Tags

  • Published on

    Ten days in the UK & Europe: A snapshot

    Accountability Corporate Governance Diversity Family Business Leadership Research Strategy Value Creation
    Picture
    I have just arrived back in New Zealand, from ten days in the UK and Europe. My meetings with directors, advisors, academics, students and directors’ institutions had two primary objectives: to listen and to share. The listening aspect was to gain firsthand knowledge of issues and opportunities; the sharing aspect to provide updates on the craft of board work and my experiences as a practicing director.
     Learnings (a few immediate observations, in no particular order):
    • Directors say they are finding it hard to distinguish between signal  and noise—that which is material to monitoring and verifying performance and progress, and that which is, essentially, argumentation from stakeholders asserting preferences with only tenuous associations with sustainable performance.
    • ESG remains 'hot', although everyone I asked said the marketplace was fracturing. Acolytes are becoming more assertive, especially in their expectations that companies prioritise net zero, climatic change response, and equity above all else. Others are less convinced, as they are yet to see any increase in company performance or alpha. The gap between the groups is growing too—adherents have started using the 'anti-ESG' moniker, in an effort to claim the high ground. Detractors have not been silent either, saying the discourse needs to move away from what they describe as ideological fervour to pragmatism and common sense. 
    • Increasingly, directors are questioning whether quarterly board meetings (common in Europe) is actually a good idea. The directors I spoke with said they find it really difficult to keep up with compliance matters, much less contribute well to strategic items. The power balance leans reasonably strongly in favour of the CEO too.
    • Calls for optionality to be removed are becoming more commonplace. (Optionality meaning all directors of companies of substance should be required to be professionally qualified, in the same way as doctors and lawyers need to achieve and maintain a relevant professional accreditation.)
    • Geopolitical turbulence is front of mind (greater in Eastern Europe than Western Europe). The situation is exacerbated by economic headwinds and energy security concerns (think: gas and electricity supplies) despite Europe emerging from a mild winter. The UK and France (in particular) are also struggling with high inflation, strikes and, in France, a proposal to raise the age of retirement. Given the uncertainties, many leadership teams have shortened their strategic horizons and some have become quite defensive.
    • The Credit Suisse bailout by UBS unfolded before my eyes—I was in Zürich the day after the failure. Like many other failures, this one came as little surprise to insiders; the company has endured scandals and criticism for some years. (My early assessment: the board appears to have been asleep at the wheel.)
    • Directors continue to struggle with what corporate governance is and how it should be practiced. Sadly, the confusion observed during this trip is as widespread as in the past. Directors' institutions have a critical role to play, to clearly and straightforwardly assert what corporate governance is and, critically, what it is not. 
    Amongst it all, there were some gems:
    • ​Several directors spoke passionately about their work, and how efforts to engage more actively, with an underlying sense of purpose, is starting to make a difference.
    • Researchers are moving focus, from quantitative studies using public data, to trying to get inside boardrooms to observe boards in action (ie: the practice of governance).
    • Advisors to General Counsels, CEOs and SME founders have recognised a different conversation is needed to appeal to boards and directors. I was pleased to offer a few insights and suggestions.
    • I had the delight of delivering a guest lecture to forty or more researchers and students at Leeds Beckett University. The Q&A was fascinating—a candid exchange with people passionate about helping boards govern well.
    Several followup visits are now being planned, to advise, assess, educate and speak on topical board and organisational performance matters. If you want to discuss a matter of interest, or check my availability to assist, contact me for a confidential, obligation-free discussion.
    The headline picture, showing a derelict property in Soho, London, is analogous to the state of governance in many places in Europe: structurally sound but outwardly messy.  
  • Published on

    Are TLCs important, or are they NMP?

    Accountability Corporate Governance Decision Making Governance Performance Strategy Tough Questions
    Picture
    The opportunity to embrace a transport technology that is cleaner, quieter and considerably cheaper to operate (than petrol or diesel alternatives) is attractive—once the initial purchase price hurdle leapt. The purported benefits seem to be significant, but does the reality match the rhetoric? As with any proposal to embrace system-level change, the costs of moving from one technology to another are far from trivial. If an assessment is to be complete, the total lifetime costs (TLCs) need to be considered; that is, the sum total of all costs incurred over a product/system’s lifetime (includes manufacture, operation, disposal).
    In the case of electric vehicles, what of the economic, environmental and social costs of extracting metals for battery ingredients; logistics and manufacturing; replacement of batteries when they are spent; battery disposal; and, of upgrading the power generation and distribution network to provide adequate electrical power to recharge batteries? Many of these are being quietly ignored, it seems. Not my problem, some argue, as if out of sight is out of mind. This short article argues that when the TLCs are factored in, the benefits associated with a seemingly compelling technology (in this case the adoption of electric powered vehicles and other devices with battery power packs) may not be as great as what has been claimed.
    And so to the purpose of this muse, which is not to argue the benefits or otherwise of adopting electrically powered vehicles. Rather, it is to table an issue often overlooked by board of directors considering so-called strategic projects: total lifetime costs.
    When faced with a strategically-significant proposal, boards first need to check for alignment, by testing whether the proposal is contributory to the corporate strategy (spoiler alert: often linkages are tenuous). Assuming it is, directors should satisfy themselves that total lifetime costs have been included. Only then can the question of whether the recommendation should be embraced or rejected be debated.
    Why might this be important? Directors are duty-bound to act in the best interests of the company. That means taking all relevant information into account. 
    If boards ignore externalities, or abuse the social, environmental and economic capitals consumed in the operation of the company, the governed company is unlikely to endure over the longer term. And in so doing, directors may be exposing themselves, unwittingly, to legal challenge as well.
  • Published on

    What of 2022, and beyond?

    Accountability Corporate Governance Decision Making Effectiveness Governance Leadership Performance Strategy Tough Questions
    Picture
    Every year, at about this time, sages and futurists of various stripes peer out from their sanctuaries  to offer opinions of what the future holds. Many speak or write deterministically, as if they have been blessed with special powers to know or postulate the future with great accuracy. Pronouncements are read with great anticipation by many, and embraced as if categorical. But some commentators are more circumspect; their contingent expressions reveal great maturity and wisdom.
    “Forecasting is always a hazardous business. … no one can claim that the future is entirely inscrutable.”
    One does not need to look far to see examples of the difficulties faced by those charged with forecasting and strategising. Over the last two years, for example, undertones of fear and stasis have been prominent. People and companies have frozen in response to pronouncements and dictates from national leaders. Economic and social priorities have been set to one side; the main—nay, only—focus has been on the pesky virus known as Covid19. First, borders were closed and populations were locked down, in an effort to flatten the curve. Some even tried to eliminate the virus. Then, recognising their folly, leaders embraced vaccination to reduce the effects of the virus. Most recently, mandates have seen populations divided into two classes, the vaccinated and the un-vaxxed. Naysayers have jumped in, but many of their predictions have proven to be wrong as well. Meanwhile, economies have struggled and the social fabric has frayed.
    Amidst this backdrop, boards remain responsible for the performance of the companies they govern. Of those who recognise this (and not all do), some boards wait, perplexed by the unknowns, and others strike out, believing they can control the future, despite a plethora of externalities. Neither response is particularly wise.
    High performing boards and leadership teams recognise that things change, often unexpectedly. They remain vigilant, watching for weak signals that might portend the emergence of something significant. They hold options open for as long as possible. Then, when it is time, they act, decisively. 
    The types of questions high performing boards ask (and keep asking) include:
    • Are we monitoring and assessing signals, trends and other relevant changes effectively, and what are the data telling us?
    • Are we attuned to the expectations and preferences of legitimate stakeholders, and are our responses appropriate?
    • Is sufficient time being allocated for scenario planning and strategising?
    • Is resource allocation aligned with desired outcomes?
    • Are we doing the right things?
    • Are plans being enacted as intended?
    • Are expected benefits being realised?
    While some of these questions may be difficult to answer, boards must persevere. Even partial answers are likely to indicate a more reliable way forward than the lazy option of blindly pursuing the supposedly categorical predictions of mediums, sages and futurists.
  • Published on

    On strategy and governance: Whither to next?

    Corporate Governance Decision Making Director Development Governance Performance Readings Research Strategy Tough Questions Value Creation
    Picture
    As summer gives way to autumn in the Northern Hemisphere—and soon winter—so various externalities that frame the work of boards and enduring performance of companies continue to press in. Topical externalities include climatic change; shifting geo-political forces; technological disruptions; diversity, equity and inclusion demands; ever-increasing levels of regulation; the emergence of ESG; and, stakeholder capitalism.
    The challenge for all directors and boards, whether they acknowledge it or not (or even notice or care!), is to respond well in the face of what is patently a dynamic environment—to ensure the fiduciary duty they accepted when agreeing to serve as a director is fulfilled. Steerage and guidance—the essence of corporate governance—requires every director, and the board collectively, to be alert, to both set a course and to respond well in the face of externalities. The mind’s eye needs to be looking ahead, to ensure the reason for the journey remains clear, and that decisions are made in the context of advancing towards the objective. Quite how that should be achieved is the underlying question that has driven my life’s work.
    Following an extended break from writing—a consequence of dealing with the passing of our patriarch—I have ‘arrived’ back at my desk to think and write again, about organisational performance, governance, strategy and the craft of board work.
    If you have a question, or would like to learn more about a particular aspect of board work or the impact boards can have on organisational performance, please let me know! If we are to journey far, we need to explore relevant topics and learn together.
  • Published on

    Misalignment: The elephant in the room

    Accountability Corporate Governance Effectiveness Governance Leadership Performance Strategy Value Creation
    Picture
    News of Emmanuel Faber's dismissal as executive chairman of Danone, a French food conglomerate, has caused quite a stir. Mr Faber, a fervent proponent of stakeholder capitalism and ESG, had led the company for seven years. Since 2017, he has held both the chair and chief executive roles (a situation disfavoured by many investors, academics and advisors due to concentration of power risk). Though charismatic and influential, the record shows that company performance has languished under Mr Faber's leadership, and staff turnover increased too. Clearly, something was amiss.
    Sustained pressure from activist investors, disgruntled by Danone's performance (relative to its competitors, over several years), finally elicited in a response. The Danone board decided to separate the chairman and chief executive roles; Faber would remain chairman of the board and a new chief executive would be recruited. But this attempt by Faber to placate the activists while also retaining power was received poorly. Faber was, in the eyes of the activists, a lead actor and, therefore, a big part of the problem. He had to go they thought. Realising this, the board ousted Faber.
    Proponents of both stakeholder capitalism and shareholder capitalism have taken Faber's demise as an opportunity to come out from their respective corners to argue the merits of their favoured ideology. The purpose of this muse is not to add to that discourse; it is to consider another matter brought in to view by the case at hand: that of misalignment.
    If a Chief Executive acts against the direction of the board (or without the board's knowledge), or if a board is disunited over a strategically important matter (purpose or strategy, especially), company performance (however measured) will inevitably suffer. Danone is a case in point. 
    Matters of misalignment, either amongst directors or between the board and chief executive, need to be resolved promptly. Similarly, if purpose and strategy are clear, coherent and agreed, but subsequent implementation is poor or ineffective (the saying–seeing gap), the board probably has a leadership problem. ​Attempts to satisfy all interests—appeasement—rarely achieve satisfactory or enduring outcomes, as Neville Chamberlain discovered in 1938–1939. 
    Directors need to be alert (individually and collectively, as a board); united in their resolve to pursue agreed goals; and, their tolerance for underperformance must be low. If the board is complacent in the face of misalignment or poor strategy execution, and it does not act, it becomes part of the problem. Sooner or later, shareholders will notice, and it is reasonable to expect they will act, to protect their investment.
  • Published on

    Where are we headed, and are we making progress?

    Decision Making Effectiveness Governance Leadership Strategy
    Picture
    Have you ever wondered what it would be like to travel in a plane without any knowledge of where you might be headed? While this prospect may excite some, the idea of flying without a destination or purpose in mind beggars belief for most people. 
    Successful air travel is predicated on knowing the destination; a precursor to the pilot creating a flight plan to make the journey and arrive safely. Air travel is, generally, safe and straightforward when this principle is applied. But things can go wrong, and if they do, pilots must be ready to respond well. For that, years of training and accumulated experience are vital. And vigilance too: continuously reading onboard and external signals to verify progress, and to spot and respond to any emerging problems.
    ​Successful governance is directly analogous. Knowledge of the destination and how to get there (purpose and strategy) is vital, as is constant monitoring of both the general direction (to verify progress is being made towards the desired goal) and the current situation (to detect any emerging problems). 
    Boards are, in general, reasonably good at reading and understanding the current situation. But they are not nearly as good when it comes to general direction. Knowledge and agreement around the ultimate goal, how to get there and how progress might be measured remains problematic. If directors and boards lack clarity on these matters, their ability to govern well and ensure the performance of the company into the future is lost. The consequential risks are high. Chances are, the board and the company will be knocked around—moving but not making progress, just like a cork in a washing machine. ​
    Does your board have this in hand?