Performance - Peter Crow | Helping boards govern with impact

Published on: 9 April 2017

What will the Wells Fargo review turn up?

One of the biggest corporate news stories to break in 2016 was the Wells Fargo 'fake accounts' scandal. Many commentators, including me, wrote op-eds. At the time, I wondered whether the company had lost sight of its corporate purpose (reason for being), or if greed and hubris had permeated the corporate culture. These were speculations based on partially formed publicly-available snippets of information. Thankfully, the company initiated a far-reaching review, to try to get to the root of the problem.

Now, six months after the scandal was uncovered, the post-scandal investigation is reportedly wrapping up. Hopefully, the underlying causes will be identified, and credible recommendations to restore customer and market confidence in this once-fine brand will be presented. I look forward to reading the report.

Published on: 7 April 2017

Insights from a #corpgov nomad, in the UK

This is the second of two instalments summarising observations from my recent two-week skip across Western Europe. This summary covers the UK leg of the trip. You can read the first instalment here; the European leg.

The trip was framed around four objectives, namely, to share learnings from my recently completed doctoral research and discuss the implications for boards; fulfil some speaking engagements; discuss emerging trends with boards; and, attend a training course. After travelling between cities (actually, countries) every day during the first week, the second week was much more settled. I was based in London for two-and-a-half days for meetings at institutions and with directors. The balance of the week saw me at Cambridge University, for a training course. Here's a brief summary of the key observations:

Director recruitment: The criticism levelled by many aspiring directors—that many board appointments are based primarily on prior relationships and not director competency or 'fit'—remains rife in the UK. Despite a plethora of calls for more a robust process, the dominant question asked by many boards and nomination committees continues to be "Well, who do we know?"
Institutions: Directors' and governance institutes (including the Institute of Directors and the ICSA: The Governance Institute) continue to promote themselves as champions of board performance and director professionalism, supported by a bevy of training courses, press releases and contributions to emergent practice. However, almost half of the directors that I spoke with (most of whom are members of at least one institution) have concerns over the direction and focus of directors' institutes. They noted that institutions have become somewhat self-centred, losing sight of their stated purpose of serving the interests of members and promoting the profession. Remedial suggestions included holding directors accountable for performance and any acts of malfeasance (including de-badging miscreant members of their chartered status); moving the discourse away from populist topics to substantive matters; and, weaning boards off the notion that compliance with corporate governance codes is a valid measure of good performance.
Performance: The long-held understanding that the primary responsibility of the board of directors is to recruit the chief executive and to oversee management remains the dominant logic in the UK, especially in the publicly-listed company community. Whereas many commentators and directors (including me) promote a performance-based understanding (whereby the board commits to determining and pursuing a value-creation agenda) most boards remain comfortable limiting their contribution to monitoring and controlling the performance of their chief executive.
Board evaluations: Directors are increasingly aware of the emergent expectations of shareholders and other stakeholders; that a periodic assessment of board performance is appropriate. However, while directors' institutes have for some time recommended that boards submit themselves to scrutiny, most directors that I spoke with indicated that they remain uncomfortable with formal external evaluations. Privately, they harbour concerns that the results may be used to expose poor practice and, potentially, be used to remove under-performing directors. Sadly, it seems that preservation (of income and status) remains the dominant logic for many directors.
Blueprint for Better Business: After spending a week-and-a-half delivering presentations, meeting with boards and fulfilling advisory engagements my last two days in the UK were spent at Murray Edwards College, Cambridge, at an immersion workshop run by the Blueprint for Better Business organisation. The motivation for attending was straightforward: to understand the organisation's proposition more fully, especially to determine its applicability in practice. I came away convinced, to the extent that QuarryGroup will become a facilitator of the blueprint to businesses in Australia and New Zealand (at least) from 1 May onwards.

If you would like to know more about these observations, please get in touch.

Published on: 2 April 2017

Insights from a #corpgov nomad, in Europe

In the last two weeks I have visited six countries spread across three timezones; slept in seven different beds; experienced snow, sunshine and rain; attended an intensive training course at Cambridge, one of the world's top universities; delivered six formal presentations; and, participated in more than 50 significant discussions about organisational purpose, corporate governance, strategy and board effectiveness. It's been invigorating! Along the way, I've been fortunate to gain many insights, a few of which are summarised in the points below:

The understandings of corporate governance and expectations of boards in Europe is changing. Whereas the focus in the past has been on ensuring management did its job well (an agency-based perspective), the boards and directors I spoke with indicated that they are starting to wrestle with the challenge of understanding the purpose of the company and how the value-creation mandate might be fulfilled. Several folk added that their usage of the term 'corporate governance' has changed, returning to the early usage: a descriptor for what boards (should) do when in session (i.e., in board meetings).
Related to the first point, boards in several European countries (well, in Belgium, Netherlands and Finland anyway) are starting to think more carefully about the longer-term implications of their decisions. This is in stark contrast to the short-termism that continues to pervade US and Canada boardroom and shareholder culture.
De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB, the Dutch Central Bank) is increasingly taking a formative view of supervision, expecting financial institutions to not only demonstrate compliance with established statutes and codes, but also to demonstrate how value is being added to the banking community and beyond in the future.
Many people (both in public forums and private conversations) volunteered that diversity is important if boards are to make high quality decisions. However, the same people quickly added that their usage of the term meant diversity of thought, not gender or any other observable form of difference between group members.
KPMG, IIA and people from several other Finnish agencies were very interested in the implications of the proposal that board involvement in strategy is good for both effective board practice and business performance. It seems that the findings from my doctoral research hit a spot, with both strong support and many questions about the mechanism-based model of corporate governance and the opportunity the model presents to help boards understand how influence can be exerted from the boardroom.

These are but five significant insights to emerge. If you'd like to know more, please get in touch.

This is the first of two postings, covering the first week of my nomadic journey. Here's the second instalment.

Published on: 6 March 2017

A lesson from Churchill, for boards

Churchill's honesty and candor—expressed throughout his sometimes tumultuous career—speaks volumes. Whether speaking about the difficulty of defending Britain (1940); the descending of an iron curtain across Europe (1946); or, holding out false hopes (1950), Churchill's assessments were characteristically both candid and complete. His candour marked him out as a courageous leader—not always right or universally popular, but strong and courageous nevertheless.

In contrast, many boards of directors have a history of being far less complete in their communications; to the point of being economical with the truth and dismissive of the seriousness of situations. Directors—a proxy for (often) absent shareholders—are appointed to govern the affairs of the company, a fiduciary responsibility. Yet a significant number flout this trust, behaving without reference to others (notably but not only shareholders); a sad reflection of the human condition.

When boards and directors operate in a 'fast and loose' manner, and selfishly so, the casualty is often company performance (not to mention the consequential impact on company value). Sadly, shareholders typically only find out late in the piece (sometimes too late): BHS, Wells Fargo and Wynyard Group are recent examples.

Why do shareholders continue to support boards and directors who behave in this manner? Surely the learning from Churchill (and many others including the famous Johnson and Johnson Tylenol case) is that disclosure and the provision of an accurate account is the preferred way of operating, even though the short-term pain may be great. Indeed, history is a great teacher—but only if we take heed of the lessons.

Published on: 23 February 2017

A nomadic life...temporarily, but for a good cause

Sunday 5 March is less than two weeks away. For many it is just another day. However, it is significant for me because it signals the onset of an eight week stretch of advisory, speaking, board evaluation and confidential briefing commitments in several countries. Consequently, I will temporarily embrace a nomadic lifestyle: hotel rooms, flights and airline lounges will dominate my world. Here's the schedule as it stands today:

March 5–6
March 7–9
March 10
March 12–14
March 16
March 18
March 19–20
March 20–21
March 22
March 22–25
March 26–28
March 29–31
April 1–3
April 3–5
April 7–21
April 25–27
April 28

Timaru, New Zealand
Rotorua, New Zealand
Christchurch, New Zealand
Whakatane, New Zealand
Wellington, New Zealand
en route to UK & EU (trip details here)
London, England
Rotterdam, Netherlands
Amsterdam, Netherlands
Helsinki, Finland
London, England
Cambridge, England
en route to NZ
Hawera, New Zealand
Caloundra and Cairns, Australia (holiday!)
Dunedin, New Zealand
Wellington, New Zealand

While the schedule will be demanding, the cause is compelling: to speak into literally hundreds of situations in which boards and directors have sought guidance to improve their practices and performance will be both a great honour. That they have reached out to me is deeply humbling. I shall do my best to make a difference.

Published on: 1 February 2017

Twelve months on: How much progress have we made?

Just over twelve months ago (6 January 2016 to be exact), I wrote this muse, a reflection on both the state of corporate governance and the usage of the term. At that time, confusion over the use of the term 'corporate governance' was common, and the profession of director was shadowed somewhat by several high profile failures and missteps. The blog post seemed to hit a nerve, triggering tens of thousands of page views and searches within Musings; many hundreds of comments, questions, debates and challenges (including some from people who took personal offence that the questions were even asked); and, speaking requests from around the world. That many people were asking whether corporate governance had hit troubled waters and were searching for answers to improve board effectiveness was reassuring.

That was twelve months ago. How much progress has been made since?

At the macro level, seismic geo-political decisions; the rise of populism and the diversity agenda; and, risks of many types, especially terrorism and cyber-risk have altered the landscape. Also, new governance codes and regulations have been introduced to provide boundaries and guidance to boards. Yet amongst the changing landscape something has remained remarkably constant: the list of corporate failures or significant missteps emanating, seemingly, from the boardroom continues to grow unabated. Wynyard Group and Wells Fargo are two recent additions; there are many others.

Sadly, companies and their boards continue to fail despite good practice recommendations in the form of governance codes and (supposedly) increasing levels of awareness of what constitutes good practice. This is a serious problem: it suggests that, despite the best efforts of many, progress has been limited. Clearly, ideas and recommendations are not in short supply, but what of their efficacy—do they address root causes or only the symptoms? And what of the behaviours and motivations of directors themselves, and the board's commitment to value creation (cf. value protection or, worse still, reputation protection)?

That the business landscape is and will continue to be both complex and ever-changing is axiomatic. If progress is to be made, shareholders need to see tangible results (a reasonable expectation, don't you think?), for which the board is responsible. If the board is to provide effective steerage and guidance, it needs to be discerning, pursuing good governance practices over spurious recommendations that address symptoms or populist ideals. How might this be achieved?

An important priority for boards embarking on this journey towards effectiveness and good governance is to reach agreement on terminology, culture, the purpose of the company and the board's role in achieving the agreed purpose. If agreement can be reached, at least then the board will have a solid foundation upon which to assess options, make strategic decisions and, ultimately, pursue performance.

Tags