Performance - Peter Crow | Helping boards govern with impact

Published on: 26 June 2017

Speaking engagement in London

This is a brief note to advise that I will be in London next week, to speak at the ICSA Annual Conference. The conference is being held at ExCeL, London, over two days (4–5 July). Programme details are available here.

I'll be speaking on the first day of the conference, at 12noon. My topic is strategy, from the board's perspective. Here's the session summary from the programme:

Good strategy vs bad strategy
Often in business, boards confuse lofty ambitions, challenging goals and enticing vision with strategy. Good strategy encompasses these elements but also offers a compelling road map to achieve goals and overcome barriers to success. Here we look at some of the key points to consider when establishing strategy.

Sound interesting? Come along, I look forward to meeting you.

Note: I'll be in London Monday 3rd to Thursday 6th inclusive, with some free time both during the conference, and immediately before and after. Please get in touch if you'd like to meet up (day or night) to ask a question; discuss an aspect of corporate governance or strategy; learn more about my research on boards and business performance; or, simply have a chat over a coffee or a drink. I'd be delighted to hear from you.

Published on: 23 June 2017

Boards and strategy: taking in the long view

During the last month, I have had the privilege of working with four different boards and management groups, helping them wrestle with why the company they govern exists (its purpose, or reason for being) ahead of formulating strategy to pursue the agreed purpose. All four engagements have been invigorating, revealing many insights and much passion (and debate!) within the assembled groups.

However, three troubling signs became apparent amidst the boards' commitment to the cause. These signs, which are not uncommon, have the potential to stymie the quality of the resultant strategy and management's ability to implement the approved strategy. The following comments highlight the issues:

A propensity for detail: Most of the discussions quickly devolved to specific examples and detailed aspects of the company's products, customers and staff: the perception being that more detail is helpful for effective implementation and to mitigate risk. This is not uncommon: strong leaders like solving problems. However, humans tend of overestimate their ability to predict the future, and boards and managers are no exception. Further, implementation is a task for management, to be actioned after purpose is determined, strategy formulated and resources appropriated. Also, a strong focus on detailed elements has the unwanted effect of taking the gaze away from the big picture, the wider context within which the company operates, and in so doing introducing new risk not mitigating it. Left unchecked, the resultant strategy is more characteristic of a detailed list of activities than a high-level, contextually relevant overview of how resources will be deployed to achieve the agreed purpose.
Confusion over the board–management nexus: The usage of the term governance over the last 15–20 years has become widespread (in both appropriate and inappropriate contexts). Usage has reached the point that 'governance' has become a panacea for all manner of corporate ills including poor company performance. The board–management relationship has become clouded, with the two parties claiming or denying tasks, often based on a poor understanding of what governance actually is. If the board and management are to work well together, a well-defined of division of labour is required, to allocate to tasks explicitly to the board, to management, or to both.
Shortening the horizon, to reduce the odds of failure: This sign is closely related to the first one. If those responsible for formulating strategy are not looking well into the future, identifying emerging trends and possible responses, they are doing themselves and their company a gross disservice. Audacious goals and Roger L. Martin's words are ringing in my ears: "True strategy is about placing bets and making hard choices. The objective is not to eliminate risk but to increase the odds of success."

The temptation to embrace detail, confuse the roles of the board and management and shorten the view remain very real challenges for companies around the world. If boards are to fulfil their responsibilities well, a clear sense of purpose supported by a coherent strategy is vital—regardless of the company's size, sector or span of operations.

The great news is that increasing numbers of boards are starting to realise that material benefits are available if they contribute directly to both the process of determining purpose and formulating strategy. However, boards have some way to go before the value they have the potential of adding is actually realised, if the evidence of the past month is any indication.

Published on: 30 May 2017

Does it matter what directors look like?

Guest blog: Dr James Lockhart (College of Business, Massey University, New Zealand)

During the late 1990s and early 2000s the hot topic in corporate governance was independent directors. Independent directors, it was proposed at the time, were the very panacea for performance improvement. It didn't really matter what the problem was the solution was independent directors, preferably a majority of them—and fast!

Much effort went into defining an independent director and veritable lists emerged of the much needed characteristics and attributes, especially concerning ownership (the lack thereof); earnings from ownership (the lack thereof); or, employment or former employment (the lack thereof). Sadly, in all that enthusiasm the single most important attribute—independence of thought—was seldom mentioned.

Fast forward a decade: now its diversity’s turn. Diversity, it is now proposed, is the panacea for improvement. Just like independent directors in the past (where no systemic evidence emerged supporting the assumption that independent directors actually improve performance) business is besieged with the idea that diversity on boards will enhance performance. All of the board diversity research conducted to date has been from outside the boardroom. We know that because there have been only four longitudinal studies conducted within the boardroom—one in Norway by Morton Huse; one by a serving board member (no conflicts there); one by a British colleague (Silke Machold); and, one by Peter Crow.

So what is being measured? Just like the independent director research, the diversity research has reduced the boardroom to a simple input-output model. Diversity then refers to the measurable appearance of directors, such as, skin colour, ethnicity, sex, age, qualifications, professional backgrounds, and so on with a focus on sex, colour and age. But does diversity of appearance produce a diversity of opinion? Does diversity of appearance produce different strategic decisions that would not have been considered or not approved in the absence of such diversity on boards?

Given that we don't know how effective men are in the boardroom, it is implausible to argue that we know the effectiveness of women. That is not to suggest we don't need more women on boards—we do. But the focus of the discussion ought to be one of building better boards, boards that are focused on wealth creation, and boards that deliver the company’s aspirations.

As with the independent director argument that preceded it, repetition seems to matter—if something is repeated often enough it will eventually be believed. The discussion is being fuelled by the post-modern/neo-Marxist views currently dominating the B-school landscape, one that will acknowledge diversity everywhere other than amongst Caucasians. And with that, the point is lost. The focus of corporate governance should be on performance, in organisations where the thinking folder is overflowing, not what people look like.

About Dr James Lockhart:
James is a Senior Lecturer at Massey University’s Business School, and a credentialed and practising company director. He teaches and researches in strategic management and corporate governance, and is responsible for the delivery of the College’s business internship and professional practice (Management) courses. He currently holds two directorships; is on the Defence Employers Support Council; and, is a Chartered Member of the Institute of Directors in New Zealand.

Published on: 21 May 2017

Update: Boards, gender diversity and company performance

The question of whether companies with gender-diverse boards perform better than companies devoid of gender-diverse boards has been debated with passion for many years now. The locus of much of the early discourse was women on boards. However, the rhetoric has matured in recent times.

Whether motivated by political, social or cultural ideals, the weight of opinion amongst consultants and practicing board members now points to a positive correlation between various diversity attributes (sex, gender and ethnic identity, inter alia) and company performance. But is this a reliable reflection of reality? Wittgenstein's aphorism provides a useful reminder that all may not be exactly as it seems:

From its seeming to me—or to everyone—to be so, it doesn't follow that it is so.

Recently, Katherine Klein, a professor of management at The Wharton School, reviewed the findings of rigorous peer-reviewed studies and meta-analyses, in search of a more complete understanding. Her conclusions, which include the following comment, paint a rather different picture from normative opinion:

Rigorous, peer-reviewed studies suggest that companies do not perform better when they have women on the board. Nor do they perform worse. Depending on which meta-analysis you read, board gender diversity either has a very weak relationship with board performance or no relationship at all.

Klein also discussed possible reasons and implications of her findings. Boards and nominating committees would be well-advised to read Klein's commentary, understand the nuances and contextual factors and, most importantly, debate the implications for practice.

Postscript: Another review of the board diversity literature is available in my thesis (see pages 39–40).

Published on: 20 May 2017

The importance of culture and technology to business success

"In our world now, the primary mover for reproductive success—and thus evolutionary change—is culture, and its weaponised cousin, technology."

The words in this quotation, originally published in National Geographic (*), stood out when I first read them recently. They seemed to lift themselves off the page, as if to highlight their significance. The penny dropped when I realised the quotation is applicable well beyond the [biological] world from whence it emerged.

Take boards of directors for example. The quotation suggests that board effectiveness (and, by implication, company performance) is more likely to be influenced by board culture and appropriate technology than any static attribute such as a particular board structure, composition or governance code. This intuitively attractive proposition enjoys widespread support in the academic literature, and case studies of actual board experiences have been reported.

Yet board and company failures abound, which begs an awkward question. Why do some boards continue to prioritise structure and compliance (with statutes and codes of practice) over culture and technology, especially when a stronger focus on the latter is more likely to lead to increased board effectiveness and, importantly, better company performance?

(*) D.T. Max (2017). Beyond Human, National Geographic, April 2017, p.49.

Published on: 18 April 2017

The distinction between governance and management

Bob Tricker, named by Sir Adrian Cadbury as the godfather of corporate governance, is a hero of mine. While he did not 'invent' the term (Richard Eells did, in 1960), Tricker did do most the heavy lifting—helping all of us who followed understand what corporate governance is and, crucially, what it is not.

Sadly, some directors, consultants and academics have lost sight of Tricker's useful guidance; wandering off to propose all manner of definitions and descriptions. Thankfully, Tricker and a few others have continued to carry the baton, periodically reminding us what corporate governance actually is. Recently, Tricker put pen to paper again, writing this short piece to call out a common mistake: of conflating governance and management. That these two terms are used interchangeably has become a real problem.

A key insight from Tricker's most recent article is that corporate governance is what the board does. In contrast, management is what managers do. Sometimes, the two distinct roles (director and manager) are performed by the same person (an executive director, for example). In such cases, the person performing both roles must be diligent in the extreme, to correctly discern the particular hat they are wearing at a given moment in time.

Thank you for the timely reminder Bob.

Tags