Governance - Peter Crow | Helping boards govern with impact

Published on: 5 November 2013

Three-weeks of busy-ness...

I'm working my way through a busy three-week period in my PhD programme: a period of gathering data, attending meetings, writing papers, preparing speeches and testing ideas. Having successfully navigated a travel-heavy programme last week, this week is a little more orderly, with another round of interviews and meetings in (just!) two cities. However, the travel kicks in again on Saturday, with a flight to Klagenfurt Austria, via London and Vienna, to attend and speak at the 9th European Conference on Management, Leadership and Governance (13–15 Nov). The programme looks very interesting, with a wide variety of peer-reviewed papers to be presented by some very capable scholars. One of my papers will be presented on Thursday morning, and the other later the same day.

Despite the busy-ness of the period, the opportunity to meet some of the world's leading governance scholars, to further test the ideas that are starting to emerge from my research, is one I am very much looking forward to. For readers interested in the ECMLG conference, do pop back next week, because I intend to share my thoughts and insights here, as I did at the ICMLG conference in Bangkok earlier this year.

Published on: 4 November 2013

Swimming in data...but some clarity is starting to emerge

I'm sitting at my desk looking at a fantail flitting between the branches of the tree just outside the window. It's a great distraction from what I should be doing: cataloguing the pile of data gathered in the last week, including 900MB of sound recordings and 28 pages of handwritten notes, from two board meeting observations and three interviews. The insights from this latest data need to be compared with insights from data gathered earlier. While this process is akin to swimming in data, there is some good news: five "causal powers" (that may explain how boards influence business performance) are starting to emerge. However, I keep reminding myself not to jump to conclusions, for there is more data to gather and more analysis to conduct. The ideas forming in my mind could be significant, or they could be a mirage. Time will tell. The fantail has gone now, so it's back to work. I'll keep you informed.

Published on: 29 October 2013

Who should drive the development of corporate strategy?

The selection and implementation of strategies that enable a company to compete effectively appears to be crucial to value maximisation. Given this, who should drive the development of corporate strategy? The value that boards can contribute appears to lie in their active and ongoing involvement in the strategic management process—through the consideration of strategic options; the development of strategy; the making of strategic decisions; and, the adequate monitoring of strategy implementation and subsequent performance. It seems to improve the quality of environment scanning; minimise the chance of selecting poor strategies; and, improve decision-making. Assertiveness and knowledge about the business also appears to be important, even though many CEOs believe their boards do not fully understand the strategic drivers to their company's success. The question of who should drive the strategy development process is less clear however.

My recent research suggests there is a fine line between the board having an active involvement in strategic matters (seen as desirable), and the board being seen to impinge on management's delegated responsibility to implement strategy. While the development of strategy is now widely recognised as a major task of the board, all of the CEOs that I interviewed claimed to control the process of strategy development, whether their board was actively involved or not. Also, company performance appeared to be enhanced when the division of labour between board and management was clearly defined and efficiently implemented. Further, the boards of successful companies appear to enjoy strong relations with management; they seek to make consensus decisions together in order to achieve strategic goals; and, the amount of political interplay between individuals appears to be low. The key point is that the board and management work together in a positive manner, and that they are both actively involved in the process of defining and deciding where and how the company should be headed.

Published on: 27 October 2013

When stamina and focus come together...

What's the best way to cope with (and survive!) a busier than normal work week? When I was out delivering pamphlets this afternoon—for Party-by-the-Lake, a Halloween alternative which is enjoyed by 3000 people in our local community—I found myself thinking about this very question, based on my own busy week ahead:

On Monday, I get to relax—with my wife—because it's Labour Day
On Tuesday, I fly to Dunedin for a board meeting, and home again afterwards
On Wednesday, I fly to Sydney Australia to collect data for my PhD research, after which I fly to Auckland New Zealand
On Thursday, I will collect more data, before flying home at the end of the day
On Friday, I have two CEO interviews scheduled, followed by a trip to visit my PhD supervisor to finalise details the trip to speak at ECMLG in Austria
On Saturday, I have a strategic planning workshop to attend (as a participant, not a facilitator)

This schedule will see me in four cities, in two countries, in four days. Does reading it make you feel a little tired? In all, the week will involve ten hours in the air; at least seven hours waiting in airport lounges; and, several early starts and late nights. It will be mentally and physically draining, I'm sure. Hopefully, I will still be compos mentis by the end of the week! While I'm somewhat out of practice with such busy international schedules, I expect to call on several habits that have served me well when dealing with similar schedules in the past:

Focus: Block out everything not related to the work directly ahead. Prepare well in advance of meetings, and review notes the evening before. Plan to arrive at airports and meeting venues early, to allow a little time to relax and refocus. Check email and social media websites daily (only), lest they divert your focus.
Physical care: Avoid alcohol and big meals if possible. Get outside and walk, every day. Drink plenty of water, and get as much sleep as possible (flights are great for this).
Stamina: Think about the week as a whole, not just the day or the few hours directly ahead, and pace yourself. A tough week is akin to running a 10,000 metre race, not a 100m metre sprint. A short focus will put you at risk of not making it through the week. Good levels of physical fitness is a real blessing here—which is why I try to get out on my bike two or three times every week—although this requires a pre-emptry commitment because, unfortunately, physical fitness can't simply be "turned on".

So there you have it, some of my techniques for dealing with a busier than normal schedule. How do you cope with such weeks?

Published on: 23 October 2013

When "tongue-in-cheek" cuts close to the bone

A somewhat satirical opinion piece, written by Joe Bennett, caught my eye this morning. As I read it, over my morning coffee, I smiled, for the opinion piece is very well written. But afterwards, as I sipped on my coffee again, I winced, for the images conjured in Bennett's mind and exposed through prose, cut a little closer to the bone than many who are au fait with boards and governance would care to admit.

Most of the directors that I know, and boards that I am familiar with, work hard, as they seek to optimise business performance and build shareholder value. They read their board papers carefully and critically before meetings, prepare well and ask searching questions. They also spend time understanding the business of the business, so they can contribute meaningfully to strategic discussions, and make informed decisions about the strategic future of the business. In other words, they engage actively in the process of governance.

However, some (perhaps the majority?) directors and boards still don't engage in this way. They adopt a more passive modus operandi of monitoring past performance. They spend little, if any, time considering strategic options and marking out the future of the business. In extreme cases, they behave as Bennett suggests. Sadly, the self-serving, fat cat imagery described by Bennett will remain part of the psyche—for as long as it continues to describe how some boards behave at least. I long for the day that such imagery becomes folklore, of the way things used to be, but no longer are.

Published on: 18 October 2013

When the Board and CEO hold different views...

Periodically (or perhaps more often than one would care to admit?), corporate boards and CEOs have differing opinions about how best to drive performance. Most of the time, one or other of two options follow: either the board holds sway—it is the "alpha male" who employs the CEO after all—or the CEO gets their way. At the end of the day, it probably doesn't matter who "wins" as such, so long as the parties can find common ground and reach agreement. The reaching of common ground may take time, but it needs to be found, for the good of the company. But what options are available if agreement is not achieved? The CEO could decide to fold, and implement the wishes of the board. This may mean implementing decisions that they don't support, a position which can be uncomfortable. Alternatively, the CEO could continue to press their case, albeit at the risk of upsetting the board and the losing its confidence. If the situation is bad enough, whereby the parties are and remain poles apart on a substantive issue, then the CEO needs to do the right thing by considering whether they can continue in the role.

The key to making meaningful progress is the organisation's core purpose and overall strategy. With a clearly stated purpose and an agreed strategy in place, then strategic options and various proposals that arrive at the board table can be debated in the context of an agreed reference point. Either they fit, or they don't. Without such reference points in place however, opinions and personal preferences, about how to drive performance, hold sway. And we know that our opinion is always right, don't we? This latter option, of operating a business without a clearly stated purpose and strategy, is a recipe for trouble. Yet many boards and CEO try to run their businesses without such reference points. Why?

Tags