Voici une présentation de diapos très efficace préparée et partagée par Misha Charles, experte dans le domaine de la gouvernance organisationnelle. Sliseshares est une excellente façon de livrer votre message à vos réseaux. En voici un exemple.
Voici un article paru ce matin dans le magazine Avantages qui fait ressortir plusieurs bons arguments en faveur de l’instauration d’un régime de retraite pour les PME*.
Plusieurs dirigeants de PME se montrent encore hésitants avant d’instaurer un régime de retraite pour leurs employés. Parmi les meilleurs arguments pour les convaincre, on peut mettre de l’avant le coût avantageux par rapport à une hausse de salaire, ainsi que le pouvoir d’attraction que cela représente pour des employés de qualité.
Une nouvelle activité offerte par la RRQ, « Les régimes de retraite pour les PME : Problématiques et solutions », met en valeur quelques-uns de ces arguments. La conférence était présentée le 9 avril dernier dans le cadre d’une journée de formation pour les conseillers organisée par la CSF – section de Laval.
« En raison de la rareté de la main-d’œuvre et de la concurrence provenant des grandes entreprises, le salaire et l’assurance collective ne sont plus des éléments suffisants pour attirer les bons employés dans les PME », a rappelé la conférencière Michèle Frenette, présidente de GRMF inc.
___________________________
*Deux formations en gouvernance pour deux secteurs spécialisés
Le Collège des administrateurs de sociétés offrira, en mai prochain, deux formations spécialisées, sur une formule de deux jours intensifs, adaptées aux besoins des administrateurs et hauts gestionnaires de ces deux secteurs spécialisés.
La formation aura lieu les 8 et 9 mai 2013, à Québec. Les chefs d’entreprise, hauts dirigeants, investisseurs et administrateurs appelés à siéger sur les conseils d’administration ou comités consultatifs de PME sont invités à participer à cette formation haut de gamme visant à réfléchir aux pratiques de gouvernance les mieux adaptées et les plus efficaces pour ce type d’entreprise.
La formation aura lieu les 15 et 16 mai 2013, à Montréal. Elle s’adresse aux administrateurs, mandataires et gestionnaires de régimes de retraite à cotisations ou prestations déterminées.
Que penser de cette recherche publiée dans The Magazine de HBR par Xueming Luo, Vamsi K. Kanuri et Michelle Andrews ? Les résultats de cette recherche vous font-ils réfléchir sur les implications (positives ou négatives) liées au grand nombre d’années passées en tant que premier dirigeant (PCD-CEO), ou sur le nombre de mandats maximum des membres de conseils d’administration ? Comme vous le savez, on voit de plus en plus apparaître des politiques concernant le nombre de mandats que les membres de conseils devraient obtenir… Quel est votre point de vue à cet égard ?
The longer a CEO serves, the more the firm-employee dynamic improves. But an extended term strengthens customer ties only for a time, after which the relationship weakens and the company’s performance diminishes, no matter how united and committed the workforce is.
It’s a familiar cycle: A CEO takes office, begins gaining knowledge and experience, and is soon launching initiatives that boost the bottom line. Fast-forward a decade, and the same executive is risk-averse and slow to adapt to change—and the company’s performance is on the decline. The pattern is so common that many refer to the “seasons” of a CEO’s tenure, analogous to the seasons of the year.
Tenure (Photo credit: Toban B.)
New research examines the causes of this cycle and shows that it’s more nuanced than that. We found that CEO tenure affects performance through its impact on two groups of stakeholders—employees and customers—and has different effects on each. The longer a CEO serves, the more the firm-employee dynamic improves. But an extended term strengthens customer ties only for a time, after which the relationship weakens and the company’s performance diminishes, no matter how united and committed the workforce is.
We studied 356 U.S. companies from 2000 to 2010. We measured CEO tenure and calculated the strength of the firm-employee relationship each year (by assessing such things as retirement benefits and layoffs) and the strength of the firm-customer relationship (by assessing such things as product quality and safety). We then measured the magnitude and volatility of stock returns. All this allowed us to arrive at an optimal tenure length: 4.8 years.
The underlying reasons for the pattern, we believe, have to do with how CEOs learn. Previous research has shown that different learning styles prevail at different stages of the CEO life cycle. Early on, when new executives are getting up to speed, they seek information in diverse ways, turning to both external and internal company sources. This deepens their relationships with customers and employees alike.
But as CEOs accumulate knowledge and become entrenched, they rely more on their internal networks for information, growing less attuned to market conditions. And, because they have more invested in the firm, they favor avoiding losses over pursuing gains. Their attachment to the status quo makes them less responsive to vacillating consumer preferences.
« These findings have several implications for organizations. Boards should be watchful for changes in the firm-customer relationship. They should be aware that long-tenured CEOs may be skilled at employee relations but less adept at responding to the marketplace; these leaders may be great motivators but weak strategists, unifying workers around a failing course of action, for example. Finally, boards should structure incentive plans to draw heavily on consumer and market metrics in the late stages of their top executives’ terms. This will motivate CEOs to maintain strong customer relationships and to continue gathering vital market information firsthand ».
Que pensent vraiment les PCD de leur C.A. ? Les auteurs Jeffrey Sonnenfeld*, Melanie Kusin* et Elise Walton* ont procédé à des entrevues en profondeur avec une douzaine de PCD (CEO) expérimentés et ils ont publiés la synthèse de leurs résultats dans Harvard Business Review (HBR). Essentiellement, les chercheurs voulaient savoir comment les C.A. peuvent avoir une influence positive et devenir un atout stratégique. Ils ont résumé leur enquête en faisant ressortir 5 conseils à l’intention des conseils d’administration. Voici un extrait de cet article très intéressant. Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus !
Over the past several years, in the wake of corporate missteps that have taken a toll on shareholders and communities alike, we’ve heard plenty about how boards of directors should have been more responsible stewards. Corporate watchdogs, investors and analysts, members of the media, regulators, and pundits have proposed guidelines and new practices. But one voice has been notably missing from this chorus—and it belongs to the constituency that knows boards and their failings best. It’s the voice of the CEO.
Harkness Tower, situated in the Memorial Quadrangle at Yale (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
There are reasons for this silence from the chief executive camp. Few CEOs volunteer their views publicly; they know they’d risk looking presumptuous and becoming a target. They realize it would be foolhardy to draw attention to their own governance dysfunctions or seem to reveal boardroom confidences. Meanwhile, people who do make it their business to speak out on governance haven’t made much effort to elicit CEOs’ views. Extreme cases of CEO misconduct have created skepticism about whether CEOs can help fix faulty governance—a dangerous overreaction. Many observers, having seen grandiose, greedy, and corrupt CEOs protected by inattentive or complicit directors, consider excessive CEO influence on boards to be part of the problem. Others may lack the access to CEOs and the level of trust needed for frank conversations. Whatever the reasons, the omission is unfortunate. Not only do CEOs have enormous experience to draw on, but their views are the ones boards are most likely to heed.
We recently tapped our networks to bring CEOs’ opinions to light. We talked to dozens of well-regarded veteran chief executives, focusing on people with no particular reason to resent boards—we didn’t want bitterness or self-justification to color the findings. We wanted to know: What keeps a board from being as effective as it could be? Is it really the cartoon millstone around the CEO’s neck, or does it have a positive influence on the enterprise? What can a board do to become a true strategic asset?
We were surprised by the candor of the responses—even given our comfortable relationships with the CEOs and our assurances that quotes would not be attributed without express permission. Clearly, CEOs believe it is important to address problems and opportunities they’re uniquely positioned to observe. They know that their strategic visions and personal legacies can be undone by bad governance, and they have plenty to say on the subject. We’ve distilled their comments into five overarching pieces of advice for boards.
Don’t Shun Risk or See It in Personal Terms
Do the Homework, and Stay Consistently Plugged In
Bring Character and Credentials, Not Celebrity, to the Table
Constructively Challenge Strategy
Make Succession Transitions Less Awkward, Not More So
« Every board is different. If you serve on one, some of these comments may strike close to home; others may not. As we listened to CEOs and reviewed our transcripts looking for patterns, we identified three important takeaways.
First, contrary to what some critics believe, CEOs do not want to keep their boards in the dark or to chip away at directors’ power. They recognize that they and their shareholders will get more value if the partnership at the top is strong. Great CEOs know that if governance isn’t working, it’s everyone’s job to figure out why and to fix it.
Second, most boards aren’t working as well as they should—and it’s not clear that any of the systemic reforms that have been proposed will remedy matters. Although governed by bylaws and legal responsibilities, interactions between CEOs and directors are still personal, and improving them often requires the sorts of honest, direct, and sometimes awkward conversations that serve to ease tensions in any personal relationship. When strong relationships are in place, it becomes easier for CEOs to speak candidly about problems—for example, if the board isn’t adding enough value to decision making, or if individual directors are unconstructive or overly skeptical. For their part, directors should be clear about what they want—whether it’s less protocol and fewer dog and pony shows or more transparency, communication, and receptivity to constructive criticism.
Third, the best leadership partnerships are forged where there is mutual respect, energetic commitment to the future success of the enterprise, and strong bonds of trust. A great board does not adopt an adversarial, “show me” posture toward management and its plans. Nor does it see its power as consisting mainly of checks and balances on the CEO’s agenda. Great boards support smart entrepreneurial risk taking with prudent oversight, wise counsel, and encouragement ».
____________________________________
Jeffrey Sonnenfeld*, is the senior associate dean for executive programs and the Lester Crown Professor at Yale University’s School of Management, is the founding CEO of Yale’s Chief Executive Leadership Institute. Melanie Kusin* is the vice chairman of Korn/Ferry International’s CEO practice. Elise Walton*, is a former Yale–Korn/Ferry senior research fellow, consults on corporate governance and executive leadership.
Voici un résumé introductif aux 10 billets les plus populaires publiés sur mon blogue au cours du premier trimestre de 2013. Cette liste constitue, en quelque sorte, un sondage de l’intérêt manifesté par des dizaines de milliers de personnes sur différents thèmes de la gouvernance des sociétés.
On y retrouve des points de vue très bien étayés sur les principaux sujets d’actualité suivants : la recherche de postes au sein des conseils, la gestion de crises, l’apport des femmes sur des C.A., la gouvernance des OBNL, les fondements de la gouvernance, la valeur de l’intégrité, les dysfonctions d’un C.A., la professionnalisation des administrateurs et la gouvernance dans une perspective de long terme.
En terme géographique, près du tiers des visiteurs sont français (de France ou de dixaines de pays francophones) et 62 % sont d’origine canadienne. Ceux-ci trouvent leur voie sur le site pricipalement via LinkedIn (57 %) ou via les engins de recherche (35 %). Vos commentaires sont toujours les bienvenus et ils sont grandement appréciés; je réponds toujours à ceux-ci. Bonne lecture !
Plusieurs personnes souhaitent occuper un poste sur un conseil d’administration mais ne savent pas comment procéder pour y arriver. Depuis que je suis impliqué dans la formation des administrateurs de sociétés et dans la publication de ce blogue en gouvernance, c’est la question qui m’est le plus souvent posée. J’ai déjà abordé ce sujet au cours de mes billets antérieurs. Aujourd’hui, je veux porter à votre attention deux articles récents qui sont très concrets à ce propos.
Le premier article proposé a été publié le 9 janvier 2013 dans Business Insider; il traite de questions que toutes les personnes intéressées à siéger sur un C.A. se posent :
Quelles raisons m’inciteraient à siéger à un conseil d’administration ?
Quelles actions dois-je poser pour obtenir un poste ?
Dois-je viser un poste rémunéré ou un poste sur un conseil d’OBNL ?
Le deuxième article proposé a été publié le 10 janvier 2013 sur le site de 2020 Women onBoards. Il aborde les étapes concrètes à accomplir afin de se dénicher un poste sur un C.A. Vous trouverez, ci-après, le lien vers l’article ainsi qu’une liste des gestes à poser. Veuiller lire l’article au complet pour mieux comprendre la portée de ces actions.
Nous avons demandé à Richard Thibault*, président de RTCOMM, d’agir à titre d’auteur invité. Son billet présente sept leçons tirées de son expérience comme consultant en gestion de crise. En tant que membres de conseils d’administration, vous aurez certainement l’occasion de vivre des crises significatives et il est important de connaître les règles que la direction doit observer en pareilles circonstances.
Selon une nouvelle recherche, publiée récemment et rapportée dans La Presse.ca sous la plume de Linda Nguyen, les femmes prendraient de meilleures décisions que les hommes. En effet, selon Chris Bart, co-auteur de l’étude et directeur des programmes du Directors College de McMaster, cette recherche ”prouvait que lorsque des femmes dirigeaient une entreprise, elles contribuaient au succès de celle-ci. Il a, du même coup, soulevé la question de savoir pourquoi les femmes étaient encore minoritaires dans les salles de direction des entreprises canadiennes”.
Nous avons demandé à Louis Aucoin*, associé principal chez OCTANE STRATEGIES | COMMUNICATIONS, d’agir à titre d’auteur invité. Son billet, publié sur le blogue de l’entreprise, expose sept conseils utiles aux gestionnaires et aux membres de C.A. pour éviter d’être confrontés à de mauvaises surprises dans une situation de crise. Voici donc l’article en question, reproduit ici avec la permission de l’auteur.
Voici le billet qui a attiré l’attention du plus grand nombre de lecteurs sur mon blogue depuis le début. Celui-ci a été publié le 30 octobre 2011. Je l’ai mis à jour afin que les nombreuses personnes intéressés par la gouvernance des OBNL puissent être mieux informées. L’Institut canadien des comptables agréés (ICCA) a produit des documents pratiques, pertinents, synthétiques et accessibles sur presque toutes les questions de gouvernance. Il est également important de noter que l’ICCA accorde une attention toute particulière aux pratiques de gouvernance des organismes sans but lucratif (OSBL = OBNL).
Ainsi, l’ICCA met à la disposition de ces organisations la collection 20 Questions pour les OSBL qui comprend des questions que les administrateurs d’organismes sans but lucratif (OSBL=OBNL) devraient se poser concernant des enjeux importants pour la gouvernance de ce type d’organismes. Ces documents sont révisés régulièrement afin qu’ils demeurent actuels et pertinents. Si vous avez des questions dans le domaine de la gouvernance des OBNL, vous y trouverez certainement des réponses satisfaisantes.
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.
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.
C’est l’âge d’or des CFE (Certified Fraud examiners), des auditeurs internes, des juricomptables, des investigateurs privés et publics, des experts en informatique et des spécialistes en fraude. Comme je l’ai souligné il y a quelques semaines, ces professions sont en forte progression depuis que de nombreux scandales ont fait les manchettes et que diverses règlementations ont été édictées.
L’article ci-dessous, paru le 5 janvier 2013 dans The Economist, brosse un portrait assez concluant de l’évolution de ces pratiques d’investigation menées par les “gardiens de l’intégrité et de la bonne gouvernance“. On y fait mention de la croissance spectaculaire de la firme Kroll, l’une des leaders dans le domaine des investigations de nature corporative. The Economist explique pourquoi ces entreprises prospèrent dans le nouvel environnement de la règlementation en gouvernance : America’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, loi Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX), règlementation favorisant le “whistleblowing”, etc.
Avez-vous déjà siégé sur des conseils d’administration avec des membres qui ne s’engagent pas vraiment et qui ne contribuent en rien à la valeur du groupe ? Si oui, vous n’êtes pas les seuls ! Cependant, en tant que membres de C.A., je crois que vous devez vous inquiéter si vous constatez certains comportements déficients tels ceux identifiés dans le billet de Jack and Suzy Welch, publié dans Bloomberg | BusinessWeek. Ces administrateurs sont souvent élus, années après années !Réfléchissons un peu; que pouvons-nous faire ?
L’article des Welch vous permettra d’identifier les cas problèmes afin de mieux évaluer la situation. Les auteurs nous rappellent que les C.A sont responsables de gérer leur efficacité ! “But imagine how much better it would be if nominating committees, usually just focused on vetting potential members, dealt with the hard cases right in front of them. After all, nothing can keep a board on its best behavior but itself”.
Voici quelques comportements dysfonctionnels d’administrateurs tels qu’identifiés par les auteurs :
Ceux qui ne font rien de rien (The Do-Nothing)
Ceux qui manquent de courage (The White Flag)
Ceux qui agissent à l’extérieur du C.A. en tentant de faire valoir leurs points de vue (The Cabalists)
Voici un article publié par Robert C. Pozen*, paru HBR et reproduit dans LeadingCompany le 20 février 2013. L’article aborde un sujet d’actualité : le recrutement d’administrateurs professionnels (et indépendants). Pozen propose un modèle de conseil d’administration ayant une taille réduite et s’appuyant sur un engagement beaucoup plus important des membres.
Bien sûr, les recommandations sont valables pour les entreprises publiques cotées, mais elles peuvent aussi s’appliquer à plusieurs autres types d’organisations privées ou publiques de différentes tailles. Vous trouverez, ci-dessous un extrait de cet article. Celui-ci décrit le modèle proposé et présente plusieurs arguments qui militent en faveur d’un net changement dans la composition des C.A., répondant par la même occasion à certaines objections souvent évoquées.
Voici un excellent article, paru dans The Economist, qui présente un plaidoyer convaincant en faveur de l’adoption d’une perspective à long terme dans la conduite des entreprises. L’auteur montre que la théorie de la maximisation du rendement des actionnaires (souvent à court terme) passe par l’implantation de stratégies alignées sur l’accroissement de la valeur des sociétés à long terme. Il donne plusieurs exemples d’entreprises qui ont optées, avec succès, pour une vision et un management à long terme, seule approche susceptible d’assurer la pérennité des entreprises.
Le conseil d’administration qui doit avoir une orientation claire à cet égard. Je vous invite donc à prendre connaissance de ce court extrait et à lire l’article au complet si cette perspective vous allume. Qu’en pensez-vous ? Peut-on, comme Peter Drucker, concevoir une théorie du management qui prône une vue à long terme, tout en assurant la satisfaction des actionnaires … et des autres parties prenantes ?
Voici le Bulletin du Collège des administrateurs de sociétés (CAS) du mois d’avril 2013. On y retrouve beaucoup d’informations sur les activités du Collège au cours des dernières semaines : La mosaïque des nouveaux ASC, la Banque des ASC, les événements en gouvernance auxquelles le CAS est associé, la capsule vidéo de Yan Cimon, les programmes de formation spécialisée du CAS, les ASC qui se sont distingués, les nominations à des postes de C.A. et une série de liens utiles à consulter afin d’être à jour en gouvernance de sociétés.
Trois formations en gouvernance pour trois secteurs spécialisés
Le Collège des administrateurs de sociétés offrira, en mai prochain, trois formations spécialisées, sur une formule de deux jours intensifs, adaptées aux besoins des administrateurs et hauts gestionnaires de ces trois secteurs spécialisés.
Gouvernance des services financiers La formation aura lieu les 7 et 8 mai 2013, à Montréal. Elle est destinée aux administrateurs, hauts dirigeants et cadres du secteur des services financiers qui oeuvrent dans le domaine bancaire, les assurances, les valeurs mobilières et les organismes d’encadrement légal et corporatif.
Gouvernance des PME
La formation aura lieu les 8 et 9 mai 2013, à Québec. Les chefs d’entreprise, hauts dirigeants, investisseurs et administrateurs appelés à siéger sur les conseils d’administration ou comités consultatifs de PME sont invités à participer à cette formation haut de gamme visant à réfléchir aux pratiques de gouvernance les mieux adaptées et les plus efficaces pour ce type d’entreprise.
Gouvernance des régimes de retraite
La formation aura lieu les 15 et 16 mai 2013, à Montréal. Elle s’adresse aux administrateurs, mandataires et gestionnaires de régimes de retraite à cotisations ou prestations déterminées.
Sept ordres et organismes professionnels reconnaissent la valeur de ces formations du Collège des administrateurs de sociétés dans le cadre de la formation continue de leurs membres pour une valeur de 15 heures.
@ consulter
Le Collège vous propose divers liens à consulter en rapport avec la gouvernance:
Je reçois régulièrement des demandes d’information sur la gouvernance des OBNL/OSNL. Voici deux sources d’information précieuses sur ce type d’organisation, diffusées par le Centre de la gouvernance de Deloitte :
(1) l’état de la situation (statistiques) des OBNL aux États-Unis publié par BoardSource (Index 2012) et
(2) Un guide sur la gouvernance des OBNL publié par Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP.
Vous devrez vous enregistrer pour avoir accès à ces documents. Mais la procédure d’inscription est très simple et vous aurez ensuite accès à toutes les publications du Centre de la gouvernance de Deloitte. Malheureusement, la plupart des documents sont en anglais et ils sont souvent d’origine américaine.
Je vous invite à lire ces deux documents. Le premier des deux présente les résultats statistiques d’une vaste enquête sur les OBNL. Comme moi, vous serez probablement étonné de ce qui en ressort, notamment que le domaine des OBNL (Organismes de charité, Associations, Fondations), des plus petites aux plus grandes, est un monde où la parité des genres règne ! Et vous qu’est-ce qui vous étonne le plus ?
« Administered every two to three years, the BoardSource Nonprofit Governance Index provides the most up-to-date compendium of information on nonprofit board policies, practices, and performance from a diverse mix of organizations nationwide, and it is the only national study of nonprofit governance that includes responses from both chief executives and board chairs. This report presents data from the seventh edition of the survey, the BoardSource Nonprofit Governance Index 2012.
Key findings from the report include the following:
English: Logo of a non-profit student organization. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Hopeful signs of recovery across the nonprofit sector
We found a sizeable reduction in the percentage of nonprofits that made negative financial adjustments (downsizing, cutting staff, reducing salaries and benefits, etc.) in the past two years, as compared to Governance Index data collected in 2010. Responses also demonstrate a modest increase in the percentage of organizations expanding or launching new initiatives.
Increased accountability and self-assessment
Positive trends continue with regard to the percentage of nonprofits that operate with basic accountability procedures, including conflict-of-interest, whistleblower, and document retention policies. More boards also are taking a systematic look at their own performance, as the number of organizations conducting board self-assessments increased 5% from 2010-2012.
Persistent patterns of inequity among nonprofit leaders by gender, age, and race/ethnicity and low levels of adoption of inclusive practices
Boards continue to struggle with finding their paths towards inclusion.Figure 5 on page 12 illustrates the almost non-existent progress in recruiting racial and ethnic minorities on boards over an 18-year period.Furthermore, the adoption of inclusive practices, such as conducting diversity training for board members, remains low and stagnant from levels we found in 2010.
Percentage of personal giving by board members is high, but fundraising efforts leave much to be desired
As in 2010, chief executives rank fundraising as the weakest area of board performance. Forty percent of CEOs indicate that board members are reluctant to take on fundraising responsibilities, and only 41% of CEOs agree that board members are comfortable meeting potential donors face-to-face. However, among nonprofits that fundraise, nearly three-quarters of respondents report 90 to 100% personal giving by board members ».
Ce petit guide publié par Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, donne les informations essentielles de nature juridique concernant la gouvernance des OBNL. Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, les pricipaux points abordés dans le guide. Bonne lecture !
Background for Not-For-Profit Organizations
– Role and Purpose of the Board of Directors in Not-For-Profit Corporations
– Enforcement of Duties and Liabilities
– Liability of Directors, Officers and Trustees to Third Parties
Duties of Not-For-Profit Directors and Officers
– The Duty of Care
– The Duty of Loyalty
– The Duty of Obedience
Liabilities Imposed by the IRS: Intermediate Sanctions
Indemnification AND INSURANCE for Not-For-Profit Directors and Officers
Voici un article scientifique publié dans Social Science Research Network (SSRN)par Bill Francis (1), Iftekhar Hasan (2) et Qiang Wu (3) sur un sujet très pertinent pour la gouvernance des sociétés : L’utilité de la présence de professeurs d’université sur les C.A. des entreprises publiques.
L’article montre que la présence de professeurs sur les conseils d’administration est positivement associée à une meilleure performance des entreprises. Les professeurs-administrateurs, plus particulièrement ceux qui ont une formation en administration, jouent un rôle très important de conseillers auprès de l’entreprise. Leur influence sur la performance des entreprises semble déterminante dans plusieurs domaines relatifs à la bonne gouvernance.
« Directors from academia served on the boards of more than one third of S&P 1,500 firms over the 1998-2006 period. This paper investigates the effects of academic directors on corporate governance and firm performance. We find that companies with directors from academia are associated with higher performance. In addition, we find that professors without administrative jobs drive the positive relation between academic directors and firm performance. We also show that professors’ educational backgrounds affect the identified relationship. For example, academic directors with business-related degrees have the most positive impacts on firm performance among all the academic fields considered in our regressions.
Furthermore, we show that academic directors play an important governance role through their monitoring and advising functions. Specifically, we find that the presence of academic directors is associated with higher acquisition performance, higher number of patents, higher stock price informativeness, lower discretionary accruals, lower CEO compensation, and higher CEO turnover-performance sensitivity. Overall, our results provide supportive evidence that academic directors are effective monitors and valuable advisors, and that firms benefit from academic directors ».
Si vous souhaitez avoir plus d’information sur les objectifs, la méthodologie ou les résultats de l’étude, je vous invite à lire l’article au complet.
Peter F. Drucker and Masatoshi Ito Graduate School of Management (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
« This paper empirically investigates whether the presence of academic directors affects firm performance and corporate governance. Based on the independence theory, expertise theory, and diversity theory, we hypothesize that academic directors can improve board efficacy and subsequent firm performance because of their monitoring abilities and advising abilities. The key result is in line with our hypothesis. We find that the presence of directors from academia in the boardroom is associated with higher firm performance. The positive association holds after controlling for firm- and other governance-specific characteristics, and considering endogeneity issues, such as omitted variable bias, self-selection bias and causality issue. By comparing the differences in the attendance behavior and committee assignments of academic directors and other outside directors, we find that academic directors perform better than other outside directors in the boardroom.
We further examine the monitoring and advising roles of academic directors in details. We find that firms with academic directors have higher CEO turnover-performance sensitivity, lower cash-based CEO compensation, more patent numbers, higher acquisition performance, higher stock price informativeness, and are less likely to manage their earnings. The results provide several channels through which academic directors affect firm value positively.
We also find evidence that academic directors with administrative jobs do not improve firm performance as much as academic directors without administrative jobs. Additional analysis finds that academic directors with administrative jobs have more severe board-meeting attendance problems. Furthermore, we find that academic directors’ areas of study have different impacts on firm performance ».
_______________________________________
(1) Lally School of Management and Technology, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Stephen Miles, fondateur et PCD de The Miles Group, une entreprise qui se spécialise dans le conseil en gestion des talents, met l’accent sur un véritable problème de plusieurs C.A. : leurs relatives faiblesses en gouvernance ! Après avoir fait ressortir les exigences accrues des investisseurs institutionnels pour une plus grande performance des membres de C.A., l’auteur présente cinq lacunes majeures de plusieurs conseils d’administration : (1) connaissances déficientes, (2) manque d’auto-évaluation, (3) sentiment de supériorité, (4) manque d’expérience de plusieurs membres dans certains comités et processus de recrutement déficient, (5) problème de leadership.
À mon avis, les membres de conseils d’administration devraient examiner leur efficacité à la lumière des constats évoqués par l’auteur. On voit que la composition d’un C.A. performant repose beaucoup sur le recrutement des membres, sur le leadership du président du conseil et sur le renforcement du comité de gouvernance, parent pauvre des comités statutaires selon Stephen Miles.
L’article est-il biaisé en faveur de la gestion des talents ? Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus. Bonne lecture.
No board member sets out to be mediocre. And yet as institutional shareholders and activists are “grading” board performance on a steeper curve than ever before, their view is that many boards are coming up short.
RDECOM Board of Directors holds meeting (Photo credit: RDECOM)
ISS, government regulators, the press, and others are exercising much greater scrutiny over whether boards are executing their fiduciary responsibilities and really acting in the best interests of shareholders. While activist shareholders traditionally were able to hold sway and demand board seats in smaller companies outside the Fortune 500, today we are seeing this happen with venerable names such as Procter & Gamble, Yahoo!, BMC Software, and JC Penney.
In this climate of stakeholders’ taking a much tougher stance on what they deem to be “underperforming directors,” it’s worth it to examine the causes of mediocre performance on boards today. Why are many boards missing the mark?
J’ai récemment pris connaissance d’une entrevue conduite par C-Suite Insight avec Douglas K. Chia*, secrétaire corporatif de la firme Johnson & Johnson. Cette entrevue aborde essentiellement quatre sujets très importants pour les parties prenantes de l’entreprise : (1) les pratiques de planification de la relève de la direction, surtout du PCD (2) les pratiques de rémunération et la préparation du document CD&A (Compensation Discussion and Analysis), (3) les relations et les discussions avec les investisseurs institutionnels et (4) les communications avec les actionnaires, notamment les aspects concernant le Say on Pay et la création de valeur à long terme.
Voici un compte rendu de cette entrevue. Vos commentaires sont appréciés. Bonne lecture.
C-Suite Insight: What are the big issues that you’re considering as Johnson & Johnson prepares for proxy season?
Doug: Like many other high-profile companies, executive compensation is a critical item for us during proxy season, and we are looking at the continuum of the story that we’ve been telling for the last few years in our proxy statements. As you may have seen, there have been some major changes in our executive suite from last year to this year, specifically a succession from a long-tenured CEO, who is retiring after a remarkable 41-year career at J&J, to a new CEO. So, obviously this recent leadership succession will be a big focus area. We’ll also continue to emphasize the changes in the design of our compensation programs that have been made over the past few years, which we put a lot of effort into describing in last year’s proxy statement.
Headquarters of the Johnson & Johnson Company, One Johnson & Johnson Plaza, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA. Architect: Henry N. Cobb of the I. M. Pei Company, built 1983. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
CSI: Succession planning is a weakness in a lot of companies. So could you take us through succession planning at Johnson & Johnson, when it started, and how you worked your way through it?
Doug: For us, succession planning has always been something which has gone smoothly because it’s been thought out in advance. J&J has had only seven CEOs since becoming a public company in the early 1940s, and each one has come from the internal ranks. In the current case, we have an outgoing CEO who had served in the position for the past decade. The process of identifying potential successors for him started a number of years ago, in the 2010-2011 timeframe, and the lead candidates became apparent to the public. Our major investors were familiar and quite comfortable with the individuals who were being considered.
CSI: In succession planning and other major processes at J&J, how do you view long-term sustainable value and how do you view your engagement with shareholders?
Doug: We’ve always managed our business for the long-term, which is reflected in our culture by the fact that people tend to have very long careers at Johnson & Johnson. So, we have the benefit of being able to train up-and-coming leaders in a variety of business situations and give our Board exposure to them along the way. In terms of shareholder engagement, our major investors get exposed to many of our senior business leaders through investor conferences and meetings where they can talk in-depth about the businesses they are running. Over time, investors get familiar with a small cadre of J&J senior business leaders.
CSI: We have to mention Say on Pay. How did this issue affect you initially, and how do you address it when you’re writing a CD&A?
Doug: You cannot write the CD&A only thinking about the Say on Pay vote. This reminds me of what my teachers in school used to say: You shouldn’t “study to the test.” Instead, study the subject, master the subject, and then you will do fine on the test. So for us, writing the CD&A each year is about making sure we tell the story that reflects what’s taking place at the company, our compensation philosophy, the values we are trying to instill through our compensation plans, how our executives are paid, and what performance is being rewarded. We try to illustrate that we manage our business for the long-term and thus place a lot of focus on aligning executive compensation with our long-term investors. That being said, you do want to consider the vote outcome, keeping in mind the “advisory” nature of the vote. Suffice it to say that ours have not been where we want them to be, although we did gain support from over a majority of the votes cast in each of the last two years.
CSI: What have you done about this?
Doug: Over the past summer and fall, we had some of our Board members and senior management sit down with a diverse mix of investors, in one-on-one settings, specifically to talk about executive compensation. Through those discussions, we have been able to better understand the parts of our executive compensation program and our disclosure that could be enhanced. One point the investor discussions drove home that is important for all of us to remember when writing the CD&A is that for investors, the proxy statement is really all they have to rely on for information; they likely know very little else about the company’s pay programs.
So, we have to take a critical eye to what we’ve presented in the past and ask ourselves, “How can we tell our story better in order to make people understand the important context and rationale underlying these compensation decisions?” I think it’s fair to say that this process has helped us identify specific areas where we could have done a more effective job of telling our story. That’s something we’ll continue to work on this year and every year.
CSI: We’ve talked to major institutional investors such as TIAA-CREF and CalPERS, and also companies like BlackRock. They’ve stressed to us the importance of private engagement. In many cases, they think it’s more effective if they engage you privately. Is that your experience and what’s your view, how much do you welcome that sort of private engagement?
Doug: I think that’s right. One-on-one engagement is a very effective method of communication between companies and investors. The advantage of this direct engagement is the candid nature of the discussion that ensues when there is not an “audience” of outsiders. Over time, you can build strong relationships this way. In particular, “real-time” engagement, either by phone or in-person, provides the opportunity for the kind of constructive back-and-forth discussion that helps tease out critical issues. It helps both sides more precisely identify areas that need to be clarified. In the one-on-one meetings we had over the summer and fall, the investors we met with were able to get a real sense of just how much time and thought our Board members put into the decisions around executive compensation and how many factors come into play. Those are hard things to effectively illustrate to investors through a written document like a proxy statement.
CSI: Have these private dialogues increased in the last few years, in the era of Dodd-Frank?
Doug: Yes, I can say they have for us. We are more proactive than we had been in the past, and many of our investors have also become more proactive. Some who were not inclined to talk to us in the past are now more receptive to having a conversation.
CSI: How do you balance the tension between short-term results and a long-term commitment to spending money on R&D and creating long-term value?
Doug: It’s a tricky balance, but J&J has a long-term philosophy. It’s no secret to the investment community as we constantly emphasize that we manage the business for the long-term. So, to a certain extent, we’re expecting investors who have made significant investments in our company to have that same mindset. Most are investing in the company as a long-term play. However, when you have so many shareholders, they are not all going to agree with you on everything, so naturally there are going to be some shareholders who have a shorter-term outlook for a variety of reasons.
CSI: What sort of big picture advice would you give public companies, and in particular corporate secretaries, as they prepare for proxy season?
Doug: As far as corporate secretaries go, we exchange know-how quite a bit. One of the most rewarding parts of my job is establishing the kinds of relationships with my counterparts where we can help each other be better at what we do. On the subject of engagement, the basic message I like to convey to my peers is that they should be open to engagement with those investors who want to have real constructive dialogue. It’s a dynamic environment out there right now and you have to be thinking about how to make strategic adjustments.
Also, don’t be afraid to make a break with your past practices on what your disclosure looks like, or how much disclosure you want to give. We should all take a fresh look every year and ask ourselves, “What are people asking for and what makes sense to give to them?” These days, you can’t approach every disclosure requirement as something for which you’re only going to provide what a rule demands. If you do, your company will be missing a huge opportunity to tell its story.
Finally, for all of us, and corporate secretaries in particular, the key to the debate around executive compensation is creating an environment where your board members have everything they need to make well thought-out decisions. That’s what I think of when I hear people refer to “good governance.” We need to keep the focus on the integrity of the decisions, the underlying decision-making process, and the people who have the duty to make those decisions.
____________________________________
*Douglas K. Chia is Assistant General Counsel & Corporate Secretary at Johnson & Johnson, the world’s most comprehensive and broadly-based manufacturer of health care products, headquartered in New Brunswick, New Jersey. His responsibilities include providing legal counsel to the corporation on matters of corporate governance, securities regulation, public company disclosure, and Sarbanes-Oxley Act compliance. Prior to joining Johnson & Johnson, Mr. Chia was Assistant General Counsel, Corporate at Tyco International. In private practice, Mr. Chia was an associate at the law firms of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett and Clifford Chance, practicing in the New York and Hong Kong offices of each firm. While in private practice, Mr. Chia provided legal counsel to issuers and underwriters on securities offerings and cross-border transactions. Mr. Chia is a member of the Board of Directors, Executive Steering Committee, Corporate Practices Committee, and Policy Advisory Committee of the Society of Corporate Secretaries & Governance Professionals, and is Chairman of the Society’s Membership Committee. Mr. Chia is also a member of the Corporate & Securities Law Committee of the Association of Corporate Counsel, as well as a member of the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA).
Voici le Bulletin de Mars 2013 du CAS. On y retrouve beaucoup d’informations sur les activités du Collège au cours des dernières semaines : Une formation sur mesure pour les présidents des caisses Desjardins, deux nouvelles cohortes débutent le programme Administrateurs de la relève, la Banque des ASC, les événements en gouvernance auxquelles le CAS est associé, la capsule vidéo du mois, les programmes de formation, les ASC qui se sont distingués, les nombreuses nominations à des postes de C.A. et une série de liens utiles à consulter afin d’être à jour en gouvernance de sociétés.
Une formation sur mesure pour les présidents des caisses Desjardins
The headquarters of the Desjardins Group in Montreal. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Le Collège des administrateurs de sociétés a récemment conclu une entente de partenariat avec l’Institut coopératif Desjardins (ICD). Le Collège aura le privilège de travailler de concert avec ICD pour offrir une formation sur mesure, d’une durée de 10 heures, à l’ensemble des présidents et présidentes de conseils d’administration des caisses Desjardins. Au total, il s’agit de près de 400 personnes qui seront invitées au programme Leadership président Desjardins afin de mieux comprendre leurs rôles et responsabilités, ainsi que les habilités requises pour exercer leurs fonctions. Cette initiative est tout à l’honneur du Mouvement Desjardins qui a choisi d’investir dans le leadership de ses présidents et de placer la saine gouvernance au coeur de ses pratiques d’affaires.
M. Bruno Déry, président et chef de la direction du Collège, a profité du passage de Mme Monique F. Leroux, présidente du conseil et chef de la direction du Mouvement Desjardins, lors de la Grande conférence du CAS le 6 février 2013, pour annoncer la signature de cette entente.
« Sam is an experienced manager and has worked for over twenty years in his industry. He has also sat on two not-for-profit boards and enjoys the governance role. Now he has an opportunity to buy an equity stake in a small business that has a product and service for which market demand is growing.
The business has not been growing quickly due to flat market conditions and revenue has not increased substantially as a consequence. The current owners are a husband and wife team and are tired; they have run the business for many years and want to retire.
The proposal is that Sam should purchase 40% of the company and take a seat on the board. The existing owners would retain 30% equity each and a shareholder’s agreement would stipulate that board decisions would require a 70% majority to be agreed. The current board has three members consisting of the owners and an ‘independent’ chairman who is the lawyer and a long-standing friend of the owners. The proposal is that he should remain as “he adds a lot of value and sees things we would miss”.
Sam intends not to work in the company but to be merely a shareholder and director. He has ideas for improving the growth and increasing the value of the company but wants to retain his full time employment in a larger corporation as a security measure. His employer is happy for him to take on a board seat and there is no direct competition between the two companies so Sam would have no conflict of interest; however, Sam’s boss, who is a friend and mentor to Sam, is uneasy and has suggested that Sam could find himself outmanoeuvred in the boardroom and overcharged for his equity. Sam is appreciative of the counsel but believes the shareholder agreement protects his interests. He would like to discuss board dynamics with the current owners but they seem not to be interested as they say the Chairman handles all the compliance and they just run the business so there is nothing to worry about ».
Quels conseil donneriez-vous à Sam ? Esquissez une réponse avant de consulter les avis des experts sur le sujet ci-dessous !
Doug’s Answer
Owning part of an SME is much more than an equity purchase and a board position. High level strategic and governance oversight is not enough; it takes a more ‘hands-on’ involvement.
The owners have realised they have had enough. Under the current proposal there is little in the way of resolving the typical SME succession dilemma; specifically:
Who has the skill and energy to ultimately take control and drive the business?
How to extract full value for the business which substantially funds retirement?
The board risks stalemate and conflict in decisions with a Chair aligned with current owners. Not a good outcome for the business, Sam or the current owners.
For this to be a win / win for everyone, an agreed succession plan should be part of Sam’s due diligence process along the following lines:
Sam’s intentions, post current-owners succession, should be clarified and agreed
The appointment of an independent chair and an independent director experienced in the same industry should be agreed
Untapped management talent existing within the business and a skilling, education and promotion program outlined
Recruitment program for management where gaps are identified
Current owners agree to an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) where appropriate
Key client and supplier relationships transition to the wider management team.
Sam should further protect his minority interests by holding pre-emptive rights to purchase the remaining shares should they be on offer, notwithstanding the ESOP mentioned above.
By clarifying all the stakeholders’ intentions and aspirations, the business presents a unified front with management, the board and shareholders “singing from the same songbook”.
Doug Jardine provides consulting services to owner operated businesses and boards and is based in Sydney.
Julie’s Answer
There is more to a board than compliance. Managers accustomed to running things as they see fit whilst relying on a lawyer to put together a semblance of compliance at board level are not going to make good board colleagues. Sam has some good ideas but unless they are also in the shareholder agreement (with dates and budgets) they will likely never get implemented.
Already the board is set for deadlock whenever the existing directors disagree with Sam. The 70% required for decision-making is a nonsense as Sam will find he either has to conform to the wishes of a husband and wife team or try to split them. They might as well stipulate 100% consensus as that is all that will work in the circumstances. It is also a pretty good way to run a board.
I usually hate quasi-equity as it tends to complicate matters but Sam could look into having a preference share which is repayable as debt and converts to equity only when the strategy reaches certain milestones.
What he most needs to do is sit down with the current owners and talk, long, hard and deep, about what this company is really supposed to achieve. It looks as if it has always been supposed to provide a certain lifestyle and income for the owners. But what about the future? What do they now want the company to be?
If they can agree on a vision and set aside enough of Sam’s investment to fund the new actions that must be taken to achieve the vision, then they may be able to grow the company to a stage where a profitable exit is achievable. If they can’t agree on exactly what the vision is and how they will work to achieve it – Now – In detail – Sam should not invest.
Julie Garland McLellan is a practising non-executive director and board consultant based in Sydney, Australia.
Simon’s Answer
Sam takes an equity share to help grow the company (future nest egg). The owners (husband and wife) want to retire and secure as much money as possible from the asset sale (nest egg right now). Neither party wants any ongoing operational involvement – what is this deal really about? Are the owners serious in selling or grabbing equity dollars?
The 70% rule subjugates Sam’s rights and restricts the potential for business improvements but also terrifyingly entrenches the owners’ current policies, practices and procedures. A resolution to change anything requires the support of Sam, the Chairman (even if he/she places director duties ahead of friendship) and one of the owners – good luck with that.
There needs to be far more discussion by all parties about the fundamentals of this deal before it proceeds any further.
Sam is a minority shareholder with a Shareholders’ Agreement (SA) that lacks rigour, inclusion of, and agreement on, significant matters. The SA affords Sam no rights protection, no restriction on changes in each owner’s equity or share ownership, no restraint of trade restriction on the owners once retired and no provisions for breaking deadlocks e.g. mediation which will be inevitable given the 70% rule.
There is no guarantee that the owners will be unified on either the quantum or timeframe for retirement and the SA needs to reconcile that fact. The owners (or one of them) could just sell the remaining 60% (30%) to another party or give the shareholding to their beneficiaries. What is the agreed owner exit strategy and succession plan? There is no first right of refusal (including terms) for Sam to buyout one or both owners.
What happens if one or both owners prematurely die/separate or become incapacitated? What happens if Sam dies or is incapacitated or simply wants to get out? These all need to be included in the SA with trigger events established, agreed timeframes and pre-calculated quantum.
Now is the time to construct a rigorous SA, if any party baulks now, better to establish that at the outset before the dollars are committed. If Sam acts in haste, he/she can repent at leisure.
Simon Pinnock is a professional and practising non-executive director and Board consultant. He is based in Melbourne, Australia.
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 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.
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.
« 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 ».
Excellente vidéo* de Richard Leblanc et Robert Kueppers qui discutent des comportements efficaces des administrateurs pour assurer le succès des organisations. Très pertinent.
« 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
Voici le Bulletin de Février 2013 du CAS. On y retrouve beaucoup d’information sur les activités du Collège au cours des dernières semaines : la 26e cohorte du CAS, la Banque des ASC, le partenariat avec l’Association des MBA, le programme « Administrateurs de la relève », les événements en gouvernance auxquelles le CAS est associé, la capsule vidéo du mois, les programmes de formation, les ASC qui se sont distingués, les nombreuses nominations à des postes de C.A. et une série de liens utiles à consulter afin d’être à jour en gouvernance de sociétés.
Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, un articleparu 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 ».
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 ».
Voici une vidéo vraiment exceptionnelle réalisée dans le cadre du World Economic Forum (WEF). Le panel est composée d’un groupe remarquable de femmes (et d’un homme), leaders engagées au plus haut niveau dans diverses organisations internationales.
« Several panellists shared their personal experiences about how they made their way to leadership positions and how they addressed stereotyping and implicit biases along the way. Too often women are held back by such barriers, which are frequently not recognized, discussed or addressed ».
Le visionnement de cette vidéo est un « must » si vous souhaitez avoir une bonne compréhension de l’expérience des femmes en situation de leadership. Un document essentiel pour tout administrateur et PCD !
« For the second consecutive year, the World Economic Forum held a plenary session on women*. This year, the session focused on women in high-level economic decision-making in both the private and public sector. There has been an explosion of research in the past several years, including the World Economic Forum Global Gender Gap Report, which demonstrates a strong link between closing the gender gap and improving economic competitiveness and corporate performance.
The panel recognized that real progress has been made in increasing the number of women in top economic position, including more women on boards and in high-level management. However, statistics around the world indicate that we are still far from closing the economic gender gap and progress remains slow.
The panellists discussed quotas and other policy and organizational changes to accelerate progress. For example, Viviane Reding, Vice-President and Commissioner, Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship, European Commission, Brussels, described new European legislation setting a target of 40% for women on boards of European corporations. Another panellist noted that low turnover among existing board members slows the process of increasing gender diversity on corporate boards.
Several panellists shared their personal experiences about how they made their way to leadership positions and how they addressed stereotyping and implicit biases along the way. Too often women are held back by such barriers, which are frequently not recognized, discussed or addressed ».
Key Points
Gender parity is linked to global competitiveness and economic performance. In recent years, there has been an explosion of academic research confirming this link.
Real gains have been made in the number of women in top economic decision-making positions, but we are still far from closing the economic gender gap and progress is slow.
Stereotyping and implicit biases continue to impede the advancement of women to top leadership positions in economic decision-making. As more and more women rise to the top, they can “dare to embrace their diversity” and work with their organizations to address these barriers to ensure that diversity is a foundation of success.
___________________________________
*Le bref compte rendu du forum a été réalisé par Laura D’Andrea Tyson, S. K. Angela Chan Professor of Global Management, Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley, USA.
Dans le billet du Huffingtonpost.ca du 27 janvier 2013, Richard Leblanc procède à un inventaire assez complet des questions que tout nouvel administrateur ou que toute nouvelle administratrice de sociétés devrait se poser avant d’accepter le poste qu’on lui propose. Ce sont des questions qu’il faut se poser personnellement, tout en cherchant àobtenir les informations pertinentes et les documents nécessaires. Il faut également obtenir des informations sur la culture organisationnelle et se faire une tête sur le climat qui règne au conseil d’administration. Notons que la plupart de ces questions sont aussi valables pour les conseils d’administration d’OBNL..
« Here are the questions I would ask before joining a NFP board. Some or many of them can apply to other types of boards. It is important to scrutinize the organization for professionalism and fit, particularly for NFPs where resources can be stretched, as your reputation and even financial assets may be at risk. Many directors I interview, when I ask for their greatest regret, they say not firing the CEO earlier, and joining the wrong board.
These questions try to address the downside of joining the wrong board ».
Je vous invite à consulter ce court billet pour connaître la nature des questions qu’un nouvel administrateur d’OBNL devrait se poser.
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 leconseil 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.
English: Board of Directors (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
« 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
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 !
« 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 ».
Gouvernance | Jacques Grisé 