Si la gouvernance des entreprises a fait beaucoup de chemin depuis quelques années, son évolution se poursuit. Afin d’imaginer la direction qu’elle prendra au cours des prochaines années, nous avons consulté l’expert Jacques Grisé, ancien directeur des programmes du Collège des administrateurs de sociétés, de l’Université Laval. Toujours affilié au Collège, M. Grisé publie depuis plusieurs années le blogue www.jacquesgrisegouvernance.com, un site incontournable pour rester à l’affût des bonnes pratiques et tendances en gouvernance.
Voici les 12 tendances dont il faut suivre l’évolution, selon Jacques Grisé :
1. Les conseils d’administration réaffirmeront leur autorité.
« Auparavant, la gouvernance était une affaire qui concernait davantage le management », explique M. Grisé. La professionnalisation de la fonction d’administrateur amène une modification et un élargissement du rôle et des responsabilités des conseils. Les CA sont de plus en plus sollicités et questionnés au sujet de leurs décisions et de l’entreprise.
2. La formation des administrateurs prendra de l’importance.
À l’avenir, on exigera toujours plus des administrateurs. C’est pourquoi la formation est essentielle et devient même une exigence pour certains organismes. De plus, la formation continue se généralise ; elle devient plus formelle.
3. L’affirmation du droit des actionnaires et celle du rôle du conseil s’imposeront.
Le débat autour du droit des actionnaires par rapport à celui des conseils d’administration devra mener à une compréhension de ces droits conflictuels. Aujourd’hui, les conseils doivent tenir compte des parties prenantes en tout temps.
4. La montée des investisseurs activistes se poursuivra.
L’arrivée de l’activisme apporte une nouvelle dimension au travail des administrateurs. Les investisseurs activistes s’adressent directement aux actionnaires, ce qui mine l’autorité des conseils d’administration. Est-ce bon ou mauvais ? La vision à court terme des activistes peut être néfaste, mais toutes leurs actions ne sont pas négatives, notamment parce qu’ils s’intéressent souvent à des entreprises qui ont besoin d’un redressement sous une forme ou une autre. Pour bien des gens, les fonds activistes sont une façon d’améliorer la gouvernance. Le débat demeure ouvert.
5. La recherche de compétences clés deviendra la norme.
De plus en plus, les organisations chercheront à augmenter la qualité de leur conseil en recrutant des administrateurs aux expertises précises, qui sont des atouts dans certains domaines ou secteurs névralgiques.
6. Les règles de bonne gouvernance vont s’étendre à plus d’entreprises.
Les grands principes de la gouvernance sont les mêmes, peu importe le type d’organisation, de la PME à la société ouverte (ou cotée), en passant par les sociétés d’État, les organismes à but non lucratif et les entreprises familiales.
7. Le rôle du président du conseil sera davantage valorisé.
La tendance veut que deux personnes distinctes occupent les postes de président du conseil et de PDG, au lieu qu’une seule personne cumule les deux, comme c’est encore trop souvent le cas. Un bon conseil a besoin d’un solide leader, indépendant du PDG.
8. La diversité deviendra incontournable.
Même s’il y a un plus grand nombre de femmes au sein des conseils, le déficit est encore énorme. Pourtant, certaines études montrent que les entreprises qui font une place aux femmes au sein de leur conseil sont plus rentables. Et la diversité doit s’étendre à d’autres origines culturelles, à des gens de tous âges et d’horizons divers.
9. Le rôle stratégique du conseil dans l’entreprise s’imposera.
Le temps où les CA ne faisaient qu’approuver les orientations stratégiques définies par la direction est révolu. Désormais, l’élaboration du plan stratégique de l’entreprise doit se faire en collaboration avec le conseil, en profitant de son expertise.
10. La réglementation continuera de se raffermir.
Le resserrement des règles qui encadrent la gouvernance ne fait que commencer. Selon Jacques Grisé, il faut s’attendre à ce que les autorités réglementaires exercent une surveillance accrue partout dans le monde, y compris au Québec, avec l’Autorité des marchés financiers. En conséquence, les conseils doivent se plier aux règles, notamment en ce qui concerne la rémunération et la divulgation. Les responsabilités des comités au sein du conseil prendront de l’importance. Les conseils doivent mettre en place des politiques claires en ce qui concerne la gouvernance.
11. La composition des conseils d’administration s’adaptera aux nouvelles exigences et se transformera.
Les CA seront plus petits, ce qui réduira le rôle prépondérant du comité exécutif, en donnant plus de pouvoir à tous les administrateurs. Ceux-ci seront mieux choisis et formés, plus indépendants, mieux rémunérés et plus redevables de leur gestion aux diverses parties prenantes. Les administrateurs auront davantage de responsabilités et seront plus engagés dans les comités aux fonctions plus stratégiques. Leur responsabilité légale s’élargira en même temps que leurs tâches gagnent en importance. Il faudra donc des membres plus engagés, un conseil plus diversifié, dirigé par un leader plus fort.
12. L’évaluation de la performance des conseils d’administration deviendra la norme.
La tendance est déjà bien ancrée aux États-Unis, où les entreprises engagent souvent des firmes externes pour mener cette évaluation. Certaines choisissent l’autoévaluation. Dans tous les cas, le processus est ouvert et si les résultats restent confidentiels, ils contribuent à l’amélioration de l’efficacité des conseils d’administration.
Voici le condensé d’un article publié par Deloitte en 2011 et que j’ai relayé à mes premiers abonnés au début de la création de mon blogue.
En revisitant mes billets, j’ai été en mesure de constater que plusieurs parutions étaient encore d’une grande pertinence. Ainsi, afin de revenir sur mes débuts comme blogueur, je vous présente un document de la firme Deloitte qui énumère dix (10) activités que les conseils d’administration doivent éviter de faire.
Les suggestions sont toujours aussi d’actualité. Bonne relecture !
Avoid presentation overload
Presentations should not dominate board meetings. If your board meetings consist of a scripted agenda packed with one presentation after another, there may not be sufficient time for substantive discussions. The majority of board meetings should be focused on candid dialogue about the critical strategic issues facing the company. The advance meeting materials should comprise information that provides the basis for the discussions held during the meeting. Management should feel confident that the board will read these pre-meeting materials, and the board must commit an adequate amount of time in advance of the meeting to do so.
Avoid understating the importance of compliance
There is no room for a culture of complacency when it comes to compliance with laws and regulations. As noted in the Deloitte publication
Avoid postponing the CEO succession discussion
CEO succession planning is one of the primary roles of the board. With the changing governance landscape and new and proposed regulations, the board has a full agenda these days. However, it is important to occasionally take a step back to ensure the board is addressing this important responsibility. During this time of rebuilding and prior to the implementation of new regulations, boards should assess where time is being spent and perhaps redirect focus on succession.
It is important to note that the succession planning process is continual and doesn’t end when a new CEO is selected. As the company evolves, its needs change, as do the skills required of the leadership team. The board needs to ensure that a leadership pipeline is developed and that its members have ample opportunity to connect with the next generation of leaders.
Avoid the trap of homogeneity
The topic of board composition and having the « right » people on the board continues to receive much attention. The SEC has proposed rules that would require more disclosure about director qualifications, including what makes each director qualified to participate on certain board committees. The shift to independent board members facilitated a move away from a « friends on the board » approach to a new mix. However, the board needs to assess whether this new mix translates into a positive and productive board dynamic. Boards should take a closer look at the expertise, experience and other qualities of each member to ensure the board that can provide the right expertise. Diversity of thought provides the perspectives needed to effectively address critical topics, which can contribute to greater productivity and ultimately a stronger board.
Avoid excessive short-term focus
Perpetual existence is one of the principal reasons for the initial development of a corporation. However, recent history offers many examples of modern corporate entities managing to reach short-term results at the expense of long-term prosperity. The board can demonstrate its leadership by being the voice of reason and openly discussing the sustainability of strategic initiatives. This can result in a well-governed company with a greater chance of achieving long-term, sustainable success.
Avoid approvals if you don’t understand the issue
Complex issues can have significant implications for the survival of an organization. It is up to directors to make sure that they understand issues that can alter the future of an enterprise before a vote is taken. This doesn’t require dissecting every detail, but it should consist of a thorough investigation and assessment of the risks and rewards of proposed transactions. If you don’t adequately understand the issue, ask for more education from management or external experts. It comes down to being able to ask the tough questions of management and probing further if things do not make sense. Consensus doesn’t mean going along with the crowd. True consensus results from a thorough debate and airing of the issues before the board, resulting in a more informed vote by directors.
Avoid discounting the value of experience
As a director, it is important to recognize the value that your experience can bring to the issues at hand. Good governance doesn’t mean checking all the right boxes. Rather, it is bringing together the diverse skills and experiences of each director to lead the company through challenges. Directors can provide greater insight by being ‘situationally aware’ when evaluating events and courses of action to take. Just as the captain of a ship needs to understand the various environmental factors that influence navigation, boards need to understand the external risks that may have an impact on the navigation of the company. Consider the context of the current issue, how it is similar to, or different from, previous experiences, what alternatives could be considered, and how outside forces may impede a successful outcome. Don’t discount the value of experience just because it was gained outside the boardroom.
Avoid stepping over the line into management’s role
A board that makes management decisions will find it difficult to hold the CEO accountable for the outcome. A director’s role is to oversee the efforts of management rather than stepping into management’s shoes. Directors must make a concentrated effort to ensure that they have clarity on management’s role, which is to operate the company. The distinction between the board and management is often blurred by directors who forget that they are not charged with running the day-to-day operations of an enterprise. This doesn’t prevent a director from getting into the details of an issue facing the company, but it does mean that directors should avoid stepping over the line.
Avoid ignoring shareholders
A company’s shareholders are among the most important and potentially vocal constituents of the enterprise. Concerns can sometimes be addressed by providing shareholders an audience with the board to air their concerns. Historically, compliance with the SEC Regulation Fair Disclosure (Reg FD) rules has been perceived as a hindrance to directors engaging in shareholder dialogue and meetings. As outlined in the Millstein Center for Corporate Governance and Performance policy briefing.
Avoid a bias to risk aversion
With the recent focus on excessive risk-taking and its impact on the credit crisis, there is concern that companies and boards may become risk-averse.
L’Autorité canadienne des marchés financiers (AMF) apporte des modifications au règlement sur l’information concernant les pratiques en matière de gouvernance, notamment des modifications relatives à l’information sur la représentation féminine au conseil d’administration et à la haute direction des émetteurs.
Annoncées dans un communiqué du 15 octobre 2014, ces modification visent à d’accroître la transparence de l’information fournie aux investisseurs et aux autres intéressés sur la représentation des femmes au conseil d’administration et à la haute direction des émetteurs, afin d’aider les investisseurs à prendre leurs décisions d’investissement et à exercer leur droit de vote.
Ces modifications obligeront les émetteurs non émergents à présenter dans leurs circulaires de sollicitation de procurations et notices annuel une information annuelleles sur :
(1) la durée du mandat et les autres mécanismes de renouvellement des membres du conseil d’administration ;
(2) les politiques sur la représentation féminine au conseil d’administration ;
(3) la prise en compte par le conseil d’administration ou le comité des candidatures de la représentation féminine dans la recherche et la sélection des candidats aux postes d’administrateurs ;
(4) la prise en compte par l’émetteur de la représentation féminine dans la nomination des membres de la haute direction ;
(5) les cibles de représentation féminine au conseil d’administration et à la haute direction ;
(6) le nombre de femmes au conseil d’administration et à la haute direction.
Recruter des profils similaires, capitaliser sur ses points forts… Ces « archaïsmes managériaux » sont à revoir, selon Pascal Picq, paléoanthropologue au Collège de France. Car la clef de l’évolution est dans la diversité. Décryptage.
Vouloir coller parfaitement à un modèle idéal préétabli est une vue universaliste des choses qui nie les contraintes mouvantes et nos capacités à y répondre en innovant. Car l’homme est l’espèce qui a la plus grande plasticité comportementale, physique et cognitive. D’où l’importance pour un manager de dépasser les clichés du « bien agir » qui figent les comportements et freinent l’élan créatif et adaptatif.
En savoir plus sur http://lentreprise.lexpress.fr/rh-management/management/management-cinq-idees-recues-qui-ont-la-vie-dure_1614209.html#c1kIkRIcVqUuvVpy.99
Il y a dans le document de PwC un exposé clair des principales tendances en gouvernance au cours des prochaines années. Le site de PwC présente également les chapitres individuels du rapport.
Voici un résumé de l’échantillon des entreprises, suivi d’un rappel des 12 tendances observées. Vous trouverez beaucoup de points communs avec l’article que j’ai publié dans le journal Les Affaires : Gouvernance : 12 tendances à surveiller
Bonne lecture !
In the summer of 2014, 863 public company directors responded to our survey. Of those directors, 70% serve on the boards of companies with more than $1 billion in annual revenue, and participants represented nearly two-dozen industries. In PwC’s 2014 Annual Corporate Directors Survey, directors share their views on governance trends that we believe will impact the board of the future, including: board performance and diversity, board priorities and practices, IT and cybersecurity oversight, strategy and risk oversight, and executive compensation and director communications.
Many boards are giving even more attention to enhancing their own performance and acting on issues identified in their self-assessments.
Board composition is scrutinized
Board composition is under pressure to evolve to meet new business challenges and stakeholder expectations. Today’s directors are more focused than ever on ensuring their boards have the right expertise and experience to be effective.
Board diversity gets attention
Stakeholders are more interested in board diversity, and boards are increasingly focused on recruiting directors with diversity of background and experience.
More pressure on board priorities and practices
Director performance continues to face scrutiny from investors, regulators, and other stakeholders, causing board practices to remain in the spotlight.
Activist shareholders get active
With over $100 billion in assets under activist management1, more directors are discussing how to deal with potential activist campaigns.
The influence of emerging IT grows
Companies and directors increasingly see IT as inextricably wed to corporate strategy and the company’s business. IT is now a business issue, not just a technology issue.
Increased concerns about the Achilles’ heel of IT—cybersecurity
Cybersecurity breaches are regularly and prominently in the news. And directors are searching for answers on how to provide effective oversight in this area.
It’s still all about risk management
Risk management is a top priority for investors, and they have high expectations of boards in this regard.
Investors question company strategies
Effective oversight requires that the board receive the right information from management to effectively address key elements of strategy.
Executive compensation remains a hot topic
Boards are devoting even more time and attention to the critical issue of appropriate compensation.
Stakeholders are showing continuing interest in how proxy advisory firms operate.
The interest of stakeholders in the proxy advisory industry is a key trend.
Increasing expectations about director communications
In response, boards must determine their role in stakeholder communications—and evaluate their processes and procedures governing such communications
Le micro-management est certainement un danger qui guette beaucoup d’administrateurs siégeant sur des conseils d’administration, surtout sur des CA d’OBNL.
Le court article publié par Eugene Fram sur son blogue Nonprofit Management montre qu’il y certaines situations de Start-Up qui nécessitent une implication des administrateurs dans la gestion de leur organisation; mais, il n’est pas rare que ce comportement devienne une très mauvaise habitude à plus long terme*.
L’auteur présente les dangers reliés aux comportements des administrateurs qui investissent inconsidérément les rôles de gestionnaires.
Les administrateurs doivent toujours se rappeler qu’ils ont un devoir de fiduciaire envers les actionnaires ou les membres d’une OBNL et qu’ils peuvent difficilement exercer leurs responsabilités s’ils effectuent des tâches de nature managériale.
Cette façon de faire détruit l’initiative des gestionnaires et sape leurs sens des responsabilités.
Micromanaging is a method of management in which an individual closely observes or controls the work of an employee. In comparison to simply giving general direction, the micromanager monitors and evaluates every stage in a process, from beginning to end. This behavior negatively affects efficiency, creativity, trust, communication, problem-solving, and the company’s ability to reach its goals.
The typical micromanager spends their time directing employees rather than empowering them. They are often very insecure. They spend more time with the details of business operations instead of planning the company’s short-term and long-term growth strategies. The fact of the matter is, time DOES equal money. When the designated leader of an organization is wasting time (and therefore money) on overseeing projects instead of focusing on specific growth opportunities, it’s time to reevaluate a few things.
The Need for a Micromanaging Board
Board micromanagement is an appropriate approach when either a nonprofit or for-profit is in a start-up stage. Financial and human resources are modest, and the directors often assume some responsibilities normally executed by compensated staff. The chief executive often has managerial responsibilities as well as a list of low-level operational duties. As extreme examples, I have even seen CEOs install office furniture or install floor tiles.
Long Term Implications
Prolonging these types of activities much after they are needed can imbed micromanagement in the DNA of the organization’s decision-making. Some directors may even obtain ego gratification from continual micromanaging. It can provide more immediate gratifications not found with policy or strategy development. If their mandates fail, they can always quietly blame management for poor implementations. Eventually these failures have an impact on the organization, either by stunting development or causing it to fail. Following are some of the behavioral patterns that become part of the decision-making environment:
Less competent managers are attracted to executive positions – There is a tendency to promote people with good operational records work into key management positions. They may have even taken university courses in management or social dynamics but they fail to realistically implement what they have learned into the dynamics of the real world problems.
Delegating Decisions Upward – Knowing that even small decisions will need to have board review, if not approval, the organization takes no pride in taking initiative, being creative and employing critical thinking. There is also a tendency to shirk responsibility.
More Difficult Recruitment — When the board comes to the conclusion it needs more talented managers, the directors may have trouble understanding why talented recruits reject their offers. Sometimes a talented senior manger may take a position after negotiating an understanding that the micromanaging board will change or modify the way it operates. However changing such an imbedded culture can be difficult and sometimes impossible, if a founder has established a micromanagement environment for the board.
Founders of both nonprofit and for-profit organizations can generate micromanaging boards that last for years beyond their tenures. Succeeding boards can be composed of directors who follow the founders’ management styles and are not capable of excising the unhealthy DNA surging through the organization.
Board micromanagement in either nonprofit or business organizations, when continued beyond a start-up stage, can be can be viewed as an incipient disease. It, at any point, can cause a “heart attack” in the organization.
Depuis quelques années, on parle souvent d’activistes, d’actionnaires activistes, d’investisseurs activistes ou de Hedge Funds pour qualifier la philosophie de ceux qui veulent assainir la gouvernance des entreprises et redonner une place prépondérante aux « actionnaires-propriétaires » !
Pour ceux qui sont intéressés à connaître le point de vue et les arguments d’un actionnaire activiste célèbre, je vous invite à lire l’article écrit par Carl Icahn le 22 août sur son site Shareholders’ Square Table (SST).
Vous aurez ainsi une très bonne idée de cette nouvelle approche à la gouvernance qui fait rage depuis quelque temps.
Je vous invite aussi à lire l’article de Icahn qui s’insurge contre la position de Warren Buffet de ne pas intervenir dans la décision de la rémunération globale « excessive » à Coke, suivi de la réponse de Buffet.
Among other things, I’m known to be a “reductionist.” In my line of work you must be good at pinpointing what to focus on – that is, the major underlying truths and problems in a situation. I then become obsessive about solving or fixing whatever they may be. This combination is what perhaps has lead to my success over the years and is why I’ve chosen to be so outspoken about shareholder activism, corporate governance issues, and the current economic state of America.
Currently, I believe that the facts “reduce” to one indisputable truth which is that we must change our system of selecting CEOs in order to stay competitive and get us out of an extremely dangerous financial situation. With exceptions, I believe that too many companies in this country are terribly run and there’s no system in place to hold the CEOs and Boards of these inadequately managed companies accountable. There are numerous challenges we are facing today whether it be monetary policy, unemployment, income inequality, the list can go on and on… but the thing we have to remember is there is something we can do about it: Shareholders, the true owners of our companies, can demand that mediocre CEOs are held accountable and make it clear that they will be replaced if they are failing.
I am convinced by our record that this will make our corporations much more productive and profitable and will go a long way in helping to solve our unemployment problems and the other issues now ailing our economy.
Selon une étude du The Wall Street Journal publié par Joann S. Lublin, les entreprises qui comptent moins d’administrateurs ont de meilleurs résultats que les entreprises de plus grandes tailles.
Bien qu’il n’y ait pas nécessairement de relation de type cause à effet, il semble assez clair que la tendance est à la diminution de nombre d’administrateurs sur les conseils d’administration des entreprises publiques américaines. Pourquoi en est-il ainsi ?
Il y a de nombreuses raisons dont l’article du WSJ, ci-dessous, traite. Essentiellement, les membres de conseils de petites tailles :
sont plus engagés dans les affaires de l’entité
sont plus portés à aller en profondeur dans l’analyse stratégique
entretiennent des relations plus fréquentes et plus harmonieuses avec la direction
ont plus de possibilités de communiquer entre eux
exercent une surveillance plus étroite des activités de la direction
sont plus décisifs, cohésif et impliqués.
Les entreprises du domaine financier ont traditionnellement des conseils de plus grandes tailles mais, encore là, les plus petits conseils ont de meilleurs résultats.
La réduction de la taille se fait cependant très lentement mais la tendance est résolument à la baisse. Il ne faut cependant pas compter sur la haute direction pour insister sur la diminution de la taille des C.A. car il semblerait que plusieurs PCD s’accommodent très bien d’un C.A. plus imposant !
Il faut cependant réaliser que la réduction du nombre d’administrateurs peut constituer un obstacle à la diversité si l’on ne prend pas en compte cette importante variable. Également, il faut noter que le C.A. doit avoir un président du conseil expérimenté, possédant un fort leadership. Un conseil de petite taille, présidé par une personne inepte, aura des résultats à l’avenant !
Voici deux autres documents, partagés par Richard Leblanc sur son groupe de discussion LinkedIn Boards and Advisors, qui pourraient vous intéresser :
Size counts, especially for boards of the biggest U.S. businesses.
Companies with fewer board members reap considerably greater rewards for their investors, according to a new study by governance researchers GMI Ratings prepared for The Wall Street Journal. Small boards at major corporations foster deeper debates and more nimble decision-making, directors, recruiters and researchers said. Take Apple Inc. In the spring when BlackRock founding partner Sue Wagner was up for a seat on the board of the technology giant, she met nearly every director within just a few weeks. Such screening processes typically take months.
But Apple directors move fast because there only are eight of them. After her speedy vetting, Ms. Wagner joined Apple’s board in July. She couldn’t be reached for comment.
Smaller boards at major corporations have more nimble decision-making processes, directors, recruiters and academic researchers say. Eric Palma
Among companies with a market capitalization of at least $10 billion, typically those with the smallest boards produced substantially better shareholder returns over a three-year period between the spring of 2011 and 2014 when compared with companies with the biggest boards, the GMI analysis of nearly 400 companies showed.
Companies with small boards outperformed their peers by 8.5 percentage points, while those with large boards underperformed peers by 10.85 percentage points. The smallest board averaged 9.5 members, compared with 14 for the biggest. The average size was 11.2 directors for all companies studied, GMI said.
« There’s more effective oversight of management with a smaller board, » said Jay Millen, head of the board and CEO practice for recruiters DHR International. « There’s no room for dead wood. »
Many companies are thinning their board ranks to improve effectiveness, Mr. Millen said. He recently helped a consumer-products business shrink its 10-person board to seven, while bringing on more directors with emerging-markets expertise.
GMI’s results, replicated across 10 industry sectors such as energy, retail, financial services and health care, could have significant implications for corporate governance.
Small boards are more likely to dismiss CEOs for poor performance—a threat that declines significantly as boards grow in numbers, said David Yermack, a finance professor at New York University’s business school who has studied the issue.
It’s tough to pinpoint precisely why board size affects corporate performance, but smaller boards at large-cap companies like Apple and Netflix Inc. appear to be decisive, cohesive and hands-on. Such boards typically have informal meetings and few committees. Apple directors, known for their loyalty to founder Steve Jobs, have forged close ties with CEO Tim Cook, according to a person familiar with the company. Mr. Cook frequently confers with individual directors between board meetings « to weigh the pros and cons of an issue, » an outreach effort that occurs quickly thanks to the board’s slim size, this person said.
Mr. Cook took this approach while mulling whether to recruit Angela Ahrendts, then CEO of luxury-goods company Burberry Group PLC for Apple’s long vacant position of retail chief. Private chats with board members helped him « test the thought » of recruiting her, the person said. She started in April.
Ms. Wagner, Apple’s newest director, replaced a retiring one. The board wants no more than 10 members to keep its flexibility intact, according to the person familiar with the company, adding that even « eye contact and candor change » with more than 10 directors.
Apple returns outperformed technology sector peers by about 37 cumulative percentage points during the three years tracked by GMI. An Apple spokeswoman declined to comment.
Netflix, with seven directors, demonstrated equally strong returns, outperforming sector peers by about 32 percentage points. Board members of the big video-streaming service debate extensively before approving important management moves, said Jay Hoag, its lead independent director.
« We get in-depth, » he said. « That’s easier with a small group. »
Netflix directors spent about nine months discussing a proposed price increase, with some pushing back hard on executives about the need for an increase, Mr. Hoag said. Netflix increased prices this spring for new U.S. customers of the company’s streaming video plan, its first price bump since 2011.
A board twice as big wouldn’t have time for « diving deeper into the business on things that matter, » Mr. Hoag said.
Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, un article tout à fait pertinent et intéressant, paru sur le site de INC.COM et publié par le Young Entrepreneur Council.
Voici onze (11) affirmations, ou mythes, à propos de la culture organisationnel et comment les administrateurs de sociétés peuvent tirer profit de ces enseignements.
Bonne lecture !
« Culture is a manifestation of your company’s values, and it impacts everything from talent recruiting to innovation. Unfortunately, some founders and CEOs, especially at early-stage startups, confuse culture with perks or, worse, believe that defining a company’s culture is a task best left up to someone else. Eleven founders from the Young Entrepreneur Council (YEC)call out the most persistent culture myths–and what you can do to overcome them »
« Many startup founders mistakenly think that fun perks automatically make for a good culture. Don’t get me wrong–happy hours, Ping-Pong tables and catered lunches are great, but they’re not going to keep employees happy unless you work to create a fundamental culture of respect. It’s a lot easier to provide perks than it is to make sure that employees feel motivated and valued. » —Jared Feldman, Mashwork
2. Culture Doesn’t Start With You
« Most CEOs don’t realize that they are defining the culture by how they are behaving. Snap at people often? Anger will become part of your culture. Undermine your staff? Bureaucracy will invade your culture. Pretend everything is always amazing? You’ll create a culture full of fakes. If you want a culture that is always evolving and becoming more beautiful, invest in doing so yourself. » —Corey Blake, Round Table Companies
3. Employee Feedback Isn’t Important
« Some CEOs do not treat employee feedback as if it was as important as their own thoughts, because they are not viewed as equals. Though it is clear a CEO’s role is more expansive then other positions, the culture of a company can be negatively affected if people’s ideas and thoughts are suppressed. Each employee has a unique view of the organization, and the culture of sharing views is important to the company’s success. » —Phil Chen, Systems Watch
4. Remote Work Doesn’t Impact Culture
« I’ve worked for several companies remotely for years, and none of them have worked out long term. You always have things going on, and you are never as productive as when you’re together in a group. Working with others next to you is the best way for your company culture to grow. If you have to work remotely, find a way to get to the office at least twice a week to improve culture. » —John Rampton, Adogy
5. Someone Else Owns It
« They assume it’s someone else’s problem to deal with. HR doesn’t own culture. Employees don’t own culture. Everyone owns culture, and senior leaders have an enormous impact on how business gets done in the day-to-day. CEOs who don’t understand this are destined to live with whatever they get. CEOs who do understand their roles are better equipped to be intentional about the culture they create in ways that drive performance. »–Chris Cancialosi, GothamCulture
6. Culture Doesn’t Need to Be Defined
« Chris Wood of Paige Technologies says it best, ‘Organizations are really only a representation of the people in them; employers must be diligent about mapping culture.’ Products and services can be duplicated, but people can’t. Your people drive your culture and they are the one defining difference of a company. CEOs forget to understand and define the culture that they have in place early on. » —Jason Grill, JGrill Media | Sock 101
7. Culture Is Just a Set of Values
« We help many growing companies build culture, and the one thing most CEOs get wrong is forgetting to operationalize it. Culture isn’t just a set of core values on the wall–it’s a set of consistent behaviors. You have to be clear what those values look like in practice (we call them work rules) so current and future employees see culture in action and understand how works gets done in the company and align the company to them. » —Susan LaMotte, Exaqueo
8. Culture Only Matters When You Reach X Size
« Most CEOs think they don’t have to worry about company culture until their business meets certain profit or growth margins. In reality, company culture is affecting your bottom line regardless of your margins. I’ll say it again: Your company’s culture is inextricable from your company’s success. Focus on hiring the right people and offering them a place to thrive. With the wrong staff or an unmotivated staff, your company will go nowhere. » —Sean Kelly, HUMAN
9. You Can’t Hire for Culture
« You have to carefully select the type of people you add to your team if you’re going for a particular culture. For instance, if you’re a fashion company, you probably want to hire people that are actually passionate about fashion. It’s good to have people with different ideas, but generally they should have a shared common interest. With that shared interest, you can build a culture that your team members and customers can get behind. » —Andy Karuza, Brandbuddee
10. Compensation Is the Only Motivator
« Once they reach a certain salary, most non-sales employees could honestly care less about additional compensation. Employees work to feel needed, so remind them that they are your company. Recognize them, and make it public recognition. » —Justin Gray, LeadMD
11. Culture Will Wait for You to Create It
« The interesting thing about a company culture is that it will create itself if you don’t create it first. CEOs need to define and personify the company culture and instill it at every level of the organization. The best companies all have a culture based on their mission, and all employees know why they’re working so hard. When the opposite is true, the culture will create itself–and it may not be the culture you envisioned. » —Andrew Thomas, SkyBell Technologies, Inc.
Debra Wheatman* a publié un billet intéressant dans CEO.com qui fait l’éloge du mentorat en vue de mieux réussir le processus de préparation de la relève du président et chef de direction (PCD, CEO).
Une firme de recrutement au niveau mondial, InterSearch Worldwide, a montré que seulement 45 % des organisations avait un processus de planification de la succession du premier dirigeant !
L’auteure propose de mettre en place un plan de mentorat à l’échelle de toute l’organisation et elle expose les avantages pressentis d’une telle démarche.
Pour elle le mentorat est bénéfique pour le raffermissement de la culture, la croissance et la viabilité de l’organisation. Voici un extrait de ce court article. Bonne lecture !
Mentoring Provides a Foundation for Positive Performance
Given the dynamic and changing business environment in which we all work, there are many instances in which people with little to no experience are required to assume new responsibilities and adapt to rapidly changing business situations. Oftentimes, these people are asked to do things that are unfamiliar and represent unchartered territory.
Pairing these individuals with senior executives with the expertise and organizational knowledge can help more inexperienced staff develop the skills and expertise to be effective and grow within the organization. By working with a mentor, a mentee will be able to develop a positive work approach and be motivated to assume increasing responsibility, with the resulting impact being strong job performance, productivity and confidence.
Mentoring Supports a Culture of Learning and Knowledge Transfer
The ongoing health and wellness of any organization is largely predicated on ensuring employees are equipped to add continuous value. Providing staff with the means to acquire the knowledge and skills to be effective supports short- and long-term goals for learning and sets the tone for organization-wide knowledge distribution. By encouraging knowledge transfer efforts, the foundation of learning is established.
Mentoring programs also serve to empower employees, promoting a culture of inclusivity where people are encouraged to communicate, fostering productivity and a focus on achieving corporate goals.
Mentoring is Key for Developing Future Leaders
One of the key benefits of a robust mentoring program is that it helps to provide a solid training ground for future leaders. One of the things that employees desire when they join an organization is to have an understanding of opportunities for upward mobility and growth.
With a well-developed mentoring program, employees can review their career goals and pursue advancement opportunities. The partnerships established from the program helps employees understand what they need to do to progress within the organization. The assistance from a mentor can help propel employees forward, providing a strong foundation of commitment and drive for success.
Mentoring Leads to Increased Employee Retention
Mentoring increases employee retention because it sends a positive message that the organization cares about employees’ development into leadership roles. One of the things that can sometimes hinder growth is an employee’s inability to understand or embrace an organization’s corporate culture. With an active mentoring program, mentees are given the opportunity to navigate such intangibles, thereby increasing opportunities for long-term success.
Mentoring Increases Self-Awareness
One of the things that help people grow into effective leaders is the understanding of their own strengths and shortcomings. This can be a hard thing for a person to identify on his or her own. In a mentoring relationship, the mentee will be given feedback by the mentor as a means to conducting a thoughtful self-evaluation. Though it might be difficult, self-awareness is critical to understanding areas for improvement and is the first step in making meaningful changes that can positively impact career outcomes.
Mentoring Is a Great Idea Even If You Aren’t Going Anywhere Anytime Soon
Mentoring provides significant benefits both to you and your successor. As a teacher, you will have the opportunity to revisit past decisions, plans and re-assess the company’s goals and objectives. As your mentee asks tough questions about why things are the way they are, it will give you the chance to look at the past, present and future through a set of fresh eyes. Even if you don’t plan on going anywhere soon, mentoring and building your succession plan can dramatically improve the performance of you, your team and your organization.
______________________________________________
* Career and personal branding expert Debra Wheatman is president and owner of Careers Done Write. She is globally recognized as an expert in advanced career search techniques, with more than 18 years’ corporate human resource experience helping clients make gratifying career choices.
La gestion des entreprises familiales est un sujet qui concerne un grand nombre d’organisations, souvent très petites mais qui ont néanmoins besoin d’une certaine configuration de gouvernance. L’article de Dan Ryan, président des pratiques réglementaires à PricewaterhouseCoopers, est basé sur une publication de PwC.
On y présente un modèle de gouvernance qui reflète l’évolution des entreprises familiales ainsi que les nombreux avantages à se doter des mécanismes de gouvernance appropriés.
Également, l’article décrit les principales réticences des entrepreneurs et des fondateurs à aller de l’avant; l’auteur tente d’apporter des réponses concrètes aux préoccupations des propriétaires-dirigeants. Enfin, l’article aborde les attentes que les entreprises doivent avoir eu égard à la mise en place d’un conseil d’administration.
Je vous invite donc à prendre connaissance de l’extrait ci-dessous et de poursuivre la lecture complète de l’article en cliquant sur le lien suivant :
Individual- and family-owned businesses are a vital part of our economy. If you or your family owns such a company you understand how important the company’s success is to your personal wealth and to future generations. If you’re a nonfamily executive at a family company, you also recognize that its profitability and resilience is vital to your job security and financial well-being.
We see more family companies interested in corporate governance today than we did a decade ago, as shown in changes they’ve made to their boards. While some family companies have a board only to satisfy legal compliance requirements, more are moving toward the outer rings on the family business corporate governance model, below. Ultimately, owners will choose which level best suits the company’s needs and when changing circumstances mean the company’s governance should transition to another ring.
Family Business Corporate Governance Model*
Compliance board. While most states require companies incorporated in the state to have a board, the requirement may be as simple as a board of at least one person that meets at least once per year. A company may have only the founder on its board. In the early stages of a founder-led company, this type of board may well be the best fit for the company, since the founder is usually more focused on building the business than on governance.
Insider board. Such a board often includes family members and members of senior management. This membership can better involve the family in the business, help with succession planning, and introduce additional perspectives to board discussions. The insider board may be created by the founder—who may no longer be the CEO—or by the next generation owner(s) of the company. That said, the founder/owner(s) retain decision-making authority.
Inner circle board. In this type of board the founder/owner adds directors he or she knows well. These may include an accountant, lawyer, or other business professional that guided or influenced the company, or the founder’s close friends. These directors may bring skills or experience to the board that are otherwise missing and may be in a position to challenge the founder/owner(s) in a positive way. Such boards might create an audit committee or other committees. That said, the founder/owner(s)—who may or may not be the CEO—retains decision-making authority.
Quasi-independent board. This level introduces outside/independent directors who have no employment or other tie to the company apart from their role as a director. (See the Family Business Corporate Governance Series module Building or renewing your board for a more complete discussion of independent/outside directors.) These directors introduce objectivity and accountability to the board and they expect their input to be respected. Board processes and policies will likely become more formalized with outside/independent directors on the board. The number of committees may increase. This outermost ring on the family business corporate governance model is most similar to governance at a public company.
59% of CEOs and CFOs of 147 family-owned/owner-operated companies report having a “formal board of directors that acts on behalf of company owners to oversee the business and management,” per a PwC 2013 survey.
We recognize that governance at any family company will be determined almost exclusively by what the founder (or family members who control the company) wants. You may have a compliance board or an inner circle board—and those may be entirely appropriate for where your company is at present. We’ve seen numerous family companies that benefited greatly from moving toward the outer rings in the governance model—especially when anticipating a generational transition.
In this post, we’ll help you understand how to build an effective board for your family company, and how boards can assist with some of the particularly challenging issues family companies face. This first module discusses why you might want to evolve or change your governance model and what you could expect from a board if you do so.
Each family company’s situation is unique and we can’t address every scenario. Our goal is to provide a framework of how corporate governance practices apply to family companies so you can decide what’s best for you.
___________________________________________
* Some companies also have an Advisory Board to advise management (and directors). Advisory Board members don’t vote or have fiduciary responsibilities.
Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, les coordonnées d’un article d’Alan Mak et Andrew Hill sur le Blogue du FT du 2 juillet 2014. Les auteurs se questionnent sur la place des jeunes (millennials) dans les conseils d’administration du futur.
Vous y découvrirez plusieurs raisons qui militent en faveur de la nomination de jeunes au C.A. (Mak) ainsi que la prise de position d’un auteur qui ne croit pas à la contribution des jeunes sur des C.A., principalement à cause de leur manque d’expérience (Hill). Comme vous vous en doutez, je partage entièrement le point de vue de Mak qui propose l’engagement des jeunes sur les conseils.
La lecture des arguments pour et des arguments contre est intéressante. Qu’en pensez-vous ?
Lord Davies in his report “Women on Boards” rightly said the best boards contain “a mix of voices [that] must include women”. It should also include millennials.
Today’s rapidly changing marketplace is more complex than ever and businesses that want to stay competitive, especially in customer-facing sectors, need Generation Y to help them deal with the big trends, from the rise of digitally empowered consumers to the febrile post-financial crisis business environment.
The business case for younger directors is strong. Generation Y, also known as millennials, are aged 18-35 and, at 2bn people, are the world’s biggest demographic group. By 2018 they will have the biggest spending power of any age group, Deloitte says. And three in four millennials say they influence the purchasing decisions of other generations. So, every business needs to understand Generation Y’s behaviour and aspirations, and younger, suitably qualified directors can be their champion in the boardroom.
Meanwhile, better decisions are made when companies draw on the widest possible range of talent regardless of age, and when directors bring to bear the broadest range of experiences, perspectives and lifestyles. In this context, “diversity” must include generational diversity, not just gender diversity. Adding a Generation Y perspective can be a powerful antidote to age-related groupthink. For example, millennials are more likely to take a longer-term approach to risk taking because they have to live with the financial and reputational consequences of failure when older colleagues may not.
The financial crisis caused an irreversible cultural and structural shift. Corporations from banks to supermarkets are redefining their values and business models to become more accountable and sustainable. As David Jones explains in his book Who Cares Wins, for business, “the new price of doing well is doing good”.
Generation Y instinctively understands this new paradigm, and they are best placed to act as boardroom cultural translators.
Such rapid cultural change is itself largely driven by fast technological and demographic change. Social media have given today’s consumers more information about how companies do business than ever before. Whereas the industrial revolution empowered the corporation, the digital revolution empowered the consumer. As Jones observes, “ … there’s not been another time in history when the youngest people understood the most about what is going on”. Companies that fail to understand this new “good business zeitgeist” find their brands and share price diminished.
Generation Y directors add value by helping their companies to navigate this volatile, Twitter-driven landscape. That is why Starbucks appointed social media expert Clara Shih, then 29, to its main board.
Meanwhile, globalisation has created increasingly complex decision-making environments that require new skills and fresh insights – for example, into emerging markets and new technologies – that were simply not around, or as needed in the past. Every company must now balance Gen X’s experience with Gen Y’s inherently global outlook, digital aptitude and commitment to life-long learning. Putting younger leaders into the boardroom helps that development while sending a wider message that an organisation rewards talent and ambition.
Pessimists may say younger figures lack the industry knowledge or operational experience to step into the boardroom. These qualities can all be developed and naysayers should listen to Peter Cave-Gibbs, former London head of recruiter Heidrick & Struggles: “Board chairmen want outstanding leaders who can help their business succeed in today’s global marketplace. Gen Y talent is highly educated, multilingual, and comfortable with change and technology. They are changing the way business is done: age is just a number in business now.”
. . .
No
Andrew Hill
Boards are changing. The devastating economic and financial crisis has exposed the risk of groupthink in the boardroom and the weaknesses in established corporate governance, as pursued by establishment people, who, let’s face it, are still predominantly “white, male and stale”. Business logic and a simple sense of equity dictate that the gender and ethnic balance in the boardroom should alter. Research increasingly suggests that diverse teams come up with better ideas.
So, if more women and people from ethnic minorities are becoming non-executive directors, for these and other excellent reasons, shouldn’t large companies invite more young people to step up to the board?
No, they shouldn’t, and here’s why.
First, the immediate priority for large companies ought to be to assemble a balanced board with an accumulation of experience that will help supervise the executive team. By definition, younger candidates have less experience.
What ambitious and talented young people know could still be useful to the board and to the company. Millennials may help a consumer products company tailor its offering to younger customers.
While the boardroom dinosaurs are struggling with their iPads, they could help a natural resources company to understand coming risks to its reputation (posed, for example, by social media protests). But these contributions can be sought in better and more efficient ways than by inviting a representative into the boardroom. Smart companies are already tapping social media – the natural heir to focus groups – for a quantitative assessment of youth trends. Phil Clarke, Tesco’s chief executive, has a 20-something staffer in his office, precisely to keep him updated on such trends.
I am as suspicious as anyone of the power of vested interests. When a headhunter recently told me that a boardroom should “not be trying to reflect the demographic” and warned that 20-something non-executives with little corporate experience might “throw in grenades that are inappropriate”, I was almost ready to help them pull the pin.
Boards do need shaking up and young people with proven records of relevant achievement could have what it takes to hold their own in a boardroom packed with company veterans. But these candidates will be few and far between. Youth per se is no qualification.
Second, a bigger priority for boards is to reflect the gender and ethnic mix around them without compromising on experience. I would choose, say, a female executive informed by diverse experiences ahead of a promising younger businessperson with only youth on his or her side.
Finally, if companies want to draw on the energy and inspiration brought by younger people – and they should – they should employ them and promote them to executive roles. It may not have dawned on aspiring Gen Y non-executives, but the board is not the engine of creativity, innovation and strategy at big companies: it is a regulator of the engine, and an important sounding board for ideas brought by the executive team.
Most entrepreneurial young people I know would simply be frustrated by boardroom politics and bluster. Those young managers who feel they should start their non-executive portfolio in their 20s have got their careers back to front: they should be directing their best efforts to founding start-ups, or at least changing the way companies work, not the way they are supervised. If it is revolution they seek, they stand a better chance of pursuing it from the bottom up than from the top down.
Voici un bref condensé préparé par Roger Baker, de IoD (UK) et diffusé par Béatrice RICHEZ-BAUM, secrétaire générale de European Confederation of Directors’ Associations (ecoDa), relatif aux nouvelles directives contenues dans un code de conduite à l’intention des firmes conseils en recrutement de cadres et d’administrateurs de sociétés.
Ce nouveau code, dit volontaire, met l’accent sur la reconnaissance des efforts des sociétés du FSTE 350 eu égard à la planification de la relève des administrateurs, notamment des candidates féminines. Cette approche « soft » rejoint tout à fait le courant de pensée britannique en matière de changement dans le domaine de la gouvernance corporative (Comply or Explain).
The new Code of Conduct for Executive Search firms
The new Enhanced Voluntary Code of Conduct for Executive Search Firms gives recognition to those firms who have been most successful in the recruitment of women to FSTE 350 boards. It builds on the terms of the standard voluntary code and will also recognize the outstanding efforts of search firms working to build the pipeline of FTSE board directors of the future.
The Enhanced Voluntary Code was drawn up by the search firms themselves working with the Davies Steering Group. It contains 10 new provisions, from launching initiatives to support aspiring women to sharing of best practice and running awareness programmes within their own firms.
Under the new provisions, it is specified that:
Search firms should support chairmen and their nomination committees in developing medium-term succession plans that identify the balance of experience and skills that they will need to recruit for over the next two to three years to maximize board effectiveness. This time frame will allow a broader view to be established by looking at the whole board, not individual hires; this should facilitate increased flexibility in candidate specifications.
When taking a specific brief, search firms should look at overall board composition and, in the context of the board’s agreed aspirational goals on gender balance and diversity more broadly, explore with the chairman if recruiting women directors is a priority on this occasion.
During the selection process, search firms should provide appropriate support, in particular to first-time candidates, to prepare them for interviews and guide them through the process.
Search firms should provide advice to clients on best practice in induction and ‘onboarding’ processes to help new board directors settle quickly into their roles.
Voici un lien qui vous donnera plus de détails sur ce nouveau code ainsi qu’une vidéo de Viviane Reeding sur l’importance à accorder à l’accroissement du nombre de candidatures féminines aux conseils d’administration des sociétés européennes :
Ce document phare, publié en juin 2014 par CPA Canada*, sous la plume de Don Taylor, est un outil précieux, voire indispensable, pour tout administrateur d’OBNL. Les administrateurs de sociétés sont exposés à un cadre conceptuel vraiment révélateur eu égard à la mise en œuvre de l’organisation ou au raffinement de la gouvernance d’un organisme à but non lucratif.
On y trouvera également un recueil des principales questions que les administrateurs d’OBNL doivent se poser en siégeant sur ces conseils.
Si vous êtes impliqué (engagé) dans la gouvernance d’un OBNL, je suis persuadé que cette publication est pour vous. Bonne lecture !|
Le Conseil sur la surveillance des risques et la gouvernance des Comptables professionnels agréés du Canada (CPA Canada) a préparé le présent guide afin d’aider les administrateurs d’organismes sans but lucratif (OSBL) à s’assurer qu’un bon cadre de gouvernance est en place, de manière à favoriser la productivité, la reddition de comptes et le succès de ces organismes dans la réalisation de leur mission.
English: CPA Global Logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Voici les principales étapes qui seront abordées pour guider les administrateurs d’OSBL dans l’élaboration ou la mise au point d’un tel cadre :
• compréhension des exigences et du contexte législatifs;
• conception du cadre de gouvernance;
• mise en œuvre du cadre de gouvernance;
• établissement d’une saine dynamique au sein du conseil;
• suivi, apprentissage et amélioration sur une base continue.
Le guide propose également des questions que les administrateurs peuvent poser pour savoir si le cadre de gouvernance et les processus connexes de l’OSBL sont efficaces et adaptés aux besoins particuliers de celui-ci. Nous encourageons aussi les administrateurs à formuler d’autres questions selon la situation particulière de l’OSBL en question.
Philippe MASSÉ, agent de développement de l’organisation Leadership Montréal| Conférence régionale des élus de Montréal, m’a récemment fait parvenir les résultats d’une étude réalisée sur les profils d’administrateurs recherchés par les OBNL de la région de Montréal.
Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, l’introduction au document en guise de mise en contexte.
Bonne lecture. Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus.
Du 21 janvier au 7 février 2014, la Conférence régionale des élus (CRÉ) de Montréal et certains de ses partenaires ont invité des représentants d’organisations à but non lucratif (OBNL) à compléter un questionnaire relatif aux profils d’administrateurs recherchés par leur conseil d’administration. Cette démarche a été réalisée dans le cadre de l’initiative Leadership Montréal. Centraide du Grand Montréal, le Conseil des arts de Montréal et le Comité d’économie sociale de l’île de Montréal (CÉSÎM) ont participé à l’exercice et ont invité leurs membres et partenaires à répondre au questionnaire.
Montreal shining (Photo credit: Clément Belleudy)
Au total, 336 personnes ont répondu au questionnaire. De ce nombre, 264 l’ont complété, soit 78,6 % des répondants. Les données présentées dans ce document ne tiennent compte que des réponses fournies par ces 264 répondants. La démarche effectuée n’est pas scientifique et les réponses obtenues ne constituent pas un échantillon représentatif des OBNL de la région montréalaise. L’utilisation et l’interprétation des résultats doivent donc se faire avec la plus grande réserve. Les pourcentages indiqués reflètent le point de vue des répondants et ne représentent nullement l’ensemble des OBNL.
Vous trouverez ici une synthèse des réponses recueillies ainsi que quelques pistes de réflexion sur les enjeux de la relève au sein des conseils d’administration (C. A.) de la région de Montréal. Ce document compte 5 sections :
(1) Profils des organisations répondantes
(2) Profils des administrateurs recherchés
(3) Relève au conseil d’administration
(4) Attentes face aux administrateurs
(5) Accueil des nouveaux membres et reconnaissance de la contribution des administrateurs.
Comment, en tant que fiduciaires et stratèges, les membres des conseils d’administration doivent-il aborder l’enjeu le plus critique de la gouvernance : La relève du président et chef de la direction PCD (CEO). C’est un sujet difficile et délicat, un sujet qui requiert toute l’attention des administrateurs, notamment de son comité des ressources humaines.
L’article dont il est question dans ce billet est basé sur les résultats du Global Strategic Leadership Forumqui s’est tenu à Atlanta en 2013 et qui a paru dans le Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance.
Vous trouverez un extrait ci-dessous. Bonne lecture !
The World Affairs Council of Atlanta’s 2013 Global Strategic Leadership Forum focused on a critical issue facing boards of directors: CEO succession. As arguably its most crucial responsibility, the board’s process for hiring and developing CEOs must be an extraordinarily thorough one that addresses the complexities of the modern global company. While there is no exact template that fits all circumstances, the board must ensure that its processes and oversight accurately reflects the organization’s future needs, identifies the skills and experience required in today’s complex global economy, and builds and closely monitors a truly robust succession plan.
The critical questions include the following: How can the board best identify what the company most needs and match a candidate to meet those needs? Who among the CEO candidates is most capable of driving the company to greater growth and performance? What are the necessary attributes, contextual experience, and values that will drive effective, positive change in the company and in the industry? Of course, a company’s specific position in its industry and its own history are important distinctions that will impact the answers to these questions. All of these topics must be viewed in the context of the escalating risk factors and competitive forces facing all companies not only in the United States, but in other countries around the world, especially in emerging market countries.
215 px (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The responsibility of the board with respect to CEO succession is a part of the board’s increasing engagement in corporate strategic decision-making and broad operational focus. Because CEO selection and monitoring is carried out in the context of the company’s risk position in all its markets, the board and the CEO should be in full agreement as to the risk appetite of the company, where the company is heading, and how it plans to get there—understood in terms of the short, medium, and long-term strategic horizon.
The Process of CEO Succession is Ongoing
While the search and selection of a new corporate leader is a major event in a company’s life, in fact the CEO succession process is not a time-limited event. Rather, it must be an ongoing process of development and discernment that is constant and systematic, driven by the company’s strategy and core values, and involving the intentional engagement of all of the board members. As boards are becoming increasingly engaged in forming the strategic trajectory of the company, they also are coupling this focus on a longer-range view of CEO succession. Connecting these two principal board duties influences the defining of CEO attributes that will support the implementation of the long-range strategy. The CEO succession process must be seen as an integral part of the broader leadership and talent identification, development, and monitoring system within the organization. Although the board’s legal responsibility resides in selecting and overseeing the work of the CEO, it has an implied responsibility to ensure that a management development system provides a clear way to identify and nurture potential corporate leaders, including a pool of potential CEO candidates. While an outside search for a CEO is also a proven pathway for CEO selection in certain circumstances, the majority of new CEOs emerge from inside the company and, hence, should come out of an established leadership development program….
The Inside/Outside Choice
The company’s current strategic position almost surely will influence the board’s decision on whether to seek a candidate for CEO from inside or outside the company. There are some circumstances in which the board may perceive a real need to find a CEO who can address internal matters of culture and motivation and that may require a different skill set from the previous or current CEO.
While there is a substantial literature on the board’s decision to focus either inside or outside the company for a CEO, there is a broad consensus that the inside candidate is preferred if the company is performing well. The outside candidate may be better if the company is not meeting its strategic objectives or if the company’s competitive position in the industry is not meeting the board’s expectations. While an inside candidate may know the corporate culture quite well, in certain circumstances, including a need for major strategic change, the CEO may need to be an inspirational change manager, a “refresher” for the corporate culture, and a motivator….
Attributes and Values of the Exemplary CEO
As the board evaluates potential CEO candidates, it should systemically and constantly refine the list of specific attributes that the future CEO should possess. Clearly, most boards want a CEO candidate who is a strong leader, who is capable of a high level of critical and holistic thinking, has unquestioned integrity, courage to act, and who perceives the necessity for innovation in products, services, and stakeholder engagement. Four principal attributes at the top of any board’s list should be: operational ability, strategic outlook, congruence with the corporate culture, and a high level of social and emotional intelligence. In all interactions, the CEO must be able to listen and learn, be open to a variety of opinions in his or her approach to decision-making, and operate well under stress. Candidates’ attributes and the board’s evaluation criteria must include the ability to handle key relationships with three “masters” in mind: customers, shareholders, and employees. The board must evaluate the potential CEO’s track record in dealing with these three key, yet very different, constituencies. While these constituencies are not involved directly in the selection process, the CEO candidate’s knowledge of them and how to strengthen ties to them should be a primary consideration in the final decision.
More than ever, the essential attributes list will include an excellent understanding of finance, including a keen ability to articulate where the company’s value is being produced, its capital structure, cost dynamics, asset utilization, and any potential resource gaps. A thorough comprehension of global financial markets is increasingly vital. Moreover, a strong financial fluency will allow the CEO to speak effectively not only with the CFO, but also with analysts and institutional investors.
Beyond industry knowledge and operational acumen necessary to lead an enterprise in a globalized market, today’s CEO must be able to have a full grasp of a wide range of issues including the drivers of the global economy, the complexity of the regulatory environment wherever the company is operating, enterprise risk management including political risk and cultural differences, corporate growth strategies, and current or potential acquisition or merger targets. A major category of concern to any CEO is compliance with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which absorbs a lot of international companies’ corporate resources and must be managed carefully—especially in an era where the rise of whistleblowers, including the malicious ones, is a reality.
All CEOs must have a capacity to look forward, to envision what the future in the industry will look like, and anticipate, to the extent possible, the political and economic developments that may impact the company’s operations and performance. Global fluency and cross-cultural competence are essential ingredients for today’s CEO and some companies look very favorably on candidates who speak languages in addition to English.
Where CEO succession most often goes wrong is when there is not a good cultural fit, when the board uses the wrong metrics for evaluation, when the board does not know the candidate well enough, or when it fails to discerns how the candidate will react in specific and stressful situations. The candidates’ ethics and values must be clearly understood not only on their own, but also in the framework of the corporate culture.
Another critical dynamic in the selection of the CEO is to ensure that the candidate understands the impact of digitalization and the emergence of “big data” on his or her industry and company. Increasingly, the CEO must have a fulsome understanding of technology, especially those technological developments that are or will be impacting the industry….
Voici un excellent article paru sur le blogue de Josse Tores, un auteur reconnu pour ses qualités d’influenceur, de conférencier et d’éditeur. M. Tores explique bien l’importance pour tout entrepreneur de se doter d’un conseil aviseur.
L’article fait état de huit facteurs qui contribuent à l’efficacité d’un conseil aviseur. Vous trouverez ci-dessous un sommaire des 8 caractéristiques.
Je vous conseille de prendre le temps de lire ce court article.
Advisory boards are used by the best entrepreneurs as a way to fill knowledge gaps with subject matter experts. Advisory board members are not directors in the traditional sense. Advisory board members do not serve a governance function and do not represent shareholders or other stakeholders. An advisory board’s role is simply to provide advice to the entrepreneur relative to achieving business goals.
Business in London (Photo credit: Stuck in Customs)
At its most basic level an advisory board acts as a sounding board for the business owner. At its best, an advisory board provides expertise, guidance, and business development opportunities. In all cases, the advisory board provides the entrepreneur a group of experts with whom to talk about opportunities, challenges, and next steps.
The following are 8 tips to creating an effective advisory board:
1. Have a Purpose: “Management by objective works – if you know the objectives. Ninety percent of the time you don’t.” – Peter Drucker
2. Recruit Doubters: “The path of sound credence is through the thick forest of skepticism.” – George Jean Nathan
3. Leverage the Network: “The purpose of human life is to serve, and to show compassion and the will to help others.” – Albert Schweitzer
4. Write It Down: “A verbal contract isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.” – Samuel Goldwyn
5. Time is Money: “Price is what you pay. Value is what you get.” – Warren Buffett
6. Keep It Intimate: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” – Margaret Mead
7. Maximize Value: “Success depends upon previous preparation, and without such preparation there is sure to be failure.” – Confucius
8. Ongoing Communication: “Number one, cash is king…number two, communicate…number three, buy or bury the competition.” – Jack Welch
Entrepreneurs should consider forming an advisory group as early in the life of the business as possible. Advisory boards should be dynamic, changing composition as challenges change. Advisors should know their role may be temporary. They should be recognized and praised by the entrepreneur to ensure they remain engaged and involved. Above all else, advisors should recognize that they are there to provide advice to the entrepreneur and not to govern the business. Utilizing these eight tips enables an entrepreneur to achieve greater success in a shorter amount of time.
Guy Le Péchon, associé gérantde Gouvernance & Structures vient de faire paraître dans le journal LesEchos.fr, une piste de réflexion sur le rajeunissement des conseils d’administration qui, je crois, mériterait d’être expérimentées et pourraient changer le processus de gouvernance des entreprises.
Quelles entreprises ont déjà mis en place des processus de renouvellement similaire ? Quelles seront les entreprises novatrices en matière de diversification des conseils ?
Alors, comment procéder ? L’approche suggérée par ce billet par Gouvernance & Structures est, sous la houlette du conseil d’administration, de créer un conseil de jeunes. Avec des objectifs un peu différents, certaines municipalités utilisent cette approche. Ce conseil de jeunes serait composé d’une dizaine bénévoles de 18 à 25 ans, défrayés des frais éventuels. Ils seraient recrutés par annonces Internet pour 3 ans (avec renouvellement d’un tiers d’entre eux chaque années) en visant la parité femmes / hommes et une large diversité de milieu d’origine. Ils seraient pilotés par le secrétaire du conseil d’administration aidé par un responsable RH.
« Le Conseil de Classe » (Philippe Danvin) Compagnie Raymond Pradel (Photo credit: saigneurdeguerre)
Le conseil, en leur fournissant la documentation nécessaire, leur demanderait, disons trois fois par an, de réfléchir à un thème examiné à un prochain conseil et de faire des propositions. On peut penser aux questions sur lesquelles les jeunes peuvent être sensibilisés; technologies nouvelles dont réseaux sociaux et protection des données, écologie, éthique, international… Une fois par an, sur un de ces thèmes, serait organisé une demi-journée d’échange direct avec présence physique des membres du conseil d’administration à l’occasion d’une de ses réunions.
La formule serait légère et n’entraînerait pas de dépenses importantes, elle permettrait aux membres du conseil d’administration, dans un cadre souple et convivial, d’être positivement et concrètement confrontés aux idées de jeunes et pourquoi pas d’en retenir certaines pour mise en application. Les jeunes en tireraient sûrement un profit personnel, et indirectement leurs proches.
En effet, ils bénéficieraient ainsi d’une ouverture sur la « Corporate Gouvernance » des entreprises et leurs hauts dirigeants. L’entreprise pourrait incidemment dans ce cadre repérer des jeunes talents à embaucher plus tard. La société pourrait utiliser cette approche pour améliorer son image de marque, en particulier auprès de jeunes. Bien des discours et écrits prônent l’innovation, et comme on commence à le savoir, l’innovation n’est pas seulement technologique, elle peut être aussi organisationnelle et sociale.
Je vous propose une lecture parue dans Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, publiée par Holly J. Gregory du « Corporate Governance and Executive Compensation group » de la firme Sidley Austin LLP.
On y décrit les priorités que les conseils d’administration doivent considérer en 2014 :
Les investisseurs institutionnels
Le conseil d’administration
Les priorités
La performance de l’entreprise et l’orientation stratégique
La sélection du PCD, la rémunération, la relève
Les contrôles internes, la gestion du risque et la conformité
As the fallout from the financial crisis recedes and both institutional investors and corporate boards gain experience with expanded corporate governance regulation, the coming year holds some promise of decreased tensions in board-shareholder relations. With governance settling in to a “new normal,” influential shareholders and boards should refocus their attention on the fundamental aspects of their roles as they relate to the creation of long-term value.
Institutional investors and their beneficiaries, and society at large, have a decided interest in the long-term health of the corporation and in the effectiveness of its governing body. Corporate governance is likely to work best in supporting the creation of value when the decision rights and responsibilities of shareholders and boards set out in state corporate law are effectuated.
This article identifies and examines the key areas of focus that institutional investors and boards should prioritize in 2014.
Institutional Investors
Apply a long-term value approach.
Vote on a company-specific basis where possible.
Focus on core issues.
The Board
Despite increased shareholder decision rights and influence, the board’s fundamental mandate remains to direct the affairs of the company. Key areas for boards to focus on include:
Defining board priorities.
Monitoring company performance and setting strategic direction.
Selecting and compensating the CEO and planning for succession.
Attending to internal controls, risk management and compliance.
Preparing for a crisis.
Engaging with shareholders and responding to shareholder activism.
Determining board composition needs and leadership structure.
Board Priorities
Boards determine how to apportion their very limited time based on board responsibilities and the unique needs of the company. Each board must define the priorities that will shape its agenda and determine the information it needs to govern, driven by the needs of the business. Boards add value when they help management cope with the complex context in which the company operates, and when they support management in focusing on the long-term interests of the company and its shareholders.
Active board engagement in overseeing company performance, strategy and the culture of ethics should help to align the company’s approach to compensation, financial disclosure, internal controls, risk management and compliance. Therefore, in most circumstances the majority of board time should be reserved for matters related to company performance and strategy, and the ethical tone within the company.
Outside directors require considerable amounts of information as they get to know the business and the environment in which the company operates. Active involvement in prioritizing the agenda and defining information needs positions outside directors to provide objective guidance and judgment. The board should not leave decisions about the board agenda and information needs to management alone.
Company Performance and Strategic Direction
Challenges for boards include:
Reserving appropriate time for review and discussion of company performance.
Taking an active role in strategic planning while maintaining objectivity. (This is especially critical in enabling the board to assess the positions of activist shareholders versus management’s plans.)
Supporting appropriate long-term investment and prudent risk-taking in the face of significant short-term pressures for immediate returns or other conflicts.
Balancing guidance and support of management with objective assessment and constructive criticism.
Holding management accountable for results in light of the agreed strategy by determining and applying performance benchmarks.
Helping management anticipate and understand the potential for abrupt and long-term changes in the company’s economic, political and social environment.
Testing key assumptions that underpin management’s proposed strategic plans and major transactions, including assumptions about risks.
Maintaining appropriate deference to management on day-to- day operations without becoming unduly passive.
CEO Selection, Compensation and Succession
Challenges for boards include:
Setting goals for the CEO (and other key executives) in line with corporate strategy, objectives and plans.
Providing appropriate support, guidance and deference to the CEO while maintaining objectivity about performance.
Designing compensation to attract and retain talent while aligning it with performance.
Considering the CEO’s contributions in the context of the contributions of the broader team, an issue that will be highlighted with the new pay ratio disclosures.
Discussing management development and succession planning on a regular basis, even regarding a new, young or high-performing CEO.
Understanding and considering shareholder views about CEO compensation and succession without substituting those views for the board’s own objective judgment.
Ensuring that company disclosures adequately communicate the board’s views and activities regarding compensation and succession planning.
Internal Controls, Risk Management and Compliance
Challenges for boards include:
Ensuring that appropriate time is devoted to these key issues without becoming overly focused on controls and compliance.
Using board committees efficiently to address these issues while keeping the entire board appropriately informed and involved.
Remaining vigilant for red flags, which are often a series of yellow flags.
Creating incentives for management to establish and maintain an appropriate control, risk management and compliance environment.
Ensuring that the company has adopted appropriate standards of corporate social responsibility consistent with evolving societal expectations.
Monitoring compliance with legal and ethical standards.
Ces modifications obligeront les émetteurs non émergents à présenter dans leurs circulaires de sollicitation de procurations et notices annuel une information annuelleles sur :
Gouvernance | Jacques Grisé 