check my availability to assist, contact me for a confidential, obligation-free discussion.
    The headline picture, showing a derelict property in Soho, London, is analogous to the state of governance in many places in Europe: structurally sound but outwardly messy.  
  • Published on

    Picking an adjective...

    Accountability Corporate Governance Effectiveness Governance Performance Value Creation
    Picture
    When aiming to achieve something in business, is it better to be good, or effective, or both? ​Should boards for example pursue good governance, or prioritise effectiveness? And, are these qualifiers mutually exclusive, or can a board claim both? These 'challenge' questions have beset contemporary boards of directors, more so as various stakeholders have sought to impose their expectations and ideological preferences onto corporate values, purpose, strategy and decision making.
    If these questions are to be considered and answered well, agreement on the meaning of the adjectives is necessary. To wit:
    • 'Goodness' speaks to benevolence and decency—of doing the right thing. It conjures an ethical or moral motivation, of acting in the best interests of someone else. 
    • 'Effectiveness' is about producing an effect or achieving a goal, result or outcome.
    Instinctively, good governance sounds attractive. It satisfies a human condition; of doing the right thing and acting in the best interests of someone else (a particular stakeholder interest, for example). But what if doing the right thing has the effect of compromising the competitive position of the company; the achievement of agreed performance objectives; or, potentially, the viability of the company? And, what might be considered good by one person or group may not be upheld elsewhere. Turning to effectiveness, the threshold is more objective—either the goal is achieved or it is not. But, what if the pursuit of an agreed objective results in environmental or social harm, or some other negative consequence?  That is not acceptable either.
    Given the extremes, some sort of balance is needed, in the same way that every board must ensure conformance requirements are satisfied (compliance, value protection) and performance objectives are achieved (value creation). If this is reasonable, should a different adjective be used, to more adequately describe the value of the board's work?
    My recommendation: drop goodness and effectiveness, for one (at least) is highly subjective and has become emotively charged (think, what ESG has become), and the other focuses more on the goal without necessarily considering unintended consequences. Ultimately, in extremis, neither is sustainable without the other. Instead, boards should pursue enduring impact.
    Boards that strive to be effective in role without incurring social or environmental harms are more likely to exert a positive and enduring influence beyond the boardroom (that is, have impact). As a result, they should be well-regarded by shareholders and legitimate stakeholders as well. The Strategic Governance Framework offers insights to boards intent on realising the full potential of the companies they govern.