Tags

  • Published on

    On corporate governance: The importance of a common understanding

    Accountability Ethics Family Business Governance Performance
    Corporate governance—the concept and the practice—has been the subject of much debate over the past two or three decades, especially as researchers, shareholders and the public have sought to make sense of the extent and meaning of the term and the appropriate role of the board.
    A cacophony of ideas and understandings have now pervaded our academies and directors' institutes (including that the scope of corporate governance extends well beyond the boardroom to include the whole of the organisation). As a concequence, the appropriate role of the board is not clear. Is it one of oversight and control, or is the pursuit of performance more important? The answer to this question is dependent on one other: What exactly is corporate governance? Many directors have become confused about these questions and, as a result, the appropriate role and contribution of the board.
    Thankfully, a straightforward answer is at hand.
    The term 'corporate governance' was coined just 56 years ago by Richard Eells, an academic. He used the term to describe "the structure and functioning of the corporate polity" (the board of directors). Sir Adrian Cadbury added that corporate governance is "the means by which companies are directed and controlled". In other words, corporate governance is an overarching term to encapsulate what boards (should) do as corporate goals are pursued. Corporate governance frameworks (such as those proposed by Tricker and Garratt) provide the underlying detail: they describe how the board should steer and guide the company it is responsible for governing. 
    Directors expecting to make effective contributions in 2017 and beyond would be well-advised to consider this what–how distinction very carefully: a common (and agreed) understanding is crucial if the board is to work harmoniously and decision-making is to be effective.
  • Published on

    GIAconf'16: Day One (continued)

    Conferences Governance Performance Strategy
    This is the second update of several to summarise observations from the 33rd Governance Institute of Australia National Conference being held in Sydney this week. You can read the first update (opening session) here. This update includes observations from the late morning and early afternoon sessions.
    The question explored by the panel in the late morning session was "Creating a safe harbour: Beyond the business judgement rule". Judith Fox (GIA Policy Director), Prof. Pamela Hanrahan (UNSW Business School) and John Stanhope (Chairman, Australia Post) discussed proposed changes to company law (safe harbour provisions). The panel noted that the establishment of a 'safe harbour' clause might lead to inappropriate incentives for directors and executives. Whether this possibility is any better or worse than the current situation (of boards providing little if any guidance in their forward looking statements) was discussed at length. The question was not resolved explicitly. However, the panel did agree that it is reasonable to expect boards to provide shareholders with 'fair' and 'reasonable' guidance' to indicate strategic intent, so that shareholders could make informed decisions about their ongoing interest in holding shares and director selections.
    The early afternoon session spoke to emerging trends that directors and boards need to be aware of if they are to contribute meaningfully to the future performance of the company. Specifically, the topics were the Internet of Things and Innovation. Mike Briers grabbed the audience's attention by demonstrating how pervasive the IoT phenomenon is becoming: the level of connectedness and quantity of data generated as a result of millions of connected devices is expected to dwarf every other sector of commerce and life except, perhaps, astronomy. The challenge that IoT presents for boards relates entirely to strategy. How can or should boards respond to the ever advancing wave of technological innovations? What impact might any of these innovations have on current business models and markets? Boards need to create space in their meetings (and perhaps add meetings to the calendar) to grapple with these questions directly. Briers suggested that the rate of innovation is occurring at such a pace and complexity that boards and executives will struggle to understand, let alone respond well. Therefore, boards need to seek symbiotic relationships with other companies and experts. Collaboration is no longer an option. Companies should also prioritise investments in 'complex integration solutions' over behemoth systems. Amongst the turmoil, one thing was clear: if companies are not actively investigating emerging trends and technologies including the Internet of Things (amongst others) they risk becoming irrelevant to their current and future customers.
  • Published on

    Crafting an organisation with purpose

    Accountability Decision Making Governance Performance Strategy
    Earlier this year (September), I had the privilege of attending the Organisations with Purpose conference, an event that sought to address questions about why organisations exist—their reason for being. The two-day event, which was jointly organised by London Business School and Blueprint for Better Business, was well-attended by some leading academic thinkers and, significantly, a few influential business leaders as well. 
    An overriding theme pervaded the conference: Companies with a single, clearly defined and communicated purpose tend to perform better than those that do not. To hear others summarising evidence-based research and case studies on a topic that I've been interested in for some years was great. It filled in several gaps in my understanding. A summary of the conference proceedings is now available. I commend them to you.
    The high point of the conference was the Blueprint for Better Business framework, a model to guide decision-making in purpose-driven businesses. It was compelling, to the extent that I've registered to attend a two-day immersion workshop, ahead of introducing the framework to companies in Australasia from early 2017. 
  • Published on

    GIA conference and more: Serving boards in Sydney

    Accountability Conferences Governance Performance Speaking Engagements
    Image description
    The Governance Institute of Australia's national conference starts on Sunday 27 November at the Hilton Hotel in the Sydney CBD. I'll be at the conference on 28–29 Nov(*) to listen to what looks like a great lineup of speakers, and to serve as a panelist on Tue 29. The panel topic is "The pursuit of productivity".
    ​If you're going to be at the GIA conference and want to say hello, please feel free to phone me or send an SMS. My number is here.
    Following the conference, I will remain in Sydney for two more days (Wed 30 Nov and Thu 1 Dec) for private meetings. If you would like to take advantage of my proximity to chat about corporate governance; board  effectiveness; corporate strategy; emerging trends and the findings from my recent research; or, any related matter of interest, I'd be delighted to make a time to meet. Please get in touch to set up a meeting. Currently, there are several gaps in my diary including dinner on Wed 30 Now and breakfast on Thu 1 Dec.
    (*) Session summaries will be posted here throughout the conference. Please check back if you are interested.
  • Published on

    On corporate governance, boardroom ethics and Brexit

    Accountability Decision Making Governance Performance Tough Questions
    One of the joys of working internationally is the opportunities it presents to discuss topics in a range of different contexts. While most of these discussions are either private (with clients) or rather impersonal (conference presentations), some are recorded for the benefit of a wider audience—including this recent conversation with Lavaniya Das of Azeus Convene. We talked about corporate governance, boardroom ethics and how the C-suite is dealing with Brexit:
    If you want to explore any of the points discussed in this interview, or challenge them, please feel free to either reply below or get in touch via email.
  • Published on

    Essential qualities of a director?

    Accountability Decision Making Governance Performance Research
    Recently, an article was posted on the ICSA: The Governance Institute website, describing 5 essential qualities of a non-executive director. The author lists the following five 'core qualities' and suggests these need to form the basis of evaluations when companies are appointing non-executive directors:
    • Big picture thinker
    • Governance knowledge
    • Independent mindset
    • Ambassador potential
    • Energy and commitment
    This is a good list and several of the items are intuitively appealing. However, having read the article a few times now and compared these suggestions with the findings from my own research and others elsewhere, I am not sure all of these qualities are actually 'essential'. This set me thinking, leading to some supplementary questions:
    • Why have these five qualities been singled out?
    • The fourth quality, 'ambassador potential', stands out as being somewhat different from the others. While some level of ambassadorial capability is desirable in the chairman (because they are usually the spokesman), I struggle to understand why it might be crucial in directors who do not speak for the company. The quality may be more usefully categorised as a desirable item.
    • The title of the article suggests these are essential qualities of non-executive directors. But what of executive directors? Do they possess different qualities? The law makes no distinction between executive and non-executive directors. If a board is to be effective, big picture thinking; knowledge of board practices (i.e., governance knowledge); an independent mindset; and, energy and commitment are more likely to be essential qualities for all directors.
    • What of other qualities that have been suggested as being highly important including competence (to understand the business of the business and complex information); the ability to deal with ambiguity and change; vigorous debate; and, teamwork and trust, for example?
    • Though not stated explicitly, the use of 'essential' implies these qualities are universally applicable. Given the complex and socially dynamic nature of corporate governance, companies and markets, is this reasonable?
    • How might possession of these qualities translate into a beneficial impact on business performance?
    Though progress has been made in recent years, these questions demonstrate our knowledge abut boards is far from complete. We still have much to learn about how boards actually work; how they should work; and, crucially, whether boards can influence company performance through the decisions made in the boardroom (or not). If answers to these very difficult questions can be found, they will probably have significant implications including perhaps to a new understanding of corporate governance and updated guidance for board practices, director recruitment and on-going director development. While some directors may struggle to come to terms with such implications, the flow-on effects for sustainable business performance, economic growth and societal well-being are likely to be significant.