Une étude conduite par le Center for Leadership Development and Research de la Stanford Graduate School of Business, Stanford University’s Rock Center for Corporate Governance, et The Miles Group montre que les administrateurs évaluent piètrement la performance de leur PCD (CEO) sur les dimensions de la gestion des talents et de leur capacité (ou leur volonté) à créer les conditions favorables à l’engagement de leur conseil.
L’on s’en doute, les priorités sont toujours accordées aux performances financières. Ce n’est pas surprenant ! Seulement 5 % de la note finale est attribuée aux activités relatives au développement des talents et à la planification de la relève… Si l’on croit vraiment que ce sont deux activités stratégiques clés, il faut leur accorder une part plus substantielle de l’évaluation. Sinon, on lance le message que ce que l’on mesure est ce qui importe !
Voici un sommaire des points saillants de l’étude. Pour obtenir plus de détails sur les résultats de l’étude, je vous invite à consulter le site de Stanford. Bonne lecture.
2013 CEO Performance Evaluation Survey
Boards rate CEOs high in decision-making, low in talent development More than 160 CEOs and directors of North American public and private companies were polled in the 2013 Survey on CEO Performance Evaluations, which studied how CEOs themselves and directors rate both chief executive performance as well as the performance evaluation process. When directors were asked to rank the top weaknesses of their CEO, “mentoring skills” and “board engagement” tied for the #1 spot. “This signals that directors are clearly concerned about their CEO’s ability to mentor top talent,” says Stephen Miles, founder and chief executive of The Miles Group. “Focusing on drivers such as developing the next generation of leadership is essential to planning beyond the next quarter and avoiding the short-term thinking that inhibits growth.”
Little weight given to customer service, workplace safety, and innovation in CEO evaluations.
While accounting, operating, and stock price metrics are assigned high value by boards, other factors generally hold little worth when boards rate their CEOs. “Seeming important things such as product service and quality, customer service, workplace safety, and even innovation are used in less than 5% of evaluations,” says Professor Larcker.
CEOs and boards believe the evaluation process is balanced.
Eighty-three percent (83%) of directors and 64% of CEOs believe that the CEO evaluation process is a balanced approach between financial performance and nonfinancial metrics, such as strategy development and employee and customer satisfaction. “Unfortunately, the truth of the matter is that the CEO evaluation process is not that balanced,” says Professor Larcker. “Amid growing calls for integrating reporting and corporate social responsibility, companies are still behind the times when it comes to developing reliable and valid measures of nonfinancial performance metrics.”
CEOs failing to engage boards.
“Board relationships and engagement” tied with “mentoring and development skills” as the #1 weakness in CEOs. “This serious disconnect between management and the boardroom has multiple negative ramifications,” says Mr. Miles. “Board engagement is absolutely vital to the function of the CEO – and to the health of a company. How can the board understand what’s going on in the company if the CEO is not engaging?”
Directors lukewarm when comparing their CEOs against peer group.
Forty-one percent (41%) of directors believe that their CEO is in the top 20% of his or her peers, while 17% believe that their CEO is below the 60th percentile. “For almost half of directors to say that their CEO is just ‘in the top 20 percent’ is not exactly a ringing endorsement,” says Mr. Miles. “The board hires the CEO – they should believe that they have the individual in that job who is absolutely the best, or can quickly become the best. The fact that nearly 20% of directors feel that their CEO ranks below the top 40% means that a lot of CEOs should be preparing their resumes.”
Disconnect in how CEOs and directors regard the evaluation process.
Sixty-three percent (63%) of CEOs versus 83% of directors believe that the CEO performance process is effective in their companies. “Nearly a third of CEOs don’t think that their evaluation is effective,” says Professor Larcker. “The success of an organization is dependent on open and honest dialogue between the CEO and the board. It is difficult to see how that can happen without a rigorous evaluation process.”
10% of companies say they have never evaluated their CEO.
“Given their fiduciary duties, it’s strange that any company would not evaluate its CEO,” says Professor Larcker. “The CEO performance evaluation should feed all sorts of board decisions, including goal setting, corporate performance measurement, compensation structure, and succession planning. Without an evaluation of the CEO, how can the board claim to be monitoring a corporation?”
CEOs highly likely to agree with the results of their performance evaluation.
Only 12% of CEOs believe that they are rated too high or too low overall, and almost half (49%) do not disagree with any area of their performance evaluation. “Shareholders have to wonder at the objectivity of the evaluation process,” says Professor Larcker. “It’s hard to believe that boards are pushing CEOs on their evaluations if they pretty much agree with their evaluation.”
Only two-thirds of CEOs believe that their own performance evaluation is a meaningful exercise.
“Even though a high percentage of directors and CEOs think that the CEO evaluation process is meaningful, this number really should be 100%,” says Mr. Miles. “Every board has the power to meaningfully evaluate the CEO – whether doing it themselves, or bringing in someone to do it, or some combination thereof.”
Directors unlenient on violations of ethics but more forgiving of CEOs with legal or regulatory violations that occur on their watch.
“A significant minority of directors – 27 percent – say that unexpected litigation against the company would have no impact on their CEO’s performance evaluation,” says Professor Larcker, while « approximately a quarter of directors (24%) say that unexpected regulatory problems would also have no impact. » By contrast, all directors (100%) say that their CEO’s performance evaluation would be negatively impacted by ethical violations or a lack of transparency with the board.
Gouvernance | Jacques Grisé 