Tags

  • Published on

    Is an elephant [in the room] obscuring our view?

    Accountability Corporate Governance Governance Research Sustainability Value Creation
    Picture
    ​The rise of artificial intelligence capabilities over the past 4–5 decades (you read that correctly, not 4–5 months or even 4–5 years) has brought some awkward questions into stark relief.
    • How might AI enable or impair our strategic priorities?
    • Are the data in management reports to the board accurate, and conclusions credible?
    • As directors, we’re supposed to govern with impact. But what matters most amongst the many priorities in the reports from management—and how might we decide?
    • Are the so-called experts that management keeps putting in front of us actually experts, or are they just AI-junkies who have generated content that appears to be informed?
    These questions, and many others like it, highlight an overarching question that has become very real for many directors, more so as the onset of AI-generated content has started to pervade boardrooms, executive suites and beyond:
    The report behind the question brings the problem into stark relief: Many conclusions developed from academic research and peer-reviewed articles may not be reliable. Indeed, many may not be worth the paper (screen) they are written on, despite the seemingly attractive arguments put up by the authors.
    This being the case, how might directors validate the data and reporting in board packs?
    If boards are to govern with impact, they must first ensure the reports they receive are not only accurate but credible. This is a demanding expectation, but it is the baseline. Fortunately, we are not the first people to ponder this matter: This muse explores some of the core considerations.
    The elephant in the room is not AI, per se; it is the directors’ ability to distinguish between what matters and what does not—the signal and the noise.
  • Published on

    Towards great: governing with impact

    Accountability Corporate Governance Effectiveness Leadership Performance Sustainability
    Picture
    In 2018, before mankind was tipped upside down by a global pandemic, the chattering class had been very active, responding vociferously as news of various corporate failures and missteps came to light. Carillion plc and the Institute of Directors (both UK), Steinhoff (South Africa), AMP (Australia), and Fletcher Building (New Zealand) were topical examples. The consternation and angst was palpable.
    That seemingly strong and enduring organisations were failing (or suffering significant missteps) on a fairly regular basis concerned many; for the societal and economic consequences significant. Many commentators (primarily, but by no means exclusively, the media) responded by berating company leaders (specifically, the board and management), placing ‘blame’ squarely at their feet. This is a reasonable: ultimate responsibility for firm performance lies with the board after all.
    Fast forward to 2026, what has changed? Well, if post-Covid failures are any indication, not much. The Post Office scandal in the UK, accounting firm PwC, and Port of Auckland (New Zealand), have been in the news for all the wrong reasons. Wilko (UK), GDK Group (Australia) and Du Val Group (New Zealand) are three amongst many that have collapsed under large debt burdens. Fletcher Building has suffered again too, which suggests it may not have learned from its earlier experiences.​
    Amidst it all, calls for tighter regulation and stiffer codes abound. This, despite the geographical spread of corporate failures implying that local statutes and codes are probably not a significant contributory factor. Examples of compliance-driven responses include the King V code (South Africa), ISO 37000 standard (global), and Better Boards Act proposal (UK).
    The responses of boards I have been invited to sit with in recent months have been telling: some have circled the wagons, to defend against accusations that they may have been negligent; some have diverted blame elsewhere, such as, management or regulatory burden; and, some board directors have simply walked away, the burden too great.​ Others have decided that focussing attention on what matters (engaging strongly, in pursuit of sustainable performance), is what matters most.
    Given the chatter in business and social circles, and in the media, it would be easy to join in; to berate all and sundry. But let’s not go there. Instead, it is probably more productive to identify activities and behaviours that may have contributed to the situations, in search of learnings:
    • The role of the auditor: Most if not all of the firms mentioned above were attested by their respective auditors to have been reported accurately and operating satisfactorily. Yet, clearly, some were not. Whether the auditors were in cahoots with management, or the board; failing to discharge their duty to provide an accurate and impartial  assessment; or, even, inept, is a matter of speculation in most cases. Regardless, something in the audit world is amiss. To date, few commentators have called out the audit profession as being an accessory.
    • ​​Business knowledge: Remarkably few of the directors of the companies identified here seem to have understood the business of the business they were governing at the time. Often, directors are recruited for their technical skills (notably, legal and accounting expertise) or extant relationships. Relatively few had significant experience in the sector the business operated in. This is consistent with global research by McKinsey, which revealed one director in six possess relevant knowledge. How any board can make an informed decision when most of its directors do not understand the wider operating context well is perplexing.
    • Director engagement and behaviour: Most of the directors of the companies noted here had a classical conception of board work and engagement: They read their papers and attended board meetings, but did little else. The relationship with management was distant and aloof; directors rarely engaged with each other or the company between meetings; and they saw their most important contribution as being the hiring or firing of the chief executive—all characteristics of a board focussed on control, not governance.
    • ​Board involvement in strategy: The boards of all of the firms identified here relied heavily on management to prepare strategy. Directors backed themselves to ask questions and respond to proposals when they were presented. Some delegated strategy approval to management. While most directors appear to have been well-intentioned, the resultant outcomes tell the story. A heavy reliance on management is, clearly, unwise. What of “trust, but verify?” If the board is not involved in the development of strategy in some way, as researchers and commentators increasingly recommend, the likelihood of the board understanding what it is being asked to approve and subsequently providing adequate steerage and guidance is low.​
    If boards are to learn from the failure cases noted here (amongst others), the first and, frankly, most pressing priority is to mitigate apparent weaknesses and focus on what matters. My research suggests that sustainably high levels of firm performance are possible, but they are contingent on several factors, including:
    • Ownership: The board is the apex decision-making authority in every company, meaning it is responsible making the very biggest decisions. Consequently, if the board is to have any influence over performance at all it needs to take responsibility, directly, for the big calls.
    • Purpose: If performance is to be achieved and sustained over time, all contributors need to understand their role and why it is important. Sadly, many directors bypass the ‘why’: they do not understand (and, therefore, cannot describe) why the company exists (activity trumps reason, it seems). Even if they can, directors often do not hold one view. Agreement on why the company exists—its purpose—is crucial: it provides the touchstone against which strategy is formed, all other decisions can be made, and performance assessed.
    • Strategy: Purpose alone is insufficient. Strategy is the course of action required to achieve the agreed purpose. While no one model (of strategy development) fits all situations, the board should roll its sleeves up and get involved in the formulation of strategy, together with management.
    • Effective boardcraft: This is the biggie. My article, Towards more effective corporate governance, paints the picture.​
    Some commentators have suggested that the success of the board is entirely a matter of luck. I disagree. While outcomes are not guaranteed, my doctoral research and experience supporting boards across five continents suggests boards can exert influence beyond the boardroom, including on firm performance. However, this is contingent: they need to focus on ‘the right things’.
    Unless and until boards start taking their responsibility for the performance for the company seriously, the hope of much changing remains, sadly, dim. What is your experience?
  • Published on

    Keeping up appearances

    Accountability Corporate Governance Effectiveness Governance Monday Muse Research Sustainability
    Picture
    Today, on the third day of an intrepid journey through several Eastern European countries, we have been exploring Kraków Stare Miasto—the Old Town—searching for glimpses of how life was lived in the past. Back streets and less-trod paths, away from trinket stands and touts, are my happy place, for they offer opportunities to peer beyond facades and veneers. ​​
    This scene was one amongst several that caught my attention today. The seemingly decrepit building itself was far from remarkable—but then I noticed two signs—clues to what lay inside: a five-star hotel named after a Polish polymath, and a Michelin-starred restaurant. Who knew? 
    As I looked at the building and signage, a woman sauntered past, on the phone to an unknown soul and seemingly oblivious to her surroundings. My mind wandered. Who was she speaking with and about what? Was she a local or a visitor? What were her circumstances?
    The imagery and parallels with board work are stark. Statements written in board packs may seem complete and accurate, but they may not be. Often, there is more to the story than what is first ‘seen’ in the board pack. Depending on how eloquently the papers have been written, directors may find it easy to form opinions quickly—jump to conclusions, even. Directors should resist such urges! Boards have a duty of care to look beyond the facade, to gain a more complete understanding through discovery and debate, before deciding. Some boards do this well; some are well-intended but struggle; and yet others appear to be motivated by looking good (as evidenced by complying with various ‘best practice’ recommendations and corporate governance codes) than doing what it takes to operate as a high-performing unit.
    When the pretence of keeping up appearances is stripped away, how does  the board you serve on stack up?
    Wittgenstein cautioned people to reserve judgement, for what seems to be so may not actually be so.
  • Published on

    Are we prepared to govern AI?

    Accountability Artificial Intelligence Corporate Governance Ethics Guest Post Performance Sustainability Value Creation
    Picture
    Guest blog: Dr. Cletus Kadzirange (GBS Oxford University, United Kingdom)
    By now, almost everyone has heard that artificial intelligence is revolutionising the commercial world. In addition to creating customer insights and automating procedures, it offers advice on hiring, pricing, and medical diagnosis. Around board tables, the atmosphere is frequently positive—AI is quick, intelligent, and full of potential. 
    While boards are positive about possibilities, are they prepared to govern AI?
    This is a governance question, not a technological one. The most progressive boards are starting to realise that monitoring AI requires far more than a digital strategy, because AI has the potential to affect reputation, social license, compliance, ethics, brand, and more besides. Questions boards should consider centre on accountability, transparency and long-term risk management:
    • Who is at fault when AI fails? This is a question of accountability. Apple's credit card algorithm made headlines in 2021, when it was revealed it gave women much lower credit limits than men with comparable financial backgrounds. Apple blamed its banking partner, Goldman Sachs. Regardless of who is at fault, boards cannot afford to wash their hands. Instead, they need to lean in, consider who is responsible for the performance and outputs of the AI systems and satisfy themselves everything is OK. Before systems behave in unpredicted ways (and they will), boards should check escalation processes and remedial procedures. Accountability is not about assigning blame, but about having foresight, to not only minimise the possibility of unintended outcomes but also respond well. The best companies embed clear accountability lines and practices during the design and implementation of AI systems, to facilitate good governance responses downstream.
    • Is it possible to see inside the black box? This is a question of transparency. Understanding AI's conclusions can be a challenge, even for the people who designed and trained the system! However, businesses that cannot explain the workings of their AI systems are coming under great pressure from consumers and authorities who want greater openness. Consider COMPAS, the system used by US courts to determine recidivism risk when sentencing criminals. Investigative journals discovered the system was skewed against black defendants. When challenged, the corporation that built the system refused to reveal the inner workings, citing trade secrets. Predictably, public disapproval and general suspicion rose sharply. The lesson here is that transparency is a reputational issue as much as a technological one. Boards should ensure management understands how AI systems work, and that credible non-technical explanations are available if required.
    • Are we ready for the new wave of regulation? This is a question of long-term risk. Regulation of AI is advancing rapidly. The Artificial Intelligence Act, which was ratified by the EU in March 2024, established stringent requirements for high-risk systems. A Presidential Executive Order signed in October 2023 moved the US in a similar direction. Provisions such as these expose businesses that cannot exhibit moral AI practices to the risk of fines, legal action and, even, system usage prohibitions. Boards can get ahead of the regulatory curve by regularly reviewing their AI policies against current and proposed regulations, and by calling for reports to confirm that systems are fair in use. 
    AI is no longer a back-office technology. Already, it has emerged as an important enabler, influencing operational, strategic and reputational performance. Consequently, boards that ignore AI as someone else's problem may be blindsided. Boards need to ask questions to ensure AI literacy is adequate, risks have been well-assessed and that governance practices are fit-for-purpose. This is not a matter of dreading the unknown: it is about providing effective steerage and guidance.
    Has your board discussed AI governance in a genuine, systematic way yet? It not, it might be time to get started.
    About Dr. Cletus Kadzirange:
    Cletus is a pracademic in corporate governance and company law who consults, trains and writes on various aspects of corporate law, directors' duties and governance. His specific expertise lies in implementing forward-thinking governance frameworks and sustainable practices that foster long-term value and ethical stewardship.
  • Published on

    On complexity, pathways and outcomes

    Accountability Corporate Governance Decision Making Effectiveness Governance Leadership Performance Sustainability Value Creation
    Picture
    I have had the good fortune of time in South Africa this week, as a guest of GovernEx, a board advisory practice. To have been invited to interact with hundreds of directors, executives, academics and political leaders, to listen, learn, and offer insights has been invigorating.
    South Africa is a dynamic society. In the 31 years since nation-building was restarted (May 1994) much has changed. Black South Africans comprise over eighty per cent of the population; they now dominate the middle class. Efforts to build an inclusive society, whereby circa 63 million people can participate, have produced much fruit. But some cracks are visible: extremes (of wealth and poverty, in particular) remain; guidance introduced to enable and empower has become prescriptive over time; corruption is apparent in some quarters; and, in some cases, the pursuit of inclusion has delivered little more than a power shift, from whites to blacks. The situation is complex, of course, and hope springs eternal. But hope is hardly a strategy.
    South Africa’s political leaders have recognised the situation, and they are responding. The President, Cyril Ramaphosa, together with an entourage of business, community and sporting leaders, met with the President of the United States a few days ago. The G20 summit will be held in South Africa in late 2025. Business leaders have told me of their desire to move beyond various codes and constructs that have devolved to now impose more cost than benefit in many cases. Their question is telling: “Tick-box exercises for what benefit?”
    My sense is that great courage will be needed, if business leaders are to step beyond the pathways and structures that served the nation well in the early years but now seem to have become hindrances to further progress. Those I have spoken with this week are not without courage—and they have been excited to explore alternate pathways to secure better outcomes, amongst these the Strategic Governance Framework. The challenge now is one of deciding: whether and how to act.
  • Published on

    Better truth or health?

    Accountability Corporate Governance Decision Making Family Business Governance Monday Muse Sustainability Tough Questions
    Picture
    The truth, they say, is a good thing, for it will set you free. This seems reasonable, even self-evident to many. But what is truth? Is it a thing (a fact) or a process? Is it deterministic or does it emerge? Is it absolute or relative? And, in a social context, is truth even possible or desirable?
    The pursuit of truth conjures the notion of a deterministic 'answer' to a question or problem, without worrying too much about (or even considering) the context within which the truth claim exists. Consider darkness. Does being unable to read a book on the patio at twilight mean it is dark? How might this expression of darkness compare with the darkness inside a sealed cavity into which light cannot penetrate? And what of degrees of truth? If just one instance is discovered to be false, does that mean the entire truth claim needs to be set aside? Complicating matters, something may be 'true' but unpalatable, such as, genocide or rotten eggs. 
    Now, consider health. What does it mean to be healthy? For some, maintaining a balanced diet and sleep pattern is sufficient. For others, health involves strenuous exercise and physical fitness. Yet others pursue mental health, a sound mind and great relationships. Is the threshold one of having food, shelter and security; or is a higher order of fulfilment necessary to be healthy? 
    And, how might health and truth relate to each other? Is truth a necessary condition for personal health, or are there situations in which truth might need to be secondary to health? Are truth and health even related? And what of truth and health in an organisational setting? Are the comparisons similar or different? Who decides and what factors should be considered in the decision process? 
    In the past two years, I have come face-to-face these types of questions on many occasions:
    • Observing a demanding board chair pressing hard to get her way, because, in her words, "I am right." (trading off a healthy discussion and decision process to secure her version of the truth, even to the extent of flouting directors' duties)
    • A family member receiving chemotherapy and surgical intervention following a cancer diagnosis. (accepting truth—cancer—but taking a tough option in pursuit of health)
    • A chief executive adhering to a strict interpretation of  employment law during a restructuring process, but in so doing delaying the process and exposing the company to viability risks.
    Selecting between two tough options is never easy. The 'least bad' option doesn't sit well in many cases. But as in life, decisions in organisations need to be made, more so in boardrooms. If boards are to provide effective steerage and guidance in pursuit of an agreed outcome, they need to roll their sleeves up, understand the options and make a decision. But with what reference point to the fore? Should boards prioritise being 'right' (legalistic, truth), or should they select options more likely to lead to sustainable outcomes (organisational health)?  ​If  boards are to govern with impact, the high road is, in most cases, the better option.