Matière à cas – Page 14 – Gouvernance

Mieux comprendre le rôle d’ambassadeur au sein des C.A. d’OBNL

Voici un article très intéressant sur l’importance d’utiliser certains membres de conseils d’OBNL comme « ambassadeurs » auprès de la communauté. Cet article, publié par R. Armstrong et S. Trillo de VISION Management Services, est basé sur une entrevue avec Lyn Baptist, présidente de la Fondation J.W. McConnell Family et experte dans la gestion des OBNL. L’article présente une typologie des rôles d’ambassadeurs sur des C.A. On y explique clairement ce que font les ambassadeurs et on y présente certains moyens à prendre pour rallumer la flamme de la passion.

Cet article sera assurément d’un grand intérêt pour les présidents de C.A. et les leaders dans le domaine de la gouvernance des OBNL.

Governing Beyond the Boardroom | Reigniting the Ambassadorial Role

2011 Board of Directors Retreat (Photo credit: sfbike)

« We interviewed Lyn about her ambassadorial approach to governance because of the impact she’s had. While the ambassadorial role is not new, it seems to have waned, despite the fact that many boards are populated by would-be ambassadors who are passionate, skilled and networked. Few organizations today seem to encourage or support board members to take on this valuable role.

In the start-up phase of an organization, many board members naturally assume an ambassadorial role. They reach out to friends, family, neighbours, and colleagues, driven by a passionate belief in a cause and a desire to act. Start-up phases are often characterized by few or no staff, and so board members do whatever it takes to build the organization. Not surprisingly, roles and responsibilities are rarely defined; and in the absence of an Executive Director (ED), board members connect to external stakeholders as a critical part of establishing and growing the organization.

Once the board succeeds in establishing the organization, they hire an ED to lead it. The ED takes on many of the roles formerly assumed by the board; and the ‘line’ between operations and governance is drawn. In the process, the board’s role is contained and its scope narrowed. While this has reduced the time commitment for busy board members, it has led to disengagement and dissatisfaction. Many board members comment that the governance work they’re asked to do does not leverage their skills and talents or engage their passion for the cause ».

5 huge mistakes startups make when choosing board members (venturebeat.com)

La séparation des pouvoirs PCA (Chair) et PCD (CEO) | Avis des experts en gouvernance

J’ai récemment suivi les échanges sur le groupe de discussion LinkedIn – Boards & Advisors portant sur l’à-propos de la séparation des pouvoirs des PCA (Chairperson) et des PCD (CEO). Le sujet est certainement l’un des plus cruciaux … et des plus controversés en gouvernance car, à mon avis, tout commence par l’établissement d’un principe de base prônant la souveraineté du C.A. sur la gouvernance des organisations. Le reste devrait suivre naturellement…

Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, un solide échantillon des points de vue des experts en gouvernance. Je vous invite à lire les commentaires issus de cette riche conversation. Vous comprendrez aisément qu’il y a des différences significatives entre les positions des experts en gouvernance, la plupart optant pour une séparation des rôles. Notons cependant que les pratiques en vigueur aux É.U. se démarquent de toutes celles des pays occidendaux car environ 60 % des conseils de sociétés cotées sont présidées par le PCD (CEO) ! Également, il est important de considérer que l’article le plus souvent cité sur le sujet (voir le billet du 3 septembre 2011 – Séparation ou combinaison des rôles – Président du Conseil et CEO ?), est très nuancé eu égard aux avantages et aux inconvénients de cette pratique.

Bien qu’un PCA indépendant ne garantisse pas l’exercice d’un leadership exemplaire et bien que le poste puisse aussi être occupé par un « Lead Director » indépendant, je crois personnellement que la gouvernance des organisations est mieux servie par l’emploi d’un président du Conseil totalement indépendant du management et que, conséquemment, les deux rôles de PCA et de PCD devraient être séparés.

Dans ce débat, l’opinion de Al Errington reflète en bonne partie mon point de vue :

« … a chair being a CEO is a conflict of interest. The fundamental responsibility of a board of directors is to hire, set objectives and direction, and evaluate performance of the CEO. The chair’s fundamental responsibility is facilitate and focus the board in doings it’s work of hiring, setting objectives and direction, and evaluating performance of the CEO. If the chair is also the CEO they are focusing and facilitating the setting of their own objectives and performance evaluations. Even if performance is good, accountability is very weak which may have long-term issues… Chairs who are CEOs, or dependent on CEOs, are bad governance. Lead directors are an attempt to have your cake and eat it too, a workaround bad governance but still retains bad governance. The board of directors is supposed to be the CEO’s boss. If the roles and relationship is not separated and defined, the relationship is murky along with accountability. Many organizations either don’t want change or are afraid of the unknown. Good governance, I am sorry to say is largely unknown, in our culture and economy ».

La séparation des pouvoirs PCA (Chair) et PCD (CEO) | Avis

des experts en gouvernance

Henry D. Wolfe – I support the split of the Chairman and CEO roles but where is the focus and emphasis on 1)The importance of the chairman’s role in setting the tone and expectations for the performance of the company and 2) The qualifications that are needed in a non-executive chairman? « Independendence is not enough,,,purpose and competence needs to be included in the mix.

James McRitchie – I don’t think there is much doubt that, in general, it is better that the roles be split. http://www.commpro.biz/ir-therefore-i-am/governance-and-compliance/splitting-the-chairman-ceo-titles-practice-good-corporate-governance-while-saving-money/#.UQwWlqU7Mmk

Carl Hagberg – I feel strongly that having a totally independent Lead Director – one with a clear and robust Charter – is far superior to the idea of having a totally independent Chairman. For starters; « No man can serve two masters » – and that is often what one ends up getting with such deals. Secondly; in difficult times – and certainly when there is a business crisis – it is usually a major strategic blunder to divide one’s forces among two « leaders. » My biggest fear – and we have seen this play out recently at several large companies – is to end up with a trigger-happy « Imperial Chairman » – who turns out to be at least as bad – and often worse – than the old-time Imperial CEO. So called « Independent Unlike a « Lead Director », who must have, and continue to maintain the support of the Board as a whole – so called « Independent Chairmen » often seem to think they are free to have a « Charter » of their own making – that is often subject to change at their own whim. Yes; sometimes an Independent Chairman can be a good thing…But at other times, the need for a single strong leader – who can speak and act with one voice is an overriding concern. (And just as an aside; of late, we see CEOs getting ousted far more often in such situations than we see the « Independent Chair » being shown the door…which may, or may not be the best thing in the end.) A strong Lead Director – with a strong Charter – and with strong Board support – is a far better and safer way to go in my book.

Richard Leblanc – Carl you raise good points. The quality and leadership of the person, and relationships and context, are important. Both models can work and both cannot, depending. Most Anglo American companies other than the US choose the separate chair, where the US prefers the Lead Director. Both models can work. The disadvantage I see is the LD does not chair meetings. But then again I have seen separate chairs not effective at chairing meetings. I saw one where the Chair did not say a single word all meeting… And there is no causal relationship academics have found between separate chairs and shareholder performance, chiefly because independence is being measured not effectiveness.

Henry D. Wolfe – I would suggest that the lack of the causal relationship is due to the complete lack of understanding of what is required in a high peformance non-executive chairman. The focus is too tilted toward independence alone rather than delving into the understanding of what is required of the leader who should be setting the standards for the group (board) that is in place to ensure the maximization of company performance.

Michael Wildenauer – I’m sure that not many in the US would agree that the separation of powers in the system of government be abolished; splitting the chair/CEO roles serves the same purpose (albeit not quite so large in scope, importance etc.). Sure having the « single strong leader – who can speak and act with one voice » can be useful in times of trouble, but it seems likely to get companies into trouble just as often. Its about checks and balances. As with government, its an imperfect system, but possibly less imperfect than others… Just my opinion, obviously.

Richard Leblanc – Henry, I think if you asked many academics what they would need to actually measure what you write above, they wouldn’t have the foggiest. Indeed the case for execution of this heightened role beyond independence may also be true for some boards or chairs. I think the role and importance of the chair is the most misunderstood, opaque, understudied yet vitally important board positions.

Michael, there is a strong cultural, military and entrepreneurial tradition in the US of unity in command or one person in charge. So I agree. But the flip side is power unchecked. Proponents of the lead director position would say that there are adequate protections such as an independent board leader, a majority of independent directors, executive sessions, and exclusively independent committees. But you really need an effective lead director who can push back against a combined Chair and CEO, with authority of both offices, if or when needed.

Michael Wildenauer – Richard, to counter your first point may initial analogy of the US not vesting all power in the President, but also in Congress and the judicial system, seems appropriate. The Chair has one very important source of power, the power to explicitly or implicitly set the agenda. If that Chair is also the CEO, the ability of the board to even consider the wisdom of certain strategies, let alone how they are being executed for example may be curtailed. Or not, depending on the character/abilities/integrity of the individual who holds the position.
I’m sure that Lead Directors work fine in most situations, but its not a very lean solution to add something new rather than fix something that’s already there. It seems to me that the LD argument seems to be wanting to have it both ways: we need a strong unified CEO/Chair voice & the LD will ensure that one voice won’t speak over the top of others. As usual, just my opinion.

Richard Leblanc – You know Michael after I wrote my response I thought of yours, and the very good point you are making is that there are strong balance (one could argue too stong) of powers in the US political context (legislative, executive, judicial), but not as much in the corporate sector (a company can still have a chair, ceo and president AND controlling shareholder). And I agree with your second paragraph. It is not just agenda setting but the meting itself and who says what, when. A CEO and chair combined is proposing and assessing. The LD role has been criticized for not having the authority of the office. A good chair can speak over the head of the CEO but I don’t know that a LD has the same klout. I am not sure the US will ever truly adopt a NEC model, but there is constant movement in this direction I find.

Jason Masters – In corporate Australia we have a preference (strong) for the separation of the Chair and the CEO, with the Chair obviously having a key role in the Board room, and with the REM committee the performance of the CEO. The Chairs also provide a mentoring, support role for the CEO which can be incredibly useful for CEO’s. There have been some recent examples where this has not been followed, and generally the market has been supportive usually given the particular enterprise and the particular CEO.

Henry D. Wolfe – Re your point above re academics, I think the same goes for the governance community in general. I would suggest that this is due to a continuation of viewing governance through the lens of compliance, oversight and related frameworks rather than seeing the board as the entity with the primary responsibility to ensure that the company’s performance is maxmizied. When viewed through the latter lens, a entire series of different questions arise in regard to what is needed in a non-executive chairman.

Richard Leblanc – Jason it is similar for Canada – there is a strong emphasis on independent chairs, of all public companies, but there in it stops. I recommended a position description to our regulator and they went with it, but in retrospect that was a mistake. The management lawyers draft the chair role to be NOT what Henry describes above, but to keep the board and chair at bay. You get what you regulate. If you want an independent chair and are silent on mindset, strategic role, performance and value creation, then you get an independent chair, only. I am not suggesting regulation, but I am suggesting more guidance in terms of the qualities and attributes required of the chair, and directors, and their responsibilities beyond compliance. My interviews I am undergoing are very revealing. It frustrates activists what is happening and how chairs and directors are chosen, and that indeed many are not independent as believed or intended. Shareholders clearly understand what is needed, and have the experience and track record. I interviewed someone Friday who has been involved in 50 activist situations.

Steven Wood – Great discussion. I am a clear advocate of separation of powers of Chair from the CEO. I remember the advantages of Procter & Gamble separating these more than 50 years ago. It was principally based on separate of powers argument. Over time more of the strategy review and general performance of the company has come under the perview of the independent Chairman. Agree that this situation is an exception in US corporations, but one that can be found in more than P&G. In China there is usually no spliting of Chairman and CEO role, which I think causes many of the governance issues that are coming out frequently in the press globally about Chinese companies under investigation for false representation of their business. Of course, you could say that corruption is endemic in China and this is just another reflection of this. I think that an independent Chairman could help in bringing better governance. HK is considering such a measure. On the other hand in Israel, the Chairman and CEO are usually split. It is traditional with little law in this area. It is clear that an independent Chair would be better at representing the interest of the owners/shareholders. The Chairs in Israel usually come from the industry (retired) or in advisory capacity in the industry, so know it well. Their is a bias to focus on company performance.

Brenda Kelleher-Flight – Which model works depends on the ability of the chair to i) facilitate meetings without imposing his/her views, ii) accept differences of opinion and weigh the benefits associated with each perspective, iii) ensure the board is a team (rather than just a group), iv) ensure all data is on the table and refrain from assuming that the information provided by the CEO is all inclusive, v) view the work of the board from a longitudinal perspective (rather than a one-meeting at a time), vi) maintain focus on the mandate of the entity, vii) ensure the effectiveness of the board is evaluated, and viii) ensure that the board does not see its role as being synonymoous with pleasing the CEO or backing away when the CEO uses any strong-armed tactics.

Al Errington – My opinion is that a chair being a CEO is a conflict of interest. The fundamental responsibility of a board of directors is to hire, set objectives and direction, and evaluate performance of the CEO. The chair’s fundamental responsibility is facilitate and focus the board in doings it’s work of hiring, setting objectives and direction, and evaluating performance of the CEO. If the chair is also the CEO they are focusing and facilitating the setting of their own objectives and performance evaluations. Even if performance is good, accountability is very weak which may have long-term issues.

Carl Hagberg – This is excellent, Brenda – and a close-to-perfect statement, in my opinion, of the kind of Charter there should be for the Lead Director…and yes, I guess for an « Independent Chair » as well. I think that EVERYONE agrees that there needs to be a strong system of « checkpoints » on the CEO – and a very strong process for making sure the CEO stays on task, uses the Board as it SHOULD be used, serves the needs of all shareholders and, above all, does not revert to the old « Imperial » Chair/CEO model…My big fear. as I noted earlier, is that many so-called « Independent Chairmen » unilaterally grant themselves too MUCH independence and, unless there is a strong Charter that is designed, managed and closely supervised by the Board as a whole, there is a very real and present danger of creating an « Imperial Chairman. » To me, the Lead Director, who is primarily a « creature of the Board » – and who, almost invariably is the choice of the Board rather than a nominee of the Chairman – and who operates under a strong but frequently reviewed Charter – is the way to go…

Brenda Kelleher-Flight – Unfortunately, human nature intervenes. Often those in power (or think they should have the power) chose others who will agree with them and support their position. I agree that one way is to ensure the charter is supervised by the board. The question I often grapple with is how to get boards to see diversified opinions as positive rather than time wasters, especially when they have a blocked agenda and strict time limits.

James McRitchie – The move for years has been to have « independent » board members on the board and chairing important committees. That whole effort means little if the chair is not independent of the CEO. Lead directors are a poor substitute for the real thing.

Carl Hagberg – What in the world would make someone think that a « Lead Director » would not be an « Independent Director » who is « independent of the CEO »…much less a « poor substitute for the real thing »??? This, of course, is the whole point of having an official – and publicy available Charter – regardless of whether one calls the person who « leads the meeting » and sets the agenda an « Independent Chairman » or a « Lead Director. »

Richard Leblanc – My understanding (and observation) is that a Lead Director does not set the agenda nor lead the meeting, like a Chair does, but rather is consulted on the agenda and chairs the executive session when the Chair exits the meeting. In other words, Carl, what I hear from some folk in this stream is that, notwithstanding the Charter for a Lead Director, the issue is still that the Non Executive Chair still sets the agenda and runs the meeting, whereas the Lead Director does not. The NEC and LD roles are not synonymous. I hear (and agree with) that all else equal, the NEC is superior to the LD role. Of course it goes without saying that an effective LD is preferable to a non-effective NEC, but what Jim, Brenda and Henry and others above are saying (I think) is that the best [superior to a LD] is an « effective » NEC, accomplishing the role and responsibilities they set out above.

Lee Mathias – Here in the Antipodes, NZ, the roles are split. The Chair’s role is to set the tone and guide the decisions on the strategic direction of the firm. That goes for Board meetings too i.e. to set/establish the context of the decision and, through canvassing the opinions of all directors, reach a decision. It is beneficial for the CEO to hear the Board reaching a decision. The CEO puts those decisions in action.

James McRitchie – I really think there is something in a name. Getting named a « lead director » will never be seen in the eyes of many the same as taking on the title of « board chair. » Why all the workarounds to make it appear that lead directors are equivalent. Is a civil union equivalent to marriage? I don’t think so. If lead directors are equivalent in every way, why the hesitation to call them board chairs?

Al Errington – Chairs who are CEOs, or dependent on CEOs, are bad governance. Lead directors are an attempt to have your cake and eat it too, a workaround bad governance but still retains bad governance. The board of directors is supposed to be the CEO’s boss. If the roles and relationship is not separated and defined, the relationship is murky along with accountability. Many organizations either don’t want change or are afraid of the unknown. Good governance, I am sorry to say is largely unknown, in our culture and economy.

What is a non-executive chairman? (aviationblog.dallasnews.com)

Que font les « bons » administrateurs pour faciliter le succès des organisations ?

Excellente vidéo* de Richard Leblanc et Robert Kueppers qui discutent des comportements efficaces des administrateurs pour assurer le succès des organisations. Très pertinent.

What Good Board Members Do to Help Organizations Succeed

« Since Dodd Frank and Sarbanes- Oxley, board members play a critical role in the success of their organizations. Yet, what constitutes a “good” board member? Dr. Leblanc, an award winning teacher and researcher says, he or she is one who oversees management and the interest of shareholders; oversees financial statements and risk, sets the strategy for the organization and assures compensation is appropriate. Bob Kueppers, cited by Directorship Magazine, as one of the top 100 most influential professionals in corporate governance, believes there are three activities that should take up most of a director’s time, energy and talent. The activities include: the strategy of the organization and where it is headed, making sure the right person is in charge, and how risk relates to strategy and how the organization can see what’s coming. He emphasizes that oversight is different from managing the business ».

De gauche à doite : Richard Leblanc et Robert J. Kueppers

« Too often strategy is underemphasized at the expense of risk and compliance. They advise growth, innovation and competiveness, a true creation of shareholder value- with a #1 value that of strategy and succession planning. Today, 39% of US companies do not have an immediate successor for their CEO! Another area that must be looked at is diversity. Too few boards represent their constituents and culture, with a challenge in the US and not Canada of too few women represented.

Good board members have skill sets and behaviors that include being a good communicator, listening, leadership and integrity. The softer skills- working as a team- are important. And- surprise, company CEO’s do not necessarily make the best directors, as they often have a dominant style and are overstretched! What is important and critical is good governance, meetings called with plenty of notice, preparation, agendas and information so the best decisions can be made. Good board members are chosen and cultivated. Yet, while behaviors can really change board dynamics, there is no one right way or magic bullet ».

______________________________________

*Joining host, Dennis McCuistion, are:

Richard Leblanc, PhD: Co-author of Inside the Boardroom and an Associate Professor at York University in Toronto, Canada

Robert J. Kueppers: Deputy CEO of Regulation & Public Policy,Vice Chairman, Deloitte, LLC

Comply or Explain | Rapport de ecoDa – The European Voice of Directors

Voici un rapport très attendu et d’un grand intérêt pour tout « étudiant » de la saine gouvernance européenne. On le sait, dans les États européens, le principe CoE (Comply or Explain – Se conformer au Code de gouvernance ou expliquer) est devenu, en 2009, une obligation pour les entreprises publiques (cotées). Les principes retenus ont été empruntés au Code de gouvernance de la G-B, lequel a été reconnu comme le meilleur du point de vue du monde des investisseurs.

Ce compte rendu est issu d’une conférence sur le sujet organisée par ecoDa (European Confederation of Directors’ Associations) dont le Collège des administrateurs de sociétés (CAS) est membre. Ce rapport conclue qu’il y a un besoin de renforcer le principe du CoE et que plus d’efforts et de moyens doivent être consentis à la qualité des explications ainsi qu’aux suivis de ces explications. Je vous invite à lire ce bref rapport pour vous former une meilleure opinion de la position européennes en matière d’application des codes de gouvernance des pays membres.

Comply or Explain | Rapport de ecoDa – The European Voice of Directors

« Comply or Explain (CoE) offers the flexibility to fit with the large diversity among and within the different EU Member States. The quality of explanation is the core factor for upgrading the legitimacy of the CoE approach. However, defining the quality requirements is not a straightforward exercise. With its printed report, ecoDa wanted to feed further the debate and to enhance the European discussions.

For some years, the quality of governance in general and of the explanations for not following the recommended best practices specified in corporate governance codes has been a key issue for policy makers, investors, companies and wider society. However, different factors have played a role in the gradual improvement of the quality of explanations. More should be done to increase the effectiveness of the governance codes and to foster a better dialogue between companies and their shareholders. Transparency and monitoring are only a first step in the direction of a well-governed company. Complementary monitoring capability is best provided by a regular and thorough (independent) governance (or board) assessment. Companies should develop a governance model that helps them to reach the corporate goal and allows them to make effective decisions in the long term interest of the company, shareholders and stakeholders. The board is a crucial factor to this end. But also shareholders have to play their role to foster growth, strategy, entrepreneurship and sustainability ».

« People should not forget that governance is not an end in itself but a means to an end ».

Mieux planifier la relève du PCD (CEO) | Une approche systématique pour en garantir le succès ?

Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, un article paru dans la section Boards & Governance du site de Spencer Stuart portant sur un sujet très négligé dans le domaine de la gouvernance des entreprises : La planification de la relève du PCD (CEO).

Comme environ 80% des PCD du S&P 500 sont issus de l’interne, les organisations sont dans une bien meilleure position pour planifier la relève de la haute direction, notamment celle du PCD. L’article s’interroge sur la prédictibilité du succès du PCD et énumère plusieurs facteurs qui contribuent au manque de précision dans la définition des critères de réussite :

« The articulated strategy is too rooted in the present and often includes status quo assumptions, rather than taking a view of where the company needs to be in five to 10 years.
The criteria for the future CEO are not based on a deep, analytical review of the company’s financial performance versus industry peers; nor are they tied to the strategic, organizational and operational levers that the next CEO will need to employ.
Evaluations of succession candidates often are loose and relative to the roles executives are in today rather than mapped to the future. Complicating matters, predicting the likely success of internal succession candidates is even more challenging because the CEO role is vastly more complex than their current jobs ».

How Do You Predict CEO Success? The Case for a New Succession Planning Approach

NYC: American Intl Building and Manhattan Comp... — NYC: American Intl Building and Manhattan Company Building (Photo credit: wallyg)

Les entreprises doivent se doter d’un processus systématique de recherche et de préparation d’un successeur potentiel. L’article suggère les étapes suivantes. Veuillez lire l’article pour bieux comprendre chaque actions proposée.

■ Focuses on company performance

■ Defines criteria for the next CEO based on future performance drivers

■ Challenges traditional assumptions about succession candidates

■ Assesses succession candidates with a forward-looking lens

« Even as they adopt a more thoughtful succession planning process, boards should remember that no one individual can meet every requirement in equal measure; tradeoffs will be necessary. Boards will be in a better position to navigate these tradeoffs, and increase the odds of a successor coming from within, if they have defined success for the company — and the CEO — through a rigorous review of the performance of the company, its strategic imperatives and the necessary capabilities for the next CEO ».

5 Tips to Get a Head Start on Succession Planning (hiscoxusa.com)

CIO succession: Promote from within vs. hire an outsider (networkworld.com)

BDC Insight: Succession plan includes value creation (business.financialpost.com)

Succession Plans for Businesses (lawprofessors.typepad.com)

Comment le Board doit-il jouer son rôle à l’ère des réseaux « sociaux » ?

Aujourd’hui, je retiens un article fascinant écrit par Barry Libert* et paru dans NACD Directorship le 17 janvier 2013. L’auteur avance qu’il est de plus en plus évident que les conseils d’administration ont de nouvelles responsabilités, dont celles de s’assurer que l’entreprise a bien pris le virage des communications dans ce nouveau monde des médias sociaux.

Plusieurs organisations, au Québec et au Canada, dont Lassonde et SNC-Lavalin, ont été « sensibilisées » à la vigueur des réseaux sociaux ! Comme le rappelle, Barry Libert : « The boards and executives of Best Buy, Kodak, Blockbuster, Hewlett Packard, and Susan G. Komen have all learned this reality the hard way. So did the 12 nations of the Arab Spring ». Alors, comment le Board doit-il jouer son rôle dans un monde de réseaux « sociaux » ?

Cet article présente (1) le contexte dans lequel oeuvrent les conseils d’administration, (2) les faits entourant les changements dans l’univers des médias sociaux et (3) les sept règles à observer dans cette nouvelle ère des réseaux sociaux.

7 Rules for Corporate Governance Success in the Social Age

Arab Spring [LP] (Photo credit: Painted Tapes)

(1) Le contexte :

« We live in a connected world in which more than one billion people use social media and another five billion use mobile devices to communicate, collaborate and do commerce. In business, social, mobile, and cloud technologies are enabling emerging leaders and investors to re-imagine entire industries, companies, products, and services, according to the Kleiner Perkins 2012 Internet Trends Report. This emerging reality is creating unprecedented risks and rewards for corporate directors and shareholders of existing enterprises. The result: It is time for directors to think anew about the meaning of corporate governance in the social age. In addition to all their existing roles, boards now have the added responsibility of shepherding their leaders and organizations into today’s digital world. Boards that avoid this obligation risk having their organizations fall prey to the speed and might of today’s social networks as they seek corporate reform and accountability ».

(2) Les faits :

« Social Technologies Change Performance : Enterprises that fully deploy social and mobile technologies to engage their crowds (customers, prospects, and alumni) in the cloud produce 9 percent more revenues, 26 percent more profits, and a 12 percent higher market valuation than their peers, according to research by MIT and Cap Gemini.
Social Technologies Change Engagement : Less than 30 percent of CEOs use social media according to recent research, despite the fact that more than one billion of their customers, employees and investors do. Furthermore, The Conference Board and the Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University report that 93 percent of boards do not use social intelligence to make informed decisions about their networks’ sentiments or engagement.
Social Technologies Change Investor Relations : Finally, research at University of California at Berkeley and MIT reveals that social media is a leading indicator of stock price movement. As such, directors of publicly traded companies need to be receiving this information in real time or risk not knowing what their institutional investors know and how they will act based on insights derived from social and cloud networks ».

(3) les sept règles à observer

L’auteur propose sept réflexions « en profondeur » vraiment très intéressantes que je vous invite à lire avec attention.

7 Rules for Corporate Governance Success in the Social Age

Rethink Strategy
Rethink People
Rethink Processes
Rethink Technology
Rethink Leadership
Rethink Finance
Rethink Governance

« The bottom line: Boards need to think anew about their role in the social and mobile world. For corporate directors, there is no time to waste. Directors must join the social and mobile ranks. New board members must be recruited, and new business models must be fashioned based on these technology realities. Social enterprises are here to stay and they are faster, better, and more competitive than traditional businesses ».

* Barry Libert, :CEO of OpenMatters, is a technology investor, corporate director, and strategic advisor to boards and their leaders seeking to become great social enterprises.

Social Media Report 2012: Social Media Comes of Age (anthonyomenya.wordpress.com)

It’s Time to Rethink Social Media Marketing (jnferree.wordpress.com)

Attentes du Conseil envers la Direction, et vice-versa

Je vous invite à lire le billet de Richard Leblanc publié sur son blogue le 27 janvier. Ces réflexions sont le fruit d’un sondage auprès de participants à un atelier animé par Richard. On constate donc qu’il s’agit d’idées peu souvent exprimées mais qui sont fondamentales dans la qualité des relations entre le C.A. et la direction de l’entreprise.

On entend plus parler des attentes que le Board a envers le PCD (CEO) car on a peu l’occasion d’avoir le feedback des hauts dirigeants sur les attentes qu’ils ont à propos du conseil. Il est donc important d’avoir les avis des deux groupes pour mieux appréhender les questions de confiance au coeur des relations entre le C.A. et la direction.

Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, les grandes lignes des résultats en français. Veuillez vous référer à l’article pour plus d’informations.

What a Board Expects from Management, and What Management Expects from a Board

Chess Board before Sanding (Photo credit: Dan Zen)

« Here is what a good board is entitled to expect from management, in no particular order : »

1. Le Management ne doit pas créer d’effets de surprise

2. Le Board doit être le premier à savoir

3. Le Management doit avoir une connaissance approfondie de l’entreprise et de son industrie

4. Le Board doit connaître les options étudiées par le management

5. La transmission de l’information doit être totale

« Management, in turn, has expectations of the board. They are: »

1. Candeur et franchise

2. Integrité et indépendance

3. Direction

4. Le Board doit réagir de manière nuancée

5. Confiance

6. Connaissance de l’entreprise

7. Bonne préparation aux réunions

8. Poser de bonnes questions

« Many of the above topics are not visible from outside a boardroom. Nor can they be, for the most part, regulated. But they all contribute to the quality of the board-management relationship, board decision-making, and whether the organization is well governed ».

La gouvernance et le financement des universités | La position des présidents de C.A.

Depuis quelque temps, dans le débat entourant le financement des universités et la position des associations étudiantes, lesquelles réclament le gel des frais de scolarité, voire la gratuité scolaire, la gouvernance des universités est interpellée et mise à mal. La gouvernance des universités est un modèle de gouvernance en soi et il me semble important que tous les intervenants au débat soient familiers avec les problématiques de gouvernance d’organismes aussi complexes qui, au fil des ans, se sont dotés de pratiques de bonne gouvernance, souvent exemplaires, mais distinctives, en ce sens qu’elles tiennent compte des intérêts d’un grand nombre de parties prenantes.

Je vous propose la lecture de la position des présidentes et présidents des conseils d’administration des universités québécoises à la rencontre thématique préparatoire au Sommet sur l’enseignement supérieur portant sur la gouvernance et le financement des universités du 18 janvier 2013.

La gouvernance et le financement des universités

"Science Friday" Recommendations — « Science Friday » Recommendations (Photo credit: LollyKnit)

« Dans le cadre du débat de société en cours sur l’avenir de l’enseignement supérieur, il est important que la voix des membres des conseils d’administration1 (CA) des universités soit entendue. Ce sont des acteurs à part entière dont le rôle est primordial à la bonne gouvernance des universités. Ce rôle est distinct et complémentaire à celui des chefs d’établissement. C’est aussi l’occasion de mettre en valeur la participation de représentants de la communauté citoyenne à la gouvernance de « leur » université, et leur implication dans son développement.

Notre contribution poursuit plusieurs objectifs : d’abord, faire le point sur le rôle et les responsabilités des administrateurs et le fonctionnement des CA. Ensuite, démontrer que la diversité des profils et des compétences des membres des CA des universités enrichit les pratiques de bonne gouvernance. Nous exposerons certaines mesures prises par les CA pour assurer la bonne gouvernance et la saine gestion universitaires. Enfin, nous traiterons de l’imputabilité des universités et de la responsabilité du CA, ainsi que de l’importance de préserver le rôle décisionnel du CA dans la gouvernance de l’université ».

Dix activités déterminantes du C.A. dans l’établissement d’un processus de préparation de la relève

Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, un excellent article publié par Thomas J. Saporito dans le Ivey Business Journal de Janvier-Février 2013 qui porte sur un sujet crucial pour le succès d’une organisation : la gestion du processus de préparation de la relève par le conseil d’administration. Bien sûr, c’est un processus ardu et laborieux car la coopération entière du PCD en place n’est pas toujours acquise ! Et, la volonté du C.A. de se lancer dans une telle opération n’est pas toujours au rendez-vous ! C’est ici que le rôle du président du conseil d’administration (PCA) dans l’animation de cette « pratique exemplaire » à long terme prend tout son sens.

L’article nous guide dans la mise en oeuvre d’un processus en dix phases qui couvrent l’ensemble des activités à accomplir. J’ai reproduit un court extrait de l’article ainsi que l’énumération des dix dimentions à considérer. Pour mieux comprendre et agir, il faut lire l’article au complet. Bonne lecture.

Ten Key Dimensions of Effective CEO Succession

« In a joint RHR International/Chief Executive magazine study of 236 corporate directors, 95 percent of respondents acknowledged that CEO succession is a critical business continuity issue. Nevertheless, more than half (53 percent) rated themselves as “ineffective” in executing their responsibilities in the CEO succession process.

In the course of our succession-planning practice, we have concluded that there are 10 key dimensions for effective CEO succession planning. These essential elements – what we consider the ingredients for success – will help any organization build and maintain a successful CEO succession program. Each of these dimensions must be maintained to ensure that the risks inherent in each leadership transition are minimized and the best outcomes are achieved. Having best practices in place to manage each of these 10 dimensions in a continuous process will ensure that a board of directors is operating at peak effectiveness and efficiency, and that its CEO succession-planning program is, without question, a best practice ».

FIRST STEPS

1. Establish Board Ownership, Involvement and Oversight

2. Set Succession Time Frames

3. Prepare for Emergencies

WHO, WHAT, WHERE?

4. Align Strategy and Profile

5. Build a Talent Pipeline

6. Source External Talent and Manage Search Firms

PEOPLE & PROCESS

7. Select the CEO

8. Proactively Manage the Transition

9. Measure Performance and Improve Progress

10. Manage the Dynamics in CEO Succession

– Succession Planning: Two Perspectives (healthcarevoice.typepad.com)

– RHR International Proposes Best Practices for CEO Succession (virtual-strategy.com)

– 5 Tips to Get a Head Start on Succession Planning (hiscoxusa.com)

20 ANS D’ÉVOLUTION DES CONSEILS D’ADMINISTRATION EN FRANCE | 1992-2010

Voici une enquête menée par l’Institut Français du Gouvernement des Entreprises (I.F.G.E) de l’EMLYON Business School, sous la direction de Pierre-Yves Gomez et Zied Guedri, qui présente une excellente synthèse des changements dans les modes de gouvernance française depuis 1992. À mon avis, l’on y traite des dimensions-clés de la gouvernance, notamment des changements dans la composition des conseil d’administration en France. À lire !

20 ANS D’ÉVOLUTION DES CONSEILS D’ADMINISTRATION EN FRANCE | 1992-2010

Voici un résumé du document :

« Ce cahier présente une étude systématique de l’évolution des conseils d’administration des quatre catégories d’entreprises : géantes, grandes, ETI et PME sur la période 1992-2010. Cette étude permet de contredire certaines idées reçues sur les caractéristiques de la gouvernance des entreprises françaises. Elle montre, en particulier, que les deux tiers des entreprises séparent les fonctions de surveillance et les fonctions exécutives. Les conseils d’administration les plus ouverts à la diversité sont ceux des entreprises géantes, mais ils sont très loin de représenter la diversité des parties prenantes. En revanche, les conseils des PME étaient plus favorables aux femmes avant la loi sur la parité de 2009. Enfin, si la pratique de participation à de nombreux conseils d’administration a fortement diminué, elle demeure néanmoins pour une petite élite « d’administrateurs puissants » essentiellement détenteurs de mandats dans les très grandes entreprises ».

Engagement accru des investisseurs institutionnels avec les C.A. et les directions en 2012

Cet article a été publié le 22 janvier 2013 par Noam Noked, co-éditeur du blogue Harvard Law School (HLS) Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, à partir d’un document partagé par David Drake, président de Georgeson Inc; il est basé sur le sommaire exécutif de Georgeson’s 2012 Annual Corporate Governance Review. Cette recherche montre que les investisseurs institutionnels ont été sensiblement plus actifs et engagés en 2012, ce qui fait dire à l’auteur que ce fut « The Year of Engagement« . L’article synthèse du blogue du HLS fait état des changements significatifs survenus au cours de 2012 et dresse plusieurs constats qui devraient orienter l’évolution de la « conversation » entre les conseils, les directions et les investisseurs.

2012 Annual Corporate Governance Review

The Rise of Engagement in the 2012 Proxy Season

14a-9 - Solicitation of Proxies, False or Misl... — 14a-9 – Solicitation of Proxies, False or Misleading Statements (Photo credit: 1001 words)

« For many years Georgeson’s Annual Corporate Governance Review has promoted the concept of engagement between public companies and their institutional investors. While Georgeson has noticed increased engagement, the nature of the engagement has generally been incremental and devoted to specific governance and compensation issues from year to year. After years of this slow, incremental growth, the 2012 proxy season became the Year of Engagement and witnessed a marked increase in company/shareholder interaction — engagement that was not limited to a few days out of the five- or six-week period between the mailing of the corporate proxy statement and the last days of a proxy solicitation campaign prior to the annual meeting.

The types of issues discussed leading up to and during the 2012 proxy season ranged from executive compensation and board structure to negotiations with proponents over the potential withdrawal of shareholder-sponsored ballot resolutions to just open-ended discussions to understand each other better. The voting statistics contained between these covers cannot fully measure that activity — although they do make it clear that the level of communication was more frequent and intense than in the past« .

Introduction & Literature Review on Corporate Governance and the Relationship between EVA and Created Shareholder Value (ivythesis.typepad.com)

Say What? Smaller Reporting Companies Subject to Say-on-Pay in 2013. (securitiesnewswatch.com)

Why minority investors lose out against corporates (rediff.com)

Les billets en gouvernance les plus populaires de 2012 | NACD (jacquesgrisegouvernance.com)

Myths and Realities of Say on Pay « Engagement » (blogs.law.harvard.edu)

Un guide essentiel pour comprendre et enseigner la gouvernance

Plusieurs administrateurs et formateurs me demandent de leur proposer un document de vulgarisation sur le sujet de la gouvernance. J’ai déjà diffusé sur mon blogue un guide à l’intention des journalistes spécialisés dans le domaine de la gouvernance des sociétés à travers le monde. Il a été publié par le Global Corporate Governance Forum et International Finance Corporation (un organisme de la World Bank) en étroite coopération avec International Center for Journalists. Je n’ai encore rien vu de plus complet de plus et de plus pertinent sur la meilleure manière d’appréhender les multiples problématiques reliées à la gouvernance des entreprises mondiales. La direction de Global Corporate Governance Forum m’a fait parvenir le document en français le 14 février.

Qui dirige L’entreprise : Guide pratique de médiatisation du gouvernement d’entreprise – document en français

Ce guide est un outil pédagogique indispensable pour acquérir une solide compréhension des diverses facettes de la gouvernance des sociétés. Les auteurs ont multiplié les exemples de problèmes d’éthiques et de conflits d’intérêts liés à la conduite des entreprises mondiales. On apprend aux journalistes économiques – et à toutes les personnes préoccupées par la saine gouvernance – à raffiner les investigations et à diffuser les résultats des analyses effectuées. Je vous recommande fortement de lire le document, mais aussi de le conserver en lieu sûr car il est fort probable que vous aurez l’occasion de vous en servir.

Vous trouverez ci-dessous quelques extraits de l’introduction à l’ouvrage.

Who’s Running the Company ? A Guide to Reporting on Corporate Governance

À propos du Guide

« This Guide is designed for reporters and editors who already have some experience covering business and finance. The goal is to help journalists develop stories that examine how a company is governed, and spot events that may have serious consequences for the company’s survival, shareholders and stakeholders. Topics include the media’s role as a watchdog, how the board of directors functions, what constitutes good practice, what financial reports reveal, what role shareholders play and how to track down and use information shedding light on a company’s inner workings. Journalists will learn how to recognize “red flags,” or warning signs, that indicate whether a company may be violating laws and rules. Tips on reporting and writing guide reporters in developing clear, balanced, fair and convincing stories.

Three recurring features in the Guide help reporters apply “lessons learned” to their own “beats,” or coverage areas:

– Reporter’s Notebook: Advise from successful business journalists

– Story Toolbox: How and where to find the story ideas

– What Do You Know? Applying the Guide’s lessons

Each chapter helps journalists acquire the knowledge and skills needed to recognize potential stories in the companies they cover, dig out the essential facts, interpret their findings and write clear, compelling stories:

What corporate governance is, and how it can lead to stories. (Chapter 1, What’s good governance, and why should journalists care?)
How understanding the role that the board and its committees play can lead to stories that competitors miss. (Chapter 2, The all-important board of directors)
Shareholders are not only the ultimate stakeholders in public companies, but they often are an excellent source for story ideas. (Chapter 3, All about shareholders)
Understanding how companies are structured helps journalists figure out how the board and management interact and why family-owned and state-owned enterprises (SOEs), may not always operate in the best interests of shareholders and the public. (Chapter 4, Inside family-owned and state-owned enterprises)
Regulatory disclosures can be a rich source of exclusive stories for journalists who know where to look and how to interpret what they see. (Chapter 5, Toeing the line: regulations and disclosure)
Reading financial statements and annual reports — especially the fine print — often leads to journalistic scoops. (Chapter 6, Finding the story behind the numbers)
Developing sources is a key element for reporters covering companies. So is dealing with resistance and pressure from company executives and public relations directors. (Chapter 7, Writing and reporting tips)

Each chapter ends with a section on Sources, which lists background resources pertinent to that chapter’s topics. At the end of the Guide, a Selected Resources section provides useful websites and recommended reading on corporate governance. The Glossary defines terminology used in covering companies and corporate governance ».

– Here’s what Ottawa’s new rules for state-owned buyers may look like (business.financialpost.com)

– The Vote is Cast: The Effect of Corporate Governance on Shareholder Value (greenbackd.com)

–Effective Drivers of Good Corporate Governance (shilpithapar.com)

Étude scientifique sur la qualité des innovations | sociétés privées vs sociétés publiques

Voici un article publié par Leslie Kwoh dans The Wall Street Journal qui présente les résultats d’une importante recherche sur la production d’innovations attribuable au passage d’une société privée à une société cotée en bourse. L’étude du professeur Shai Bernstein, de la Stanford Graduate School of Business montre que les nouvelles entreprises publiques connaissent une diminution significative de la qualité de leurs innovations de l’ordre de 40 % au cours des cinq années suivant l’OPA. L’auteur avance certaines raisons susceptibles d’expliquer la portée des résultats : la perte de ressources humaines hautement stratégiques liée à la vente d’actions, l’attention accrue accordée à l’aspect conformité de la gouvernance, un accent plus important consenti aux stratégies d’acquisition, un comportement guidé par la pression des marchés qui privilégie les résultats à court terme, l’innovation étant une activité qui s’évalue sur le long terme.

Je vous invite à lire ce compte rendu de recherche. Ces résultats concordent-ils avec votre expérience ?

Ci-dessous, un extrait de l’article. Faites-nous part de vos réactions à ces résultats étonnants !

Want to Kill Innovation at Your Company? Go Public

« While public offerings raise cash, new research suggests that IPOs can also result in stunted innovation at technology firms. In general, post-IPO companies create inventions that are less ambitious and valuable than do firms that remain private, found Shai Bernstein, an assistant finance professor at the Stanford Graduate School of Business. He analyzed patent data from 1,500 U.S. technology firms that either went public, or intended to go public but called off those plans, between 1985 and 2003. In all, he examined nearly 40,000 patents awarded to the companies both before and after their intended IPO date. The two groups were similar in size, age and research spending.

An IPO didn’t affect the rate at which a company obtained patents, but Bernstein found that public companies’ subsequent patents were far lower in quality, as measured by how often each patent was cited in other patent applications. Post-IPO companies saw an average 40% decline in such citations per patent in the five years after going public relative to the firms that remained private, the study found.

The diminishing innovation trend persisted despite the fact that public companies were more likely to make acquisitions and inherit talent from smaller companies, Bernstein found. Sixty-six percent of firms made at least one acquisition following their IPO, compared to just 20% of private firms ».

Modèles de gouvernance | Amérique VS Europe !

Les deux articles retenus aujourd’hui sont parus sur valuewalk.com les 7 et 11 janvier 2013. Ils mettent l’accent sur les particularités des modèles de gouvernance américain et européen, en les expliquant et en les comparant. Ce sont des articles qui présentent simplement et brièvement l’essence des philosophies de gouvernance. On notera que les principes d’indépendance et les notions de stakeholders et de perspectives à long terme prennent de plus en plus d’importance dans les deux mondes. Ci-dessous, un bref extrait de chaque article. Bonne lecture.

Corporate Governance | USA Versus Europe

« The term Corporate Governance relates to the manner in which an organization should be governed or managed. The concept is more

Atlantic sunrise (Photo credit: David Darricau)

relevant in the case of companies which have germinated or grown based on equity capital taken from investors. Stocks of many such companies are listed in stock exchanges, which exposes them to the public and automatically brings them under closer regulatory scrutiny. As per the principles enshrined in quintessence of corporate governance, the affairs of any organization should at all times be managed as per the relevant regulatory framework where the interests of shareholders/stakeholders is supreme. Here, corporate governance refers to the spirit of the statute rather than its letter alone. Thus morality, ethics etc. come into play in a big way. Though these “Utopian” ideas may seem irrelevant on the capitalistic turf, past experience has shown that similar philosophies could have prevented fraud & mismanagement, therefore ceasing the erosion of shareholder wealth.

It is also pertinent to mention that all enterprises are basically valued based on their present performance and expected long term success in achieving growth and profitability. For this purpose, there has to be a free flow of information (financial and strategic) amongst the shareholders, so that they can measure the economic potential and value of the organization’s strategies & activities. Also, since people (investors) have their money at stake in these companies, they have a right to decide on the selection of the Directors and influence the manner in which the organization should be run to achieve optimal results. Some schools of thought therefore highlight the importance of stakeholders as well as shareholders ».

Is Corporate Governance Better Across The Atlantic ?

« The European model gives importance to all stakeholders including the shareholders. The separation between ownership and management is not that clear with boards comprising of representatives of various stakeholders like majority shareholders, lenders (banks), employees, suppliers etc. The board is a two tier structure with a supervisory board comprising of Non-Executive Directors which controls decision making by the Executive Directors.

The presence of these stakeholders, who are also shareholders (owners), on the board further increases their influence in strategic management decisions. The ownership patterns are more concentrated & complex with cross-holdings being common. The relevant financial markets are less liquid and there is higher dependence on debt to fund growth and operations of the companies. The concept of audit committee is existent in the European model also, but the composition of the committee is not that stringently laid down. The Chairman & Chief Executive Officer positions may or may not be held by the same person ».

Comment composer avec l’asymétrie de l’information entre le C.A et le management ?

Le document ci-dessous présente la problématique, bien réelle, de l’asymétrie de l’information entre les membres du conseil (le Board) et la direction de l’entreprise (le management). Il y a un gap naturel entre ce qui est communiqué par le management et ce qui est requis par le Board pour bien faire son travail. Ce dernier a besoin d’une information de qualité, c’est-à-dire une information complète (quoique synthétique), représentative de la réalité, la plus objective possible et, à jour.

Le rapport, préparé par la NACD (représentant le point de vue des administrateurs) et la firme comptable McGladrey (représentant le point de vue du management), présente un excellent compte rendu des problématiques soulevées par le manque de communication entre les administrateurs et la direction et propose plusieurs pratiques susceptibles de combler le gap d’information. On y présente les résultats des « conversations » issus de quatre panels composés d’administrateurs et de membres de la haute direction. Le compte rendu fait ressortir les principaux problèmes de communication dans les domaines suivants : La stratégie et le risque, la rémunération des hauts dirigeants, la planification de la succession du PCD, et l’évaluation du Conseil.

Je crois que les personnes intéressées par cette question, c’est-à-dire les administrateurs de sociétés et les membres des directions d’entreprises, devraient prendre connaissance de ce document afin d’être mieux renseignés sur les moyens à prendre pour pallier l’assymétrie de l’information.

dovedale/fog (Photo credit: johnb/Derbys/UK.)

Bridging Effectiveness Gaps: A Candid Look at Board Practices

Voici un court extrait du document. Bonne lecture.

« Effective board oversight demands information that is as current and relevant as possible. There are, however, natural gaps between what management communicates and what the board needs to know. The information flow between management and the board may not always be perfect, and board committees may have similar troubles bringing the full board « up to speed » on certain issues. The purpose of this report is to address these issues, which we call the « effectiveness gap. »…

The goal of this report is to offer some tips and strategies to improve communications between the full board, C-suite, and committees. In particular, we focus on four areas of concern: strategy and risk, executive compensation, CEO succession planning, and board evaluations. These four areas are traditionally of high importance to board members yet have also presented challenges.

To help bridge the gaps in effectiveness, it was necessary to speak directly with individuals from both management and the board. While the National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD) is able to assess the director perspective, we needed the C-suite perspective as well. We partnered with McGladrey to host four small gatherings of executives and directors in an effort to find ways of improving communications and relationships. The conversations that occurred during these gatherings provided the material for this document ».

Administrateurs compétents recherchés pour siéger sur les C.A. d’OBNL

Selon une enquête menée par Imagine Canada auprès d’organismes à buts non lucratif et bénévoles et rapportée dans la revue MAG | HEC MONTREAL, le Québec compterait 46 000 OBNL. Ce secteur représente des revenus annuels de l’ordre de 25 milliards de dollars et regroupe 470 000 travailleurs salariés. Il s’agit d’un secteur économique d’une importance vitale pour la société québécoise et qui croît à une grande vitesse, étant donné la tendance des gouvernements à prendre de moins en moins de place dans la gestion des organisations.

Il n’est donc pas étonnant de constater l’intérêt grandissant accordé à la gouvernance des OBNL. L’article ci-dessous, publié par Lucy P. Marcus dans le fil de LinkedIn le 7 décembre 2012, donne beaucoup d’informations pertinentes sur la nécessité de mettre en place des conseils d’administration possèdant l’expérience, l’indépendance, la diversité et les habiletés requises pour bien gérer les actifs de l’entreprise.

Wanted: Strong Capable Non-Profit Boards

« A good board can be hugely benefiecial to the stability, growth and effectiveness of a non-profit. Ons the other hand, a bad or self-indulgent board can be a time-consuming distraction or a drag on scarce resources. In the worst cases, it can allow the abuse of funds and trust on a large scale. Non-profits come in all shapes and sizes. Some are small niche organizations that come from the passion of one or two people and have limited resources. Others are large, complex organizations with significant donations and operating costs that rival many global corporations. No matter the size or scope, the principles behind the board’s responsibilities are the same. »

Voir les articles du Blogue dans la catégorie OBNL | OSBL

Does your non-profit board use this time to « Take Stock »? (donordreams.wordpress.com)

New LinkedIn Tool Helps Nonprofits Find Board Members (socialbarrel.com)

Recherchés : Des administrateurs compétents pour siéger sur les C.A. d’OBNL !

Wanted: Strong Capable Non-Profit Boards

Voir les articles du Blogue dans la catégorie OBNL | OSBL

Does your non-profit board use this time to « Take Stock »? (donordreams.wordpress.com)

New LinkedIn Tool Helps Nonprofits Find Board Members (socialbarrel.com)

Cadre conceptuel et méthodologie pour évaluer la santé de la gouvernance

Rajeev Peshawaria, dans forbes.com, présente un excellent cadre conceptuel pour évaluer la santé d’une organisation. Cette approche s’appuie sur un sondage réalisé auprès des employés et qui porte (1) sur les stratégies et les avantages concurentiels, (2) sur la force de la structure organisationnelle et (3) sur la culture organisationnelle. C’est un article vraiment très stimulant et de surcroît facile à lire; la méthodologie est relativement aisée à mettre en oeuvre. On peut imaginer de nombreuses retombées positives de l’analyse des données. Vous trouverez, ci-joint, un court extrait de l’article ainsi qu’un aperçu des résultats d’un sondage. À lire autant par les membres de conseils que par les membres de la direction d’une organisation…

The Other Duty of Corporate Governance

« According to BusinessDictionary.com, corporate governance is “The Framework of rules and practices by which a board of directors ensures accountability, fairness, and transparency in a company’s relationship with its all stakeholders.” OECD.org defines it as the “Procedures and processes according to which an organisation is directed and controlled. The corporate governance structure specifies the distribution of rights and responsibilities among the different participants in the organisation – such as the board, managers, shareholders and other stakeholders – and lays down the rules and procedures for decision-making”

Most definitions place significant emphasis on enterprise value preservation, which largely comprises of rules, regulatory compliance, risk management, and other types of watchdog activities. Clearly, value preservation is an important duty of the Board of Directors. In the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis and the recession that followed, defending against downsides has become more important than ever before. However, there is another equally important side to the board’s responsibilities – enterprise value enhancement – that I believe might be slightly under served by boards today.

Consider the following. By some estimates, 65% of a company’s stock price is attributable to intangible value, promises of future economic benefits based on the quality of leadership and management, the company’s ability to innovate, the depth of talent, employee engagement, etc. While most boards recognize this duty to ensure that management does all it can to maximize this future value as well as stave off present dangers, in this article, I want to offer a simple but powerful information system that can help boards better fulfill this duty ».

Board of Directors’ Training and Evaluation Alliance Promotes Board Excellence (prweb.com)

Questionnement sur le droit des actionnaires … et des parties prenantes !

Un vrai cri du coeur ! Ce billet, publié dans Seattletimes.com, présente le cas d’une entreprise cotée qui pose des gestes susceptibles d’aliéner ses actionnaires … et ses parties prenantes. C’est une situation que l’on voit encore trop souvent dans le monde des entreprises et qu’il faut dénoncer en cas d’abus. Excellente matière pour l’écriture d’un cas en gouvernance de sociétés, en rémunération excessive, en droit des actionnaires. À suivre …

Shareholders should have more say over executive pay

The fight at Simon Property Group argues for stronger shareholder rights to limit executive pay at public companies.

« A legal fight between a police-pension fund and America’s biggest owner of shopping centers raises an issue of public concern. It is about shareholder rights and CEO pay, and on a deeper level about Wall Street versus Main Street… Too often in public companies, managers overreach and owners don’t act. But here they did; by corporate standards the vote at Simon Property Group was an owners’ insurrection. And it made no difference…

If this is how public companies choose to behave, they are asking for more rules. One should be to have shareholder votes on executive pay before the money is promised, and not merely be advisory ».

Scoring des C.A. américains | les plus forts et les plus faibles ! (jacquesgrisegouvernance.com)

Comment gérer la révolution AVPA ?

Voici un document très intéressant proposé par Deloitte dans son Bulletin du 16 novembre 2012. On y présente la problématique complexe soulevée par le fait que les employés apportent et utilisent de plus en plus leurs ordinateurs portables, leurs tablettes électroniques, leurs téléphones intelligents personnels … au travail.

Comme vous le constaterez, ce phénomène est là pour rester et il faut donc composer avec la réalité. Quels avantages une organisation peut-elle tirer de cette nouvelle réalité ? Quels sont les aléas à éviter sur le plan de la sécurité informatique et concurentielle ? Êtes-vous prêt à relever ce nouveau défi ?

Cette publication, « Apporter Votre Propre Appareil (AVPA) : Dégager de la valeur pour votre organisation », est issue d’une présentation dans le cadre du concours annuel de Deloitte Pensée innovatrice 2012. Je crois que le document soumis est susceptible d’ébranler vos convictions … et vos comportements. À lire.

Apportez votre propre appareil

« Dans les milieux du travail, on constate une tendance qui s’accentue et qui soulève de nouveaux défis pour les chefs de l’information : la révolution « Apportez votre propre appareil » (AVPA). Déjà, les deux tiers de la population active canadienne utilisent un appareil personnel à des fins professionnelles – une proportion qui devrait atteindre les trois quarts d’ici 2015. Selon IDC, 40 % des appareils qui servent à accéder à des applications d’affaires appartiennent au consommateur, par rapport à 30 % il y a à peine un an.

Dans la mesure où les employés utilisent de plus en plus des appareils personnels qui ne sont ni gérés ni sécurisés pour transférer des données en provenance ou à destination de l’infrastructure d’entreprise, les organisations sont confrontées à différents défis allant des problèmes de conformité aux fuites de données. Et ces défis ne feront que s’intensifier avec la prolifération des appareils mobiles et des systèmes d’exploitation.

Les pratiques actuelles de gestion de l’AVPA sont semées d’embûches et de défis. Dans un contexte en constante mutation, les organisations réexaminent les décisions stratégiques qu’elles ont prises il y a plusieurs années à l’égard des TI. Les anciennes mentalités (p. ex., il s’agit d’un problème qui relève de la technologie) et la tendance à s’en remettre à des processus désuets ont amené les organisations à adopter des politiques qui ne sont guère adaptées aux besoins de l’entreprise et qui l’exposent à des menaces et à des risques accrus pour la sécurité. Les idées fausses quant aux économies potentielles et à l’adoption des employés empêchent la haute direction d’orienter l’organisation vers la bonne voie. L’absence de solutions d’AVPA normalisées et généralement reconnues vient amplifier ces défis et force souvent les organisations à réagir aux pressions exercées par l’AVPA malgré le manque de structure et de planification prospective. L’élaboration d’une stratégie d’AVPA et de méthodes de gestion efficaces s’impose.

Dans le document intitulé Apportez votre propre appareil, découvrez comment implanter l’AVPA de manière à atténuer les risques et à créer de la valeur pour toute l’entreprise ».

Article relié :

Partagez (share) ce post

Article relié :

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post

■ Focuses on company performance

■ Defines criteria for the next CEO based on future performance drivers

■ Challenges traditional assumptions about succession candidates

■ Assesses succession candidates with a forward-looking lens

Articles reliés :

Partagez (share) ce post

Articles reliés au thème

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post

FIRST STEPS

WHO, WHAT, WHERE?

PEOPLE & PROCESS

Aricles sur la préparation de la relève :

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post

Articles en lien avec le billet :

Partagez (share) ce post

Articles reliés :

Partagez (share) ce post

Articles en lien avec ce billet :

(1) Stanford Study Finds Companies Get Less Innovative Post IPO (forbes.com)

(2) Public Offerings Decrease Innovation at Technology Companies, According to Stanford Business School Study (virtual-strategy.com)

(3) Startups, take note: An IPO is a surefire way to lose your innovative edge, says Stanford study (thenextweb.com)

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post

Articles reliés au sujet :

Partagez (share) ce post

Articles reliés au sujet :

Partagez (share) ce post

Article relié :

Partagez (share) ce post

Articles reliés :

Simon Property Group Says: Pay CEO $120 Million For Being David Simon (seekingalpha.com)

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post