Tags

  • Published on

    Decisions-making, amidst complexity

    Accountability Corporate Governance Decision Making Effectiveness Governance Leadership Monday Muse Performance Value Creation
    Picture
    That life is complex and unpredictable is a truism. And, though the frequency and impact may vary, change is a constant, it seems. If one is to thrive (succeed, realise goals) in such an environment, adaption is critical having detected something has changed. To ignore or pay lip-service to change is folly, and to guess how to respond is about as reliable as gambling.
    The same principle applies in organisational and boardroom settings. As in life, some of what is seen, heard or read is reliable, but much is not—to the extent that descriptors such as misinformation and  disinformation have become commonplace, even hackneyed. Consequently, those charged with providing effective steerage and guidance need to be alert, to ensure decisions about how to proceed are underpinned by accurate data from reliable sources, and insights from conversations and analysis.
    Two techniques I have found useful when considering decisions with strategic implications:
    • Take stock: Rarely does anyone have everything needed to make an informed decision off the bat. Acknowledge the existence of gaps. Ask probing questions to try to understand what is going on and bridge the gaps. Test everything (on the assumption that what seems at first to be the case may not be). Hold options lightly. Invoke an advocatus dialboli mindset, to explicitly draw out alternative perspectives. Listen carefully. Draw on prior experience too, for the likelihood of historical experiences being relevant is high.
    • Take time: Rarely does a so-called strategic decision need to be made immediately, despite first appearances and temptations in modern society to be seen to be agility, and to embrace pace and an urgency mindset. Clarify and agree when the decision needs to be made. Agree the pathway to the decision, and what intermediate decisions can be made to de-risk the strategic decision.
    If boards are to make sound decisions, directors need to breathe—to create space and time to consider options well. Boards should also agree on the decision criteria, process and timing at the outset; guard against being drawn into irrelevancies along the way; and, employ a strategic mindset throughout. How does your board measure up in this regard?
  • Published on

    Space to wait: will it help you be a better contributor?

    Accountability Corporate Governance Decision Making Effectiveness Ethics Governance Leadership Monday Muse Performance Societal Wellbeing Time Management
    Picture
    I was fascinated last evening, at a variety of behaviours on display following news that UA787, a flight from Houston to Chicago-O’Hare was delayed due to a technical problem. The captain provided updates, initially announcing the delay and reason. A little later, he came on the PA again, to apologise. Then he added, “that the engineers were working on it, and were confident of resolving the issue soon.”
    Some, likely the elderly gentleman I was seated beside, were a little anxious.  He was being met by a family member and did not want to put the family member out at all. His response was to ask the flight attendant for an ETA, so he could make a telephone call to the party meeting him. Others, such as the business woman seated across the aisle, became agitated, as if the delay was the flight attendants’ fault; the impression being that she was busy and important and, therefore, the problem needed to be fixed “now”. Her response was direct: as soon as she had the opportunity, she collected her things and hurried off the flight. Others got off too, without fanfare. Yet others, sat quietly and waited, knowing there was little they could do.
    The situation provided an impromptu study of human behaviour and, in particular, how some people seem to have lost (or rejected) the art of waiting.
    I wanted to get to Chicago as much as any other passenger, especially having already flown in the care of Air New Zealand from home to Houston. And, a younger me may well have become frustrated at the situation, as the woman who left abruptly. But, I have learned to leave those things we cannot control to others.
    As I reflect on the experience, my mind is drawn to board work. The role of director is one of service. Have I allocated sufficient time to not only read papers, but consider them and read further? How patient am I when arrangements do not flow as planned, especially logistical arrangements? Is my schedule crammed, or does it provide space, not only as contingency but also for critical thinking?
    The very best directors arrive at meetings prepared, calm, and ready to go, having allocated space before the meeting, to read, think, and prepare questions. The rest, who tend to look harried and unprepared, need to reflect on their situation. Why are they not ready to contribute well? Are they poorly organised? Are they overboarded? Ultimately, are they fit to serve as directors, given the duties they owe?
    PS: UA787 departed 57 minutes late, and arrived approximately 24 minutes behind schedule. The Captain apologised once more. Flight attendants were polite. Passengers were looked after. The world didn’t end.
  • Published on

    Boardroom effectiveness: Managing difference

    Corporate Governance Director Development Diversity Family Business Language Monday Muse
    Picture
    In recent times, diversity, equity and inclusion (often, DEI) has become topical in many spheres of business, social, organisational and political life, and boardrooms are no exception. The moot is that increased in-group diversity directly enhances organisational (project, team) performance. While this remains unproven, expectations are running high, and there are no signs they are abating.
    With this development, tensions have become apparent: between those people and groups who argue that demographic diversity is material to better outcomes, and those who do not; those who assert that boards should be representative of the shareholders or communities they serve, and those who prefer the best governors in the room, regardless of representation, to ensure the best decisions are made. 
    These tensions, and the underlying complexities extant both within an organisation and in the wider marketplace, are real. Boards ignore them (or discount or run roughshod over them) at their peril. Difference needs to be acknowledged and harnessed, to draw out multiple perspectives. But directors need to be sufficiently mature and wise to also align their efforts, to ensure great decisions are made having taken various contextual factors into account. This is hard, not only because directors need to find common ground where little may exist, but also because cultural differences tend to run deep and they may be difficult to navigate.
    Seemingly straightforward matters are almost guaranteed to become difficult if cultural norms are ignored or brushed over. Consider these cultural scenarios, all of which I have experienced over the past twelve months:
    • Starting the meeting 60 minutes after the advertised time. This was a misread on my part: the hosts started at the advertised time, but not with the business meeting as I expected. There was a formal welcome and a light meal (culturally normal for the board, but not advised to me). Around 60 minutes the after we first assembled, the chair called the directors and visitors together, and the 'formal meeting' got underway.
    • A female board member seemingly ignored. In the West this would be uncommon; indeed it would be offensive for some. But it happened during a board observation in a highly patriarchal community setting. While the group seemed to be accommodating, the woman was present in body only; cultural norms prevented her from speaking or otherwise contributing in any meaningful way.
    • An entire group I was working with went silent on me. The group had been animated and engaged until they were asked a question that put them on the spot. Rather than engaging with the question, or expressing their discomfort at being asked, they simply sat and waited, and waited. After a minute or so, I asked for help. The group 'leader' said that, culturally, they preferred not to debate sensitive matters 'in public' (that is, with outsiders, such as me).
    When working across cultures, seek first to understand. Breathe. Invest time and effort to learn how others think; what drives them; how they feel; how their mind works; how decisions are made; and whatever else seems relevant. And, what is more:
    • Prepare ahead of time.
    • Read widely.
    • Ask for guidance.
    • Learn how to ask questions in a culturally safe manner.
    • Listen carefully, especially to what is not spoken.
    • Break bread together (gather socially, over a meal).
    • Travel together (to remote meetings).
    • Spend time in each other's company. ​
    The group leader (board chair) has an incredibly important role in this, to draw everyone into the conversation; acknowledge difference, but harness it for the common good.
    Finally, a note: The techniques listed here are simply suggestions. But, in my experience, they can be incredibly powerful catalysts upon which relationships can develop and trust can be built. Ultimately, if boards are to have any hope of governing with impact, a sound understanding of 'who' is in the room, and 'how' they think, act and contribute is necessary. Invest time and effort, it'll pay off.​
  • Published on

    Making space, to grow some more

    Accountability Corporate Governance Director Development Effectiveness Monday Muse Performance Tough Questions
    Picture
    I have been watching the leaves on a potted plant go a little yellow in recent days. Something is not right; the plant has been suffering, clearly—but why? Had I been over- or under-watering it? Or have I applied the wrong amount of fertiliser? After checking with sources more knowledgeable than me (a book in my library, but also Google), the penny dropped. The plant had become root-bound, a victim of its own success. Simply, the pot had become a constraint. The resolution? A bigger pot, to provide space for the plant to thrive once more. Now, we wait.
    Boards and companies are analogous to the pot and plant in this illustration. The pot holds the plant and provides space for it to thrive and grow. Sometimes, a new pot is the change needed if the plant is to thrive. And so it is with companies: sometimes changes are needed at the board table to reinvigorate decision-making, steerage and guidance.
    Whereas plants tend to droop, go yellow or otherwise signal poor health, tell-tale signals that it might to be time to make adjustments in a boardroom tend to be visible too. Examples include:
    • Directors no longer ask probing questions—or any questions—indicating they may not have prepared adequately or simply lost interest.
    • Director expertise no longer matches that required to properly assess performance, hold management to account, or consider investment proposals.
    • The company ‘out-grows’ the director, especially in relation to complexity and required expertise.
    • One or more directors start behaving erratically, including non-attendance.
    • Relationships amongst directors or with management become fractured.
    • An action or behaviour leads to a loss of trust.
    • Emergence of conflict amongst directors.
    • Directors starting to 'die on the vine' (long tenure).
    • Strained relations with powerful shareholders (especially relevant in closely-held private companies, family businesses and PE-owned firms).
    While this list is far from exhaustive, it is indicative. Notice many of the signals (that a director is out of their depth or no longer fit to serve) tend to be behavioural. But how might any shareholder or supernumerary know the real situation given boards tend to meet and operate behind closed doors? Something might seem to be amiss, but what, and who?
    A governance assessment (note, not a board evaluation) can be a useful tool to assess the effectiveness of the board and the governance 'system', and to diagnose any underlying problems. These should be conducted annually, by a credible independent assessor. Recommendations emerging from such an assessment need to be taken seriously. Boards that dismiss evidence-based recommendations out of hand, or make cursory adjustments only (the "sweep it under the carpet and hope for the best" tactic), should take a good look in the mirror. The response is itself  a clue—defensiveness tends to confirm that all is not well. 
    When something doesn't quite seem right, check it out. Directors serve at the pleasure of shareholders, and replacement is always an option. Often, it is a very good option; sometimes, it is the best option. Normally, a simple majority is all that is required to both appoint and remove a director. To give the director the benefit of the doubt is rarely the best option. Finally, if a decision is taken to remove a director, act on the evidence quickly, but do so quietly.