Evolution - the survival of those most responsive to change

As you will of course have remembered, it was 'Evolution Week' recently, the anniversary of the launch of Charles Darwin's 'The Origin of Species' (24 November 1859).  So often we misquote him by referring broadly to 'the survival of the fittest', but Darwin's thesis is far more encouraging than that cliche indicates:

• 'It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the ones most responsive to change.'
  

Any of us can take heart from that: how strong we are and how intelligent were both decided to a large degree very early in our development as a human being (personal trainers and pop psychologists notwithstanding). But how responsive we are to change is a conscious decision, which we can take at any time.

If you want a dramatic example, finish reading here, then watch this short video on Youtube. I honestly don't know whether it's genuine - there seems to be some debate - but I've looked at it several times and it still looks good to me. Regardless, take it at face value and think about the instant decisions this pilot had to take when faced with a catastrophic change that, according to all precedents and accepted wisdom, would have given him about five seconds to live... and how responsive he was to this change.  

Now think about the changes you (and your business) face in this global downturn. And whether you'd prefer his challenges or yours.  

Have a good, adaptable, week.

(Here's the link again. To keep this window open while you open the link, click on the link with the right-hand button on your mouse and select the options of New Window or New Tab.)

What? Were they thinking?

You've probably read about this summer's tour to New Zealand by the West Indian cricketers. If so, I wonder whether you've also shaken your head in disbelief at Dunedin's planned welcoming call: "It's all white here." Let's leave aside for a moment the rush of blood that generated such a catch-cry, with excuses that it's a contrast to Dunedin's traditional "Black-out" campaign for the All Blacks (the West Indians can be expected to be up with the play on local rugby traditions - yeah, right)... or that it refers to the players' test match uniforms - yeah, right again.

This little example seems to confirm the view that common sense really is an oxymoron (a bit like fun run or civil war). Where was the plain good sense when the City Council was discussing it? Did nobody stop to consider how it could - almost certainly would - be interpreted? Would they have used the slogan if, say, it had been the English cricket team instead of the Windies?

What were they thinking? Or, rather - What? Were they thinking?

Why I mention this today is that it reminded me of a question someone on a directors' course asked a few weeks ago: What is the most important skill for a director to learn? I don't claim to have a simple answer for this, but I thought of a couple of possibilities that I've gleaned from other, more experienced directors, including "To object without being objectionable," or that "Dissent is not disloyalty."

What I replied was, "To ask the second question". The reason I think this is such a valuable skill is that it's easy to ask the first question about something, for example "Have we chosen a slogan for welcoming the West Indian cricket tourists?" More likely, in the boardroom, it'll be a question of clarification on a topic the Board is dealing with, or a challenge to a proposal from the Chief Executive. In the latter case, especially, it is quite common for the CEO to push back quite hard: he or she has probably thought through their case in some detail, and has anticipated the first round of questions. I've seen instances where the CEO's immediate response was sharp enough to deter further questions from any but the bravest Board member. This is when it helps to have thought through the issue before you ask the question: if I get this response, that will prompt a further question, and so on...

I don't have a transcript of the Dunedin City Council's meeting, but I can imagine the discussion may have gone something like this, after the "All white here" slogan had been announced:

1st question: "Don't you think that might be a little inappropriate?"

Pushback response: "Don't be so sensitive and b..... PC [politically correct]!"

... Silence, end of discussion.

On the other hand, what if somebody had had the common sense, wisdom, or guts to ask:

2nd question: "Never mind what we think of it, how are we and Dunedin going to look when this is spread across the front page of the world's newspapers?" (in case you can't guess, read the answer here).

Then again, this seems so numbingly obvious that perhaps there was a bigger, more devious game being played, in line with the old cliche that any publicity is good publicity. Was it all just a set-up to gain attention? If so, they should all stand in the corner for twenty minutes, just like any other four year old trying the same trick.

"It's a no-brainer"... but when should the Board get involved?

I'd like to share a small quandary with you. The last month has involved a lot of activity around some of my Boards - the main reason for the relative silence on this page.

A couple of weeks ago, on a Saturday morning, our company's legal adviser rang to ask if I would sign an urgent document that needed the signature of two directors. I don't need to go into the details, but it related to a fairly large transaction, which I knew was coming up. But it had emerged since our previous Board meeting and we'd never discussed it together as a Board.  

I talked it over with our lawyer and asked whether he thought this was a matter that ought to go to the Board first. 'Well, it's really a no-brainer, isn't it?' was his reply. I agreed, and signed. I did ask him to confirm that in his opinion it was in the best interests of the company for us to sign this document, which he did. 

Looking back though, should I have pushed back a little harder? Certainly, there was some urgency about the transaction. And yes, I did (and still do) believe that going ahead was in the company's best interest (one of the legal tests for a director's actions). But I have this feeling that we might have been a little lax in our process. All Board members had seen the emails on the subject, so I suppose they could have raised any concerns. But my main question is where the boundary is: when does a 'no-brainer' become a 'half-brainer', or a matter that might actually benefit from some considered Board discussion, or finally a decision that really needed some thorough testing? And who decides where these borders are? After all, part of our reason for being there is to test and challenge management thinking.  

As directors, we don't usually do much in our individual capacity, and the whole Board is likely to be responsible for the actions of any of us. So the other directors were - possibly without knowing it - putting their faith in the two of us who agreed to sign.

I think I have learned from the experience. If I'm in the same position again - whatever the need for haste - I think I'll at least ask for a Board conference call to discuss it first - as much for the benefit of the other directors as for my own peace of mind. 

We've just had another Board meeting, at which the Board ratified our actions. What if they hadn't? I'd be interested in any similar experiences you may have had - and what you did.

Never a good time - increasing directors' fees

There are some things for which it's never the right time: closing a major highway intersection for repairs, refurbishing the company's head office, and testing the office fire evacuation procedures, for example. And raising directors' fees.

Last week we saw another classic case of an unpopular motion to raise directors' fees in a large public company, Contact Energy Limited. I'm the first to argue that directors need to be adequately rewarded: Contact is one of the two largest listed companies in New Zealand and its independent directors currently receive about $100,000 per annum in fees (read details in the annual report). While this may sound a lot, I believe it's actually quite reasonable, even modest, given the calibre of people Contact would hope to attract, and the demands and responsibilities placed on directors in large public companies. For the record, I have great respect for the technical abilities and professional achievements of Contact's Board members, which is not to say that some of them haven't made some big mistakes in the past.

Besides this, the fees have not been adjusted since 2004 - and I don't know many senior executives who would have accepted zero adjustment to their salaries for the last four years.

And that's where it seems to have gone all wrong. The rational case for an increase seems strong. But I believe the way the Board has gone about seeking this increase has smacked of either insensitivity to the company's small shareholders and customers (many of whom, including your blogger, are both), or an arrogance that tends not to go down well in this country.

As I say, it's never a good time to raise directors' fees - someone will always get upset, if only through pure envy. Now put yourself into the Board's shoes and consider the following - none of which is a secret:

• The world's economy seems in danger of stalling, if not of going into a flat spin;
• We're two weeks away from a general election, so everything is political fair game; and
• On the actual day of the Annual General Meeting, many of Contact's customers (yes, me too) received a letter from the company telling us that our power bills were going up by about ten percent.

When I was learning to fly, many years ago, my instructor gave me his definition of a superior pilot - "a pilot who uses their superior judgment to avoid situations that would require their superior skill." If the directors of Contact had applied superior judgment, I suspect they could have seen the fight they were buying for themselves. Instead of ignominiously retreating at the AGM, and handing a moral victory to a shareholders' representative in a Viking helmet, the directors might have modified their proposal: rather than asking for a doubling of the approved fees (which they hadn't intended to use in full), perhaps they could have argued and gained greater support for a smaller increase, based on the long period since the last pay rise.

It's not the increase itself which is so significant, but broader questions that this issue (not the first) raises about the Company's attitude to its large base of small (and definitely minority) shareholders - and whether the Board is too far removed from the real world to appreciate that the Company doesn't operate in a vacuum. Telecom has paid the price for such arrogance (or corporate myopia); it would be pity if our next largest listed company also fell victim to its own hubris.

Social responsibility, however you define it, is not an optional add-on to a director's role. It is an integral part of governing a company that operates in a real world of people who pay their power bills, read the papers, vote at elections and try to make the best living they can. No company can afford to ignore this for long.

Springboard or Tramlines? How do you manage the Meeting Agenda?

I suppose we're all creatures of habit - even those of us who talk about and sometimes initiate change. But I've had a good experience recently that has made me really think about the order in which we deal with things at our Board meetings.

I've always advocated getting to the key decision items and strategic issues as early in the meeting as we can, so we can spend as much time as we need on these. (These big items are what we sometimes refer to as the 'gorillas in the room': however docile they may seem, you can't ignore them.)

But until now I've been a fan of working through the CEO's report ahead of these items. I've felt that the Board needs to be updated on what has happened since the report was written - probably up to a fortnight before the meeting, if the papers are well planned and reach the Board members a week or so before the meeting.

Well, I've changed my mind. I've chaired three Board meetings in the last couple of months (in two separate organisations), where for various reasons we hit the strategic items almost immediately - right after the formalities and action points from last time. What a difference it made to the meeting: the whole Board was engaged and involved in the discussion from the start. We enjoyed some great thinking, including some big ideas from 'outside the square'. This week we even generated a spontaneous whiteboard session for half an hour, to capture some ideas that we haven't adequately explored before. Not quite the typical image of a traditional board discussion - I'm pleased to admit!

I've thought about why these meetings went so much better. It wasn't just that we gave ourselves enough time for the big items - we usually do that reasonably well - but I think the real difference is that we hadn't been drawn down into the operational issues, which is what probably happens once you get into the CEO's report. The Board members had arrived - well charged with caffeine in most cases (this may also be relevant) - to talk about big issues, and nothing got in their way before we did just that.

And what did we lose by this? Well, if anything, we became even more efficient in our use of time. By the time we got to the CEO's report, we'd discussed most of the main items she'd written, so we spent only about ten minutes on some of the smaller, but important, matters in the report.

There is one assumption in all this: our Board members have to read their papers, and think about the issues, before our meeting. I'm lucky with the Boards I chair, but I know this failure to prepare is a 'sea anchor' that holds some boards back. We take our papers as read (... and understood and thought about) - we couldn't have an effective meeting otherwise: then we use the information from them as background - a springboard - for the type of discussion that effective Boards need to have around the table.

The alternative - sadly quite common - type of meeting is where the Board works its way from page 1 to the end of the papers, without deviating, looking up or adding a creative (or strategic?) thought for the full three or four hours that they're together. Just like a tram-driver really, with the difference that the latter doesn't need to worry about steering the vehicle.

Next, I'm thinking of keeping the minutes from the last meeting until near the end of the agenda too. Why not?

A recipe for New Zealand

Last year, John Williams, one of New Zealand's relatively unsung entrepreneurial heroes wrote a piece for the website nzedge.com setting out ten strategies that would restore New Zealand to the league of wealthy nations, where most of us - I suspect - believe we should be. John used to own Marton-based company PEC (New Zealand) Limited, which developed some revolutionary petrol-pump technology that is now in common use around the world.

From this smart, technology-based platform, which has successfully been taken to global markets, John has produced a list of his 'must-dos' that would see New Zealand transform itself into a genuine knowledge-based, smart economy that we need to become if we are to remain globally competitive.

The list begins, not surprisingly, with a suggestion that New Zealand industry should emulate his success, by 'maximising growth in the sectors where we currently produce world-class products and/or services.'

He includes several strategies for business and commerce, but he also recognises the need for a sound basis in a strong and fair society, recommending (No.4) that the values-based "Kiwi-Can" programme should be extended to all primary and secondary schools.

Whether you agree with the details of this 10-step recipe is, I think, less important than that here at last is someone taking a long-term, strategic look at what New Zealand needs to do. One of the features that I feel has been sadly absent from our national debates over the last decade has been that we have not really talked about what sort of a country we want New Zealand to be. We have argued at length about policies, fairness and tactics; and we've even talked loftily about 'knowledge economies', 'growth waves', 'innovation frameworks' and so on; but without some hard decisions about what we're actually going to do, these will remain simply as cliches.

This debate isn't optional: if we don't at least have the discussion, we'll continue on the current path, where, while enjoying its best trading conditions for decades, New Zealand has barely held its place in the OECD's income rankings. If we have the debate, it's quite valid that we might reach a consensus that we don't want to get back among the rich nations. But I doubt that will be the answer.

What I think we might discover is that dragging ourselves back up the growth curve is in reality the best path to those global standards of health, education and social outcomes that most New Zealanders instinctively want. Unless we're generating the wealth, we can't spread it around. New Zealand's general election is only seven weeks away. Let's challenge ourselves, and the people who aspire to represent us, to take this national debate seriously... to show us their strategies for growing the pie, rather than changing the way we divide the existing one... and to make sure that all sectors of society take part and help to develop a sense of vision and purpose for the next decade.

And, while we're at it, let's not leave it just to the politicians. As leaders in our own sectors, we need to have these discussions around our board tables: how do we build our company to take advantage of the global opportunities (and counter the threats) of the increasingly complex global environment we're in? If we all address these questions, the sum of our answers will go a long way towards providing the answer for New Zealand.

Measuring real success

I realised I'd had enough of the Olympics for another four years when I found myself staring at a semi-final of the women's Handball tournament between, I think, Norway and Georgia. Now come the analysis and post mortems, including the recent discovery that Bronze medallists ('Wow, I got an Olympic medal') are generally happier than those who win Silver ('If only I'd gone just a little harder ...').

New Zealand has had a successful fortnight, with a haul of three Gold, one Silver and five Bronze (that's why we needed that earlier analysis), placing it twenty-fifth in the overall Medal rankings.

We're sure to see commentary around New Zealand's traditional area of strength - medals per head of population. Here we are near the top again this year, with just over 2 medals per million of population, pretty much in line with Australia. On this measure, we're six times as successful as the USA (three million people per medal) or Britain (1.2 million per medal), but we all trail Jamaica, who dazzled on the track with eleven medals in total (six of them Gold), from a population of fewer than three million (remember 'Cool Runnings' - the movie about the Jamaican bob-sleigh team?). If you want more, see this forecasting model produced by Professor Andrew Bernard in the United States and this clever graphical analysis by the New York Times, showing relative performance at each Olympic Games since 1896.

Enough jingoism for one blog post! What I really want to write about is a more meaningful, and sobering, measure of a country's success - New Zealand's ranking in GDP per head of population. Here we have little to be proud of over the last forty years. From being one of the wealthiest countries in the 1960s, we slipped to 22nd out of 30 OECD countries by 2005, sitting between South Korea and Spain, with about 85% of the OECD average Real GDP per head. In 1970, we were up at about 115% of the OECD average.

The good news is that we stopped sliding in the early 1990s. The bad news is that, despite stated political ambitions to return to the top half of the OECD ladder, and enjoying New Zealand's best terms of trade for some decades, we've made no real progress in the last few years.

Looking ahead, I think we face two dark clouds, both related to our remoteness: the growing issue of 'food miles' presents yet another non-tariff barrier to our food exports. Regardless of the science, and the proven fact that total carbon emitted in sending our produce to Europe is less than that of European produce (where stock are generally housed under cover during winter), what really matters is what the supermarket shopper believes. We need to get our message across.

The second point is similar: whether we can remain a destination of choice for the world's tourists, if they get more concerned about the carbon footprint of long distance travel.

As a resource-rich country, we're blessed with some of the world's best conditions for producing protein, we have plenty of fresh water (usually) and a broad range of options for our energy needs. Until recently, we've been sheltered from the adverse trends by high prices for our commodities and a strong and growing global economy. The latter is fading fast, while the former may continue for a few years. But we need to face the reality that one day we won't be the world's cheapest food producer: South America and Eastern Europe are not standing still.

This is a challenge for governance at all levels: for Boards, it's important that we all play our part in thinking how we can genuinely transform our businesses, to get ouselves back onto a faster-growth path. We have the raw materials, we have the brains and the education; we need to commit to investing in a country that wants to grow the pie faster, rather than simply distributing what we have differently.

Next time, I'll look at one person's recipe (non-party political) for restoring New Zealand to the levels of wealth we could enjoy - with all the other benefits that flow in health, welfare and life expectancy.

Welcome a-board - more news on better balanced boards

If you read The Economist, you'll know that it never lacks confidence in its own rightness.

It promotes a liberal, free-market view of the world and, healthily, has little time for the fuzziness of much modern economic policy making. So I think that an article this week, Getting more women on board, is quite significant. As you'd expect, this article is about the improving gender balance on Boards and in top-level management (known these days as 'The C-Suite' - as in 'C' for 'Chief [insert function - Financial, Information, Executive ...] Officer').

The article discusses the slightly disappointing findings of a survey by Catalyst, an NGO that promotes equal opportunity in workplaces, indicating that the rate at which women have reached the top floor offices has 'stalled' in the last few years. Even now, Catalyst estimates that women occupy only one in seven board positions in Fortune 500 companies.

One interesting, and not surprising, finding is that the strongest predictor of how women will progress into the top executive positions in the future is the current proportion of women on their board:

• 'Companies with 30 percent women board directors in 2001 had, on average, 45 percent more women corporate officers by 2006.'

You'd expect this if a company has a culture that creates a work environment providing opportunity for all its people - as seems probable if there is real diversity around its Board table. There is also some evidence that female directors are seen as role models who both inspire and support aspiring female executives.

The Economist takes this a step further, getting close to what I see as the real point - the incentive for shareholders to select leaders from the broadest possible pool of talent, regardless of gender or other demographics (apart, one would hope, from ability).

Several years ago, I was a member of a Board of five directors. Normal succession processes had resulted in my being the only male on the Board. The best part of that experience was that it was three or four months before anybody even noticed this rather unusual circumstance. And that, surely, is the end-game - when surveys such as Catalyst's, and blog posts like this, are redundant, because all of us around the table are seen simply as directors, each appointed because the shareholders considered us to be the best person for the role.

Realistically, I think it'll be a while yet.

Paying dividends - a director's duties

If you've taken any interest in financial markets over the last year (and if you either borrow money or have some to invest, it would be a good idea - especially now - to take an interest), you'll know that a number of finance companies in New Zealand have found themselves in difficulties.

You're also likely to have heard various commentators allocating blame. Some commentators have known what they're talking about, but others we might describe, charitably, as having less than a full understanding.

I thought it might help to explain some of the basic duties of directors in these situations (remembering that I'm a company director, not a lawyer, so I'm drawing any inference as an informed layman, rather than a legal expert), so you'll be in a better position to judge the facts:

1. Dividends

In general terms, dividends are income that shareholders receive as a return on their investment, usually paid from the company's tax-paid profit. Section 52 of the Companies Act says that the Board of directors may authorise the payment of a dividend if it is 'satisfied on reasonable grounds that the company will, immediately after the distribution, satisfy the solvency test' - together with a few other conditions.

So what's the 'solvency test'? For this we look at Section 6: '... A company satisfies the solvency test if -
(a) The company is able to pay its debts as they become due in the normal course of business [my italics]; and
(b) The value of the company's assets is greater than the value of its liabilities.'

My guess would be that finance company deposits which fall due on a particular date would be classed as 'in the normal course of business'. In determining the value of the company's assets, 'the directors must have regard to the most recent financial statements of the company ... and all other circumstances that the directors know or ought to know ...' [again, my italics].

Even allowing for the tidal wave of changes in financial market conditions, and the precipitous decline in reinvestment rates (the amount of deposits that are renewed when they fall due, rather than being repaid to the investor), which has led to the liquidity difficulties of some finance companies, these provisions in the Act should prompt some searching questions of a few people who are known to have been paid large dividends in the not too distant past.

2. Reckless trading

There's another Section (135) in the Act, entitled 'Reckless trading' which may also turn out to be relevant. Under this, a director 'must not agree to the business of the company being carried on in a manner likely to create a substantial risk of serious loss ...' to the people the company owes money to.

The Act provides various defences for people charged under these Sections, so you can expect any legal actions to be lengthy, strongly contested, affairs and, naturally, to be far more complicated than this simple explanation.

But I hope that, after reading this, you will be better able to form your own view of the actions and responsibilities of various parties likely to feature in the news in coming months.

Does absolute power corrupt absolutely?

Last week British retailer Marks & Spencer faced attacks from shareholders and members of the financial press, when Chief Executive Sir Stuart Rose was promoted to Executive Chairman.

23% of shareholders abstained or voted against Sir Stuart's re-appointment to the Board because they considered it went against good governance principles to have one person holding both positions, Chief Executive and Chairman.

This is an old debate and I think it's very easy to over-simplify it - right or wrong. The real answer, as always, is much more complex and depends on the substance rather than the form of the appointment.

If we start with what we're trying to achieve - a successful company - we can find case studies that both support and oppose the appointment.

In many large American companies (which Marks & Spencer is not, of course), the roles are combined. This has often been quoted as one of the weaknesses that led to the fall of companies like Enron and Worldcom. I think it's always a risk if one person holds too much power in an organisation, but the American system provides balance by having, usually, one or two other positions in addition to the Chairman and CEO: we usually find a President and Chief Operating Officer and, since Sarbanes-Oxley, the position of Lead Independent Director. So, in practice, this 'standard' American model builds in some real checks and balances on each individual.

What really matters is not so much the Board's structure, but how (and if) Board members fulfil their roles adequately. There's plenty of evidence to show that the difference between effective and ineffective Boards comes down to how Board members act, whether they deal with the tough issues and have the necessary debates, and that this matters far more than details about the Board's structure. If you've got the right behaviours in the boardroom, you can deal with deficiencies in the Board's structure or composition. But not vice versa.

As has been in the case in several of my previous 'posts', it comes down to the substance of the matter, not just the form.

Marks & Spencer will be an interesting case to watch. As an English company, it would not be typical to have the President/COO and the Lead Independent providing balance. However, my guess is that the Deputy Chairman and other Board members will be very conscious of their obligations to perform: perhaps we'll have material for another comment in a couple of years.

I learned about succession from that

They say we learn best from our mistakes ... some people would say that explains why I never stop learning.

I was reminded the other day of one of the biggest boardroom mistakes of my career. If it's any comfort - which it wasn't to me - it was in an area that many boards fail to deal with well, board succession; or in this case choosing a successor for the Board Chair.

I had been Chair of a medium-sized non-profit organisation for about six years and we had agreed it was time for a change, for both the Board and me. First, breaking all my own rules (see my recent post 'How do we fill his boots now he's gone?'), I agreed to lead the succession process. Without realising it at the time, that alone probably restricted our search criteria to people I thought would be good for the role.

After defining the attributes we were after, we developed a list of possible targets. Our preferred choice, from what we knew of the people, was a just-retired highly-successful Chief Executive who we knew had a passion for our sector. Although several of us had met him a few times, none of us could say we really knew him. (Does anybody hear warning bells yet?) I was given the job of phoning him to ask if he'd be interested.

To my mild surprise, he told me this was his first approach to join a Board since his retirement and yes, he was flattered and delighted to be asked. Abbreviating a long story, we felt that we'd 'got our man', so we didn't approach any of the other candidates (I think that's still quite normal, especially with non-profit Boards, because I think there is an understandable reluctance to approach people for voluntary roles, only to say 'sorry' to them later).

Well, he joined, was elected Chair and I left the board. I've never believed in hanging around once you stop being the Chair: it's the governance equivalent of 'Dead Man Walking', when you don't want to be there and you know nobody else wants you around either.

From almost his first meeting, the appointment was a disaster. He started behaving as the 'super-CEO', over-ruling the employed CEO, getting involved in management details and barely including the rest of the Board in most decisions. Get the picture? Much to the Board's credit, they realised very quickly the damage this was causing and he was a very short-term Chair of that Board.

So what did we (or I) learn from all that?

First, there are very good reasons for checking references. We've seen several public examples of what happens when nobody did. Only a few months after these events, someone I knew quite well asked me quietly, but obviously in frustration, why I hadn't checked with him (yes, I know, there's a small thing about Privacy Law as well). He told me - too late of course - that the person in question was a superb CEO, but terrible to work with as a director, because he could never remove his CEO 'hat'. However big the reputation, we need to check whether it is relevant to the role we're considering: it's a big change in approach from being a CEO to joining a Board as a non-executive member (even as Chair), where effective decision-making comes from building consensus, and where we don't manage the business hands-on.

This example showed me that checking those references is vital, even for a voluntary, non-profit position, because the consequence of not doing so can be disastrous.

Secondly, should I have been involved in the process at all, considering it was my successor we were looking for? In an ideal world, I don't think so. Perhaps I was so keen to move on that I allowed (possibly even encouraged) some short cuts in the process. In retrospect, if I hadn't been involved, the rest of the Board might have been more rigorous in interviewing and checking references, rather than letting me influence the appointment too much. In my defence, none of the other Board members showed a lot of enthusiasm for putting in the time that was needed to find someone and make the appointment.

On the scale of how wrong things can go, this was possibly not too bad. But the lessons were clear, and more importantly they taught me that we've developed some good basic principles of how Boards should do things.

These principles have evolved through other people's mistakes: disregard them and people will be learning from yours!

Good governance? Lessons that come close to home

I thought you might enjoy this from that renowned bastion of good governance, the Russian government. First Deputy Prime Minister Shuvalov was quoted in a recent edition of The Moscow Times.com, extolling the virtues of high corporate governance standards:

"If Russia is to become a major financial center, we need to embrace evolving corporate governance standards," Shuvalov said.

Deputy Prime Minister Zhukov backed this up:

"We want to be seen as a country with a good deal of responsibility in business..."

So I suppose that means it's all OK then. Remember though that this comes at a time when the State seems determined to take control of BP's Russian subsidiary through political, rather than market, channels (throwing in challenges such as heavy back taxes and visa problems for company employees). Perhaps this real-life tussle gives a truer picture of the current state of commercial affairs there.

As a result, I found another comment in the same article, on the role of government-appointed directors to state-owned company boards, rather more plausible:

"Very often, the time they devote to reading documents on the situation in the company amounts to the time they spend in a traffic jam on their way to a board meeting."

Yes, I know, it could never happen here. I hope not. But I'm still dismayed at the number of Board courier packs I see ripped open for the first time on the early-morning flight to the meeting - never mind that the papers are on view up the aisle for anyone to read. The director has at best 30-45 minutes to skim their papers; they can't hope to have a full grasp of the issues they'll be dealing with a few hours later.

If you're going to do this job properly, minimising the risk to yourself and the rest of your board, as well as the company, you need to know what's in those papers: not just the content, but you need enough time to think about the issues they raise.

If you don't, you just might end up in the position of the board of the New York Stock Exchange (other side of the Atlantic this time) a few years ago: thanks to their Board members not reading their papers in advance, they ended up having to pay their departing CEO about $US140 million (oh, and it was a not-for-profit).

Happy reading!

How do we fill his boots now he's gone?

If you live in New Zealand or Australia, and have even a passing interest in rugby, you'll know that Robbie Deans, one of New Zealand's finest coaches (if not the finest - but that debate has filled plenty of other blogs) has said his farewells to the Crusaders, the most successful team in Super Rugby history.

Just in case you've been on a clandestine trip to Mars, suffered radio failure and missed the news while you were away, the ultra-successful coach of the Canterbury-based Crusaders, after missing out on his dream job of coaching the All Blacks up to the 2011 Rugby World Cup (even more blogs), has been lured - 'snapped up' might describe it better - across The Ditch to coach the Wallabies for the next four seasons.

Actually, this week's post has nothing to do with rugby. What caught my eye was a comment last week from Hamish Riach, the Crusaders' CEO, that Deans would have no say in choosing his successor. And the controversy that this has caused.

Surely, goes the argument, Robbie's been so successful that he should have a hand in picking his successor? Well, I agree with Hamish. However great a coach, or a CEO, or a Board Chair has been, you never, ever, want a clone to replace them. The people who will be held accountable for the success of the new appointment need the freedom to make their own choice. Certainly, let them consult the person who's leaving (more often I've seen the departing leader offer their opinion anyway), and let's have, preferably, a couple of people being groomed to take over when the time comes. That's just prudent succession planning.

But, come selection time, all bets and promises are off the table, and the Board's Appointments Committee must have a free hand. Usually the biggest mistake it can make is to try to find someone in the same mould as their predecessor ('...to carry on the legacy...'). This fails for two reasons: the new person will almost inevitably fall short of expectations (and unfair comparisons), and, secondly, the departure of a key person gives the Board an opportunity to look at what type of person we need for the next few years - rather than slavishly continuing what has worked over the last five or eight.

So, Robbie, I don't know what you think of this - if you've had time to think about it at all in your new job. But my instinct is that the Crusaders have already shown what makes them successful, in making yet another good call: brave management decisions are all part of the mix. I won't be in the least surprised to see the Crusaders continue their winning way, whomever they appoint to fill Robbie's boots.

And, living in Wellington as I do, it hurts me to admit it.

Why me? What do I need to know?

A friend of mine phoned a couple of weeks ago to tell me he'd been invited to join the Board of quite a large company. He was keen on the opportunity - and the company - and told me he was meeting the Chairman the next day. What were some of the questions he should ask to help him decide whether to accept?

Some of you will already have noticed one positive feature in this: it's natural that we should be delighted by an invitation like this. As an experienced company director once said to me: 'It's never a bad day when you're invited to join a Board.' After all, it's a compliment to one's (perceived) skills and experience. But, as he went on, 'I thank them for the invitation, I enjoy the moment and I'll start my due diligence tomorrow.'

In this case, I think my friend's best move was to resist the temptation to accept the offer immediately, or, as I see so often, to put up no more than a token display of modesty or questioning.

It's easy to fall into this trap in the glow of the moment, but you need to stop and consider what you'll be getting into. Companies legislation is usually quite 'binary' about responsibilities of directors - you either are or aren't a director - so you need to understand that, legally, you carry the full weight of directors' responsibilities from the day you sign on (there's no allowance for 'training wheels').

What, then, are some of the things you need to find out before you accept?

Let me add that this is not a comprehensive list - nor 'expert advice' - and that you need to apply your own 'care, diligence and skill' (the typical legal description of the duty of directors) in assessing what information you need - and how much is enough for you to make your decision. I'm also not talking here about the basic information you should obtain, such as what you can find from trawling the website or strategic/business plans, or your assessment of the organisation's financial position (please remember that cash is what pays the bills, so pay particular attention to where the cash is coming from and how reliable those sources are).

One thing you might do is to ask to read the Board's Minute book. A review over the last couple of years should give you a good sense of how the organisation works, its strategy (whether it has one and how well it's working), financial performance, major challenges, quality, clarity and consistency of decision-making, and many other things that will help your understanding of the organisation. And if the Chairman is reluctant to let you see the Minute book, ask yourself why - and whether this is an organisation and team you really want to be a part of.

As with everything here, what matters to you in all this is how the future looks, not just past performance.

1. Why me?

I think this is one of the most useful questions of all and the answer can tell you a lot. If it's along the lines of, 'Well, we've asked seventeen other people; they've all said no, and we can't think of anyone else ...' (it won't be quite this obvious, but make sure you read between the lines), you might want to look elsewhere. But if the answer is, 'We've got these issues ahead of us and we think that your background in [insert details here] will give us that perspective we need at the Board table,' then you may just have stumbled right onto the main things you'll be expecting to deal with, if you accept.

2. How well can I work with these people?

How many people join a Board without even meeting the people they'll be spending their time with? You don't need to be best friends with them, or even agree with them all the time (if fact if you do, then perhaps you're not the best person to bring a fresh perspective), but, to be effective, you must be able to work constructively with them. You must share a common vision for where the organisation is heading and be comfortable with how it does things (its values and culture). So, at the very least, meet the other Board members, the Chief Executive and top management team: you need to know them and they you.

3. What are the big trends, opportunities and threats facing this business, and what are the Board's big priorities for the next year or so?

You don't just want the answers: you need to know how well the current Board has thought about these things. If you're not happy with the answers, this may not deter you from joining, but at least you know what one of your early priorities will be.

4. How good are relationships with key stakeholders?

It may be pointless to join a Board which has fallen out with its major shareholder or key customers, because chances are that you'll be dealing with some pressing issues, not of your making, in the near future - unless, of course, it's the key shareholder who wants to appoint you to help address the problems.

5. Is the organisation aware of any significant legal action (actual or pending)?

Similar in a way to the previous point: this is not so much about any personal liability - since you may (note - may) be protected against actions that preceded your arrival (please make sure you understand what your actual position is). But, if the issues are significant, they will almost certainly be a serious distraction for the Board, and get in the way of progress in your core business.

6. What's the time commitment?

Don't underestimate this. My rule of thumb is 'three for one': in other works, if we have a four-hour board meeting each month, I'll mentally 'budget' twelve hours a month (say about a day and a half) for the role - four for the meeting itself, four for preparation (reading the papers and doing what else you need to keep up with the issues - wider reading, networking and so on), and the other four for all the other things that you get involved in, such as informal discussions with the Chairman, representing the Board at customer functions, visiting company facilities ...

To do this job properly requires you to put in time and effort. And if you don't, then not only will you be letting down the organisation and your fellow Board members, but you're potentially exposing yourself to greater risk because you won't have as good an understanding of what's going on as you should have.

7. Do I really want to do this?

This is a vitally important question - which you need to ask yourself rather than anyone else. I've found that you need more than director's fees (don't even think about 'status' - that's largely a myth!) to keep you motivated as a Board member: you need a 'burn' that you really want to play a part. Unlike an executive role, where you're in the business every day, as a Board member you may only be involved a few days a month.

I believe you need a sense of excitement and a desire to make a difference in order to keep you engaged. I've found from experience that, if that's missing (perhaps it's a sector that doesn't really excite you), then you may go through the motions, and you may even play a full part at Board meetings. But you probably won't do much more than the minimum and, quite soon, you'll start to regard that courier delivery of next month's Board papers as another chore, rather than opening a window on the next exciting episode.

As you may guess, I've written this from experience of mistakes I've both seen and made. I hope it helps with your 'due diligence'.

If, after all this, you go ahead and join that Board, as I hope my friend will, then good luck with the job ahead ... I trust you will enjoy making a difference as part of your organisation's top decision-making body.

What's really in a name? A. Rose ...

I've taken a digression from our normal topics this week to look at a different type of governance: have you noticed how often our elected leaders have surnames beginning with letters in the first half of the alphabet - Bush, Blair, Clinton, Clark?

I thought I would take a deeper look at whether there was anything to this.

I looked at who has been elected to lead four different, but related, countries, the US, Britain, Australia and New Zealand. I've excluded those who reached the top through succession or internal 'coup' (Gerald Ford, Jenny Shipley, Gordon Brown - so far), unless they went on to win an election in their own right (Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Paul Keating).

To give myself a reasonable sample size, I have looked at leaders who first came to power since 1939, which seems as much a watershed date as any, arguably representing the start of the era we're now in. My final 'control' check was to see where the middle of the alphabet really falls: the halfway-point in my telephone book is towards the end of 'L', so I have taken all those whose name begins with 'M' or later as being in the second half.

What I found quite surprised me. You have almost exactly twice the chance of being elected leader of your country if your name falls in the first half of the alphabet.

There are of course some notable exceptions to this - Thatcher, Reagan, Muldoon and Rudd - but perhaps another theme from Shakespeare takes over here:

"There is a tide in the affairs of men, Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune."

In other words, perhaps the forces leading to some of these results were so powerful (stale government, desire for change) that, to quote the Australian cliche, a "drover's dog" (or Moggie?) could have done it.

Another point to ponder is that those with the most ignominious endings carried 'second-half' names (thinking, briefly, of Nixon and Whitlam). New Zealand has had more than its share of leaders who got to the top via a leadership change between elections (Marshall, Rowling, Palmer, Moore and Shipley). All have 'second-half' surnames and all reinforce my findings by either failing to win, or (Palmer) not lasting until, the next election.

Is this all just a statistical blip? Or does it have something to do with our childhood conditioning, during those years of waiting our turn in the school playground ("Get to the back of the line, Zebedee")?

Either way, it puts an interesting slant on the current US presidential campaign - since we're likely to see both candidates sporting 'second-half' surnames. Perhaps we shouldn't write Hillary off just yet ... or watch her again in 2012!

(Yes, I've looked at my own chances - 'W' - and I have decided not to throw in the day job!)

So although he/she might smell as sweet, "A. Rose" might have a better chance of leading their country by taking a different type of flora for a surname ... um, er, Bush?

FICKS your Board

An excellent article in last month's Harvard Business Review, 'Leading from the Boardroom,' highlights a paradox that many Boards face.

Directors know - or ought to know - that the real task of a Board is 'to build tomorrow's company out of today's'. The authors of the article, Jay Lorsch and Robert Clark, note that as the pressure on compliance grows, a Board's natural response is to spend more time on avoiding mistakes and minimising risks, rather than focusing on long-range planning. As a result, they expose their companies to potentially even bigger risks.

Think of the Board of a manufacturer of music CDs: what's the value of making sure we comply with every regulation and check every figure against last month's results, if we miss the fact that Steve Jobs of Apple has reinvented our industry - and that nobody wants to buy CDs when they can download their Amy Winehouse favourites onto their iPod? Oops, suddenly we don't have a business. That's the type of issue that Boards ought to be thinking about!

In my advisory work, I've developed a way for Boards to segment their work: I call it 'FICKS', obviously a catchy name (well, I think so) but also a helpful acronym for the five key functions of a Board:

• F - Future Focus - making sure we have the right Chief Executive (for the next few years as opposed to the last few), and working with management on strategy development and execution (let's spend about 30% of our time here - even though it's scary because it involves making decisions about an uncertain future);

• I - Issues Identification - understanding our environment, spotting the trends, communicating with our stakeholders so they understand what we're doing (another 30%);

• C - Compliance - it's still important to make sure we keep to the law, regulations and best practices, and monitor the risks the business faces, but not at the expense of looking ahead (perhaps 15% of our time);

• K - KPI ('Key Performance Indicator') Monitoring - sorry to tell you this, but you don't usually need to spend half of every Board meeting asking the same questions about the numbers and budgets that you asked last month (15% again);

• S - Succession and Skills - making sure we've got the right people at the Board table and in top management to deal with what we'll be facing over the next few years (the remaining 10%).

We can break this into three broader categories - the first two (F & I) are about creating value (cumulatively 60%), the next two (C & K) involve preserving value (30%), and the last (S) deals with the ability to keep adding value in the future.

In summary, the latter categories (C, K & S) are a means to the end - the end being to look ahead and build the organisation of tomorrow. That's where, as directors, we build the legacy that makes our job worthwhile.

Of course it's never this simple or so clearly segmented in real life - any decent strategy proposal will have elements of all five! And the proportions will vary from meeting to meeting. But I've found that 'FICKS' is a useful reality check on how a Board really spends its time, and whether it is dealing with the right things - as opposed to dealing well (perhaps) but with the wrong things.

You may get a surprise when you think about how your Board spends its time. But I'm sure the exercise will be worth it.

(Oh, and if you do find this is of any use to you, some attribution of my trademark, 'FICKS', would be appreciated, thank you!)

Is it all worth it? ... Well, yes.

It's not quite like life on Mars; but the search for hard evidence that good governance does lead to improved organisation performance and better shareholder returns has been almost as elusive.

Now at last a study of over 600 public companies in Britain, "Governance and Performance in Corporate Britain", by the Association of British Insurers, has come up with some strong indicators:

□ Over a five-year period, the shares of companies deemed to be well-governed delivered a return about 4.5% per annum higher than their industry peer group;

□ Well-governed companies showed a lower volatility of returns over time;

□ Poor governance was associated with 3-5% per annum under-performance and a smaller (but measurable) decline in the market value of assets;

□ And the evidence indicated that good governance led to higher performance, rather than vice versa (and it was a causative relationship, not just a correlation).

The survey also came to the unsurprising conclusion that having more Non-Executive Directors on the Board (NEDs, directors who don't draw a salary for their day-job) led to improved performance. But the key here was balance: having too many NEDs was associated with lower profitability. This suggests that having a mix (the British practice) might be preferable to current New Zealand and Australian - and increasingly American - practice, where most or all the directors are drawn from outside.

So we finally have some evidence to support what many of us have long believed (for goodness’ sake, it’d be a boring role if all we did was monitor compliance and identify risk!). Perhaps this will start to counter those popular anecdotes about directors - like defining the difference between a director and a supermarket trolley (answer: a director may hold more food, but at least the trolley has a mind of its own).

Maybe this survey is the terrestrial equivalent of finding water and organic chemicals on the Red Planet. I hope it will give directors even more reason to leap out of bed in the morning, looking forward to the Board meeting - and confident, in the words of the late Sir Peter Blake, that it will “make the boat go faster.”

"Best before ..." How long should a Board Member stay?

One of the commonest questions people discuss with me is the length of a board member's shelf-life. As a general guide, there's a good rule for management and boards that it's better to leave a year too early than stay a year too long (I suppose a recent Australian Prime Minister might be pondering the same ...).

However, I think there's a fundamental difference between how long a Chief Executive is likely to be in the role and how long a non-executive board member (who doesn't work there in a 'day job') should serve. When a CEO arrives in a new job, he or she will then eat, live and breathe it every day of the week, while a board member probably has contact with the business only a few times a month.

I may be a slow learner, but I find it usually takes a couple of years at least as a new board member to feel that I really understand the business and its issues, its strengths and its risks. It seems to me that so many organisations with term-limits of 2-4 years (whether formal or just habitual) are wasting enormous potential value: just as the board member is really starting to contribute, we get rid of them. I worked recently with one organisation that has a limit of two 1-year terms for their board members ... and they wonder why their board doesn't provide any real leadership!

The other consequence of these short-term appointments, if your board members never get the chance to become fully effective, is that the organisation will almost inevitably be dominated by the CEO, with few checks or restraints. Either that, or the CEO will get frustrated that the board members never really understand what's going on and therefore won't make decisions. I've seen both and they're both likely to end in tears, and at least one departure.

In New Zealand, we see this in companies owned by the Government, SOEs, Crown Research Institutes, etc - some of them very large and complex: the convention is that you serve up to two 3-year terms, so, just as you get up to speed, they blow the whistle and call 'full-time'. We are finally seeing a bit of flexibility around third terms, but I shudder at the number of good directors who've been lost to their companies just as they were starting to make a real contribution to the strategy, and to provide some real support (and challenge) for the CEO.

If a board member is really performing and adding value around the board table, then why wouldn't you want to keep them for 8, 10 or even 12 years? Ask any CEO who their most valuable board member is and they'll almost always name one of the longest-serving.

On the other hand, long service isn't a right. A board member has a responsibility to keep up to date with the issues of the organisation and the industry: today's challenges are very different from those of 2003, and I'm sure they'll be different again in 2013!

My biggest challenge a few years ago as chair of a non-profit organisation was to help a couple of very long-serving board members - passionate volunteers, who'd put their hearts into the place over nearly twenty years - to realise that they were operating mentally in the 1980s, and that we really needed some fresh skills for a new environment. Even in a non-profit (sometimes, especially in a non-profit), enthusiasm on its own isn't enough: you need to make sure you've got the skills, experience and networks that are relevant today, and will be tomorrow.

And let's not even talk about the worst case I saw - a board member, totally unsuited to the role, who fell asleep (at my count) in 18 of his 22 board meetings, before, thankfully, his appointment was not renewed.

Auckland Airport - rating the players

Well, it's now in the hands of the Overseas Investment Office and the politicians.

After painful months of bid, rejection, counter-bid and apparent knee-jerk response from local councils and national politicians, the private and institutional shareholders have voted heavily in favour of selling their Auckland Airport shares. But we now have to wait, possibly until mid-April, to see if normal property rights - such as the right to sell a share in a public company to a willing buyer - will prevail over a vague (and lately introduced) concept known as 'the national interest'.

Report Card:

The institutions and small shareholders: Pass: they have behaved rationally, opting to sell their shares for a price far above the current market. Yes, the bloodbath in capital and equity markets over the last few months (hey, cash looks good right now) has encouraged them; but they've probably been prompted even more by the government's recent intervention in the process, in announcing, at very much the last moment, that the bid will be subject to Ministerial decree about selling 'sensitive assets on sensitive land'. No forewarning of this goalpost-shift, by the way! Ironically, without this last minute move, it seems quite possible that many shareholders would have opted not to sell. But when you're told that you don't know what's best for you, you tend to react.

The board of AIA: A pass, but must do better next time: I think people have been confused by the board's position. It has sent messages that the company needs a cornerstone shareholder, but then advised against the bid to begin with. With the recent change in sharemarket conditions, the board changed its advice - recommending against approving the bid, but advising holders to sell if it proceeded. If you realise the directors' first duty (under the Companies Act) is to the Company - not the shareholders - I think you can make more sense of this: perhaps directors feel the Canadians aren't the best option for the company, but wanted to help the smaller shareholders to make a sensible decision if the bid does go ahead. But they could have been clearer and explained their thinking a little better

Auckland and Manukau City Councils: They've sat this test twice (Dubai Airports last year) and failed both times. Well, they're politicians, so it's hard to expect fully rational, strategic thinking. Never mind their decision over this bid: mightn't things be quite different if they had embraced the original bid from Dubai Airports? Auckland could have looked forward to becoming a major hub for one of the world's biggest airlines; someone, other than the ratepayers of Auckland and Manukau, would have invested a lot of money in improving the airport, creating countless jobs and further wealth for the region (... and obviously increasing New Zealand's relevance as a global transit stop - a new Singapore, or of course Dubai, model). Perhaps most important, and something that seems to have been forgotten, the two City Councils would have had the sale proceeds available to invest elsewhere ... possibly some of it back into the airport if it had remained a listed company, almost certainly at a lower price once the premium for control had gone! (Poor ratepayers, yet again.)

The bidder, CPPIB: Well done, a good pass. I think it's hard to find fault with their behaviour throughout. I hope to see them back here next term. They've made a good, clean offer and have said they don't want control of the board. If you look at their history, they're not asset-strippers, but tend to be long-term holders, looking for long-term returns (and isn't that what we all really want from Auckland Airport?). Now they've even said they're willing to reduce their voting rights to 25%, even though they may own 40% of the company. And they've done this in spite of all our attempts to kick sand in their faces. A pity that some other people in the playground haven't behaved as rationally and honourably.

Finally, will someone please explain to me this xenophobia about selling 'infrastructure' assets to overseas owners? Of all the things you can sell, infrastructure seem the lowest risk of all under overseas ownership: after all, if things go really sour, they can't actually take Auckland airport away, or close it down and shift it to China. Compare that with many other types of business that we seem less reluctant to sell! Oh, and did I mention that those who sell would actually have cash to re-invest in something else: it's not as if the airport's being stolen.

Overseas, this isn't such a big deal - after all the Spanish own Heathrow Airport (did you even know that ... or care?).

Please don't let this become yet another case of New Zealand snatching a last minute defeat - and of helping overseas investors understand that we're really not the good and stable investment destination you thought we were.

(Disclosure: A family member of mine has a small, non-lifestyle-changing, shareholding in AIA, and has voted both to approve the Canadian bid proceeding and to accept the offer for the shares ... we'll wait and see.)

Update on Carl Icahn's blogging

You may remember in my post 'An idea whose time has come?' I noted that iconoclast Carl Icahn was launching his own blog on corporate governance.

If you're wondering why it hasn't yet hit the headlines, here's the latest from Reuters:

"... So far, however, readers wanting a fix of the latest Icahn blast on The Icahn Report have been disappointed, with the site simply sporting a dour picture of Icahn with the notation, 'blog coming soon'. At a meeting last night, Icahn explained that he’s not suffering from writers’ block, but said his lawyers are stopping him. 'Every night, I write for an hour and they tear it up,' said Icahn with a sardonic laugh."

Isn't it good to live in a less litigious environment, where we don't typically ask our lawyers to clear every step ... unless you're a lawyer I suppose.

"Interesting times" in health

Working with a couple of New Zealand District Health Boards this week, I was reminded of the (perhaps allegorical) Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times." Although perhaps cliched, it seemed a reasonable opening for my presentation to board members in one of the largest, most complex and highest profile sectors in the economy. (I also questioned what some of them must have done to have deserved the curse in the first place.)

I looked into the origins of the saying: it has been quoted in English since about the 1940s, but what I found most interesting was the story that this is only the lowest of three curses of increasing severity, with the others being:

• "May you come to the attention of those in authority" - a curse that was obviously laid on the entire Board of the Hawkes Bay DHB, who were very publicy sacked last week; and, worst of all,
• "May you find what you are looking for" - perhaps you can think of your own candidate/victim, but I wonder if the new Minister of Health might have have hesitated before his notorious "I'm running the show" comment, if he'd been aware of this 'ultimate' curse.

An idea whose time has come?

They say timing's everything. No sooner do I launch this Better Boards blog than billionaire investor Carl Icahn (estimated by Wikipedia to be the 18th richest man in the America) decides to do the same thing!

Reuters reports that Icahn, who first came to public attention with his 1985 takeover of TWA (remember them?), and who has been described as the shrewdest investor on the planet is establishing a blog to discuss ideas on corporate governance, an area in which he has strong opinions [surprise!].

"[The US] is losing its economic hegemony," Icahn said at a corporate governance conference in New York. "I want to see who is interested in this. I really think there's a lot to do."

I shall be interested to see how opinions in America compare with ours. Whatever the views, this only demonstrates that more and more focus is coming onto how boards work, and whether they help or detract from the creation of shareholder wealth.

And that's something we should all, as directors, be interested in.

The long-term vision - soft thinking or an essential building block?

I was thinking the other day about one of my last Board meetings of 2007. A year or so earlier, we'd agreed a broad-brush picture (aka vision) of what we thought the company should look like in 2020 - which will be long after the current leaders have all departed. This 'vision thing' is not uncommon in companies.
Then, at the end of last year, we found ourselves faced with a choice: either a strategy that would probably give an attractive return over the next four or five years, but which compromised the 2020 vision; or a direction that probably wouldn't pay for five or six years, but which potentially would contribute significantly towards that long-term vision.
It was a robust discussion; at the start I felt the majority mood was for the shorter-term option. In the end, though, and thanks to some outstanding chairmanship (that might be another story), the Board reached a unanimous position, sacrificing the short-term so that the 2020 vision remained intact.
To me, though, the real lesson from this was not whether we made the right decision - which I hope we did! - but how essential it was for us to have done that long-term thinking earlier.
If we hadn't done that, then I am almost certain we would have taken the superficially-
attractive shorter option. It's not that the long-term vision is necessarily right, but that, without it, we would have had no reference point to compare the short-term against longer-term decision. We could as easily have reached a conclusion for all the right reasons that the 2020 vision was flawed and have taken the shorter option.
As I said earlier, lots of boards develop long-term visions: I believe that one way to test whether it actually means something is how often you make hard choices, tested against that vision.
What do you think?

CSR - Necessary but not sufficient?

Like me, you've probably read a lot about how companies that actively practise Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) generate greater returns for their shareholders than those that don't. It's very fashionable, but a recent article in Harvard Business Review challenges this comfortable PC view.


According to HBR, there's only a weak link between CSR and increased shareholder value. However, there does seem to be real evidence that the absence of CSR practices can increase risk - a string of corporate misdeeds has shown us all how damaging that can be to the share price, which may recover, and to directors' reputations, which sometimes can't. One of HBR's conclusions is that it may pay "to do good, but not too good": in only 2% of the companies actively dedicating resources to CSR did it actually cost shareholders value. So, for the cynic, perhaps you can think of CSR as another - inexpensive - insurance policy: if we do good things, and consciously don't do bad things, then we're less exposed to the downside. Think of it as a corporate variation on that old definition of conscience, "a mother-in-law who never goes home."


One interesting conclusion I think we can draw from the study is that increased profitability is a poor rationale for CSR. But, as HBR puts it, perhaps doing good is its own reward. And even in the corporate world, is that so wrong?

Welcome to my Better Boards blog!

I'm glad you've visited. I hope to make it worth your while to return from time to time. (You might want to make it easy by adding this page to your Favourites folder.)

This blog is about helping boards work more effectively: I plan

• to include some of my own thinking,
• to pose a few questions to make you think, and
• to provide links to other articles that might help.

I expect the subject matter will be wide-ranging, but everything will be aimed at helping boards, and those of us who sit at the table, to add more value to our organisations. I think there's an opening for a forum like this - although I suspect many more boards than we might assume already work quite effectively: we just never hear about them because boards that do their job seldom attract the limelight. If I'm successful, we'll read about even fewer in the future.

As the old governance paradox has it: When an organisation is working, the CEO's the star; when it all turns pear-shaped, "Welcome a-board!"

I'm also keen to know your thoughts - whether or not you agree with what I say - so please don't be shy about adding your comments.

I look forward to your joining me on this exploration.