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.