Pourquoi chaque haut dirigeant devrait-il faire appel à un coach professionnel ?


Voici un excellent article de Ray B. Williams, paru dans Psychology Today, sur les raisons qui devraient inciter les présidents et chefs de direction (PCD – CEO) à faire appel à un coach.

C’est un article de vulgarisation basé sur plusieurs recherches empiriques qui fait la démonstration de la quasi nécessitée, pour un haut dirigeant, d’avoir les conseils d’un professionnel du coaching.

Voici quelques références sur le coaching professionnel des dirigeants :

  1. Coaching exécutif de leaders et dirigeants
  2. Diriger un cabinet de coaching pour hauts dirigeants c’est avant tout… être coach
  3. Le coaching du dirigeant
  4. Coaching d’entreprise: Définition de coach de dirigeants, management, coaching d’entreprise
  5. L’accompagnement des managers et des dirigeants
  6. Coaching de gestion

Vous serez étonné d’apprendre que c’est probablement l’un des secrets les mieux gardés et que c’est l’une des raisons qui expliquent le succès de plusieurs grands gestionnaires. À lire.

Bonne lecture !

Why Every CEO Needs a Coach ?

 

« Paul Michelman, writing in the Harvard Business Review Working Knowledge, cites the fact that most major companies now make coaching a core part of their executive development programs. The belief is that one-on-one personal interaction with an objective third party can provide a focus that other forms of organizational support cannot. A 2004 study by Right Management Consultants found 86% of companies used coaches in their leadership development program.

Eric Schmidt, Chairman and CEO of Google, who said that his best advice to new CEOs was « have a coach. » Schmidt goes on to say « once I realized I could trust him [the coach] and that he could help me with perspective, I decided this was a great idea…

this-bromantic-moment-between-barack-obama-and-joe-biden-may-make-you-feel-better-about-the-us-election-136411183440603901-161109211037

Douglas McKenna, writing in Forbes magazine, argues that the top athletes in the world, and even Barack Obama, have coaches. In his study of executive coaching, McKenna, who is CEO and Executive Director for the Center for Organizational Leadership at The Oceanside Institute, argues that executive coaches should be reserved for everyone at C-level, heads of major business units or functions, technical or functional wizards and high-potential young leaders.

Despite its popularity, many CEOs and senior executives are reluctant to report that they have a coach, says Jonathan Schwartz, one-time President and CEO of Sun Microsystems, who had an executive coach himself. Steve Bennett, former CEO of Intuit says, “At the end of the day, people who are high achievers—who want to continue to learn and grow and be effective—need coaching.”

John Kador, writing in CEO Magazine, argues that while board members can be helpful, most CEOs shy away from talking to the board about their deepest uncertainties. Other CEOs can lend a helping ear, but there are barriers to complete honesty and trust. Kador writes, “No one in the organization needs an honest, close and long term relationship with a trusted advisor more than a CEO.”

Kador reports conversations with several high profile CEOs: “Great CEOs, like great athletes, benefit from coaches that bring a perspective that comes from years of knowing [you], the company and what [you] need to do as a CEO to successfully drive the company forward,” argues William R. Johnson, CEO of the H.J. Heinz Co., “every CEO can benefit from strong, assertive and honest coaching.”

The cost of executive coaches, particularly a good one, is not cheap, but “compared to the decisions CEOs make, money is not the issue,” says Schwartz, “if you have a new perspective, if you feel better with your team, the board and the marketplace, then you have received real value.”

Pourquoi un haut dirigeant devrait-il faire appel à un coach professionnel ?


Voici un excellent article de Ray B. Williams, paru dans Psychology Today, sur les raisons qui devraient inciter les présidents et chefs de direction (PCD – CEO) à faire appel à un coach.

C’est un article de vulgarisation basé sur plusieurs recherches empiriques qui fait la démonstration de la quasi nécessitée, pour un haut dirigeant, d’avoir les conseils d’un professionnel du coaching.

Voici quelques références sur le coaching professionnel des dirigeants :

  1. Coaching exécutif de leaders et dirigeants
  2. Diriger un cabinet de coaching pour hauts dirigeants c’est avant tout… être coach
  3. Le coaching du dirigeant
  4. Coaching d’entreprise: Définition de coach de dirigeants, management, coaching d’entreprise
  5. L’accompagnement des managers et des dirigeants
  6. Coaching de gestion

Vous serez étonné d’apprendre que c’est probablement l’un des secrets les mieux gardés et que c’est l’une des raisons qui expliquent le succès de plusieurs grands gestionnaires. À lire.

Bonne lecture !

Why Every CEO Needs a Coach ?

 

« Paul Michelman, writing in the Harvard Business Review Working Knowledge, cites the fact that most major companies now make coaching a core part of their executive development programs. The belief is that one-on-one personal interaction with an objective third party can provide a focus that other forms of organizational support cannot. A 2004 study by Right Management Consultants found 86% of companies used coaches in their leadership development program.

Eric Schmidt, Chairman and CEO of Google, who said that his best advice to new CEOs was « have a coach. » Schmidt goes on to say « once I realized I could trust him [the coach] and that he could help me with perspective, I decided this was a great idea…

this-bromantic-moment-between-barack-obama-and-joe-biden-may-make-you-feel-better-about-the-us-election-136411183440603901-161109211037

Douglas McKenna, writing in Forbes magazine, argues that the top athletes in the world, and even Barack Obama, have coaches. In his study of executive coaching, McKenna, who is CEO and Executive Director for the Center for Organizational Leadership at The Oceanside Institute, argues that executive coaches should be reserved for everyone at C-level, heads of major business units or functions, technical or functional wizards and high-potential young leaders.

Despite its popularity, many CEOs and senior executives are reluctant to report that they have a coach, says Jonathan Schwartz, one-time President and CEO of Sun Microsystems, who had an executive coach himself. Steve Bennett, former CEO of Intuit says, “At the end of the day, people who are high achievers—who want to continue to learn and grow and be effective—need coaching.”

John Kador, writing in CEO Magazine, argues that while board members can be helpful, most CEOs shy away from talking to the board about their deepest uncertainties. Other CEOs can lend a helping ear, but there are barriers to complete honesty and trust. Kador writes, “No one in the organization needs an honest, close and long term relationship with a trusted advisor more than a CEO.”

Kador reports conversations with several high profile CEOs: “Great CEOs, like great athletes, benefit from coaches that bring a perspective that comes from years of knowing [you], the company and what [you] need to do as a CEO to successfully drive the company forward,” argues William R. Johnson, CEO of the H.J. Heinz Co., “every CEO can benefit from strong, assertive and honest coaching.”

The cost of executive coaches, particularly a good one, is not cheap, but “compared to the decisions CEOs make, money is not the issue,” says Schwartz, “if you have a new perspective, if you feel better with your team, the board and the marketplace, then you have received real value.”

La compréhension de la gouvernance est largement fonction du poste occupé au C.A. !


Voici une lecture très intéressante publiée dans McKinsey Quaterly par William George*, professeur à la Harvard Business School et membre des conseils suivants : ExxonMobil, Goldman Sachs et Mayo Clinic. L’article est basé sur l’expérience de l’auteur en tant que membre d’une grande variété de C.A.

M. George tente de montrer que l’on ne peut comprendre la gouvernance d’une entreprise et le comportement des membres du conseil qu’en considérant les rôles qui y sont exercés :

(1) administrateur indépendant;

(2) président du C.A. (PCA) et président et chef de la direction (PCD);

(3) uniquement PCD et

(4) uniquement PCA.

English: Inside a Harvard Business School clas...
English: Inside a Harvard Business School classroom (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Selon le rôle occupé sur le C.A., l’auteur tire des conclusions sur le bon fonctionnement des mécanismes de gouvernance. Voici donc une lecture qui remet en question plusieurs principes de saine gouvernance (comme la séparation des rôles de PCD et PCA) en s’appuyant sur l’expérience de diverses positions au sein du conseil d’administration. Ainsi, l’efficacité du conseil dépend de la manière dont on comprend son rôle. L’auteur propose trois suggestions pour améliorer la gouvernance. Je vous invite à lire cet article. Quel est votre point de vue ?

Pour lire l’article au complet, vous devrez vous inscrire, mais c’est sûrement une belle occasion de recevoir les dernières communications de McKinsey. Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, un extrait du document.

Board governance depends on where you sit  !

« Board governance is frequently discussed and often misunderstood. In this article, I offer an insider’s perspective on the topic. Over the years, I have had the privilege of serving on ten corporate boards, as well as being chairman and CEO of Medtronic, chairman only, and CEO only. I have also observed dozens of boards from outside the boardroom and engaged in numerous confidential conversations with members of these boards about the challenges they faced and how they handled them.

What I have learned from these experiences is that one’s perspective about a board’s governance is strongly influenced by the seat one holds—independent director, chair and CEO, CEO only, or chair only. That’s why it is essential to look at corporate governance through the eyes of each of these positions.

In surveying governance through the lens of different roles, I hope to address a problem in the prevailing dialogue: many of the governance experts exerting power over boards through shareholder proposals, media articles, and legislative actions have never participated in an executive session of a major board. It’s no surprise, therefore, that their proposals deal almost entirely with formal board processes and “check the box” criteria that generally have little to do with the substance of how boards operate.

I worry, in fact, that many of these proposals could weaken the performance of boards by burdening them with an excessive amount of ministerial details. That would be a shame, because corporate boards have made progress since the scandals of recent years, with a new generation of CEOs sharing with boards more openly, listening to them more closely, and working to achieve a healthier balance of power with independent directors ».

_________________________________________

* William George, a professor of management practice at the Harvard Business School, is a board member of ExxonMobil, Goldman Sachs, and the Mayo Clinic and previously served on the boards of Novartis AG and Target, among others. From 1991 to 2001, he was the CEO of Medtronic, whose board he chaired from 1996 to 2002. This article is an adaptation of a chapter George contributed to The Future of Boards: Meeting the Governance Challenges of the Twenty-First Century, edited by Jay W. Lorsch (Harvard Business School Publishing, July 2012).

Six raisons qui militent en faveur du choix d’administrateurs externes au C.A. (jacquesgrisegouvernance.com)

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


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

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

English: Eric E. Schmidt, Chairman and CEO of ...
English: Eric E. Schmidt, Chairman and CEO of Google Inc and a member of the Board of Directors of Apple Computer. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

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

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

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

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

des experts en gouvernance

Henry D. Wolfe

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

James McRitchie

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

Carl Hagberg

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

Richard Leblanc

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

Henry D. Wolfe

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

Michael Wildenauer

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

Richard Leblanc

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

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

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

Richard Leblanc

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

Jason Masters

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

Henry D. Wolfe

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

Richard Leblanc

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

Steven Wood

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

Brenda Kelleher-Flight

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

Al Errington

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

Carl Hagberg

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

Brenda Kelleher-Flight

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

James McRitchie

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

Carl Hagberg

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

Richard Leblanc

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

Lee Mathias

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

James McRitchie

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

Al Errington

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

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

L’importance des conseils d’administration | Vidéos de Lucy P. Marcus


Voici deux vidéos de Lucy P. Marcus* sur la gouvernance et la composition des conseils d’administration. Dans la première, elle explique les principales fonctions des C.A. et l’importance des conseils d’administration.

L’importance des conseils d’administration | Vidéo de Lucy P. Marcus

English: London Business School, UK
English: London Business School, UK (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Dans la deuxième vidéo, elle anime une discussion avec Lucy Dimes, PCD de Alcatel Lucent UK & Ireland, à propos des avantages et des désavantages pour un PCD de siéger sur des conseils d’administration.

 

Le PCD (CEO) doit-il siéger sur des C.A. ?

Bon visionnement !

_________________________________

*Lucy P. Marcus is a board chair and non-executive director who is challenging conventional wisdom inside and outside the board room. She has emerged as the voice setting the agenda on future proofing boardrooms and companies around the world. The CEO of Marcus Venture Consulting, she is Professor of Leadership & Governance at IE Business School and she speaks and writes about boards and leadership. Lucy has been awarded the Thinkers 50 “Future Thinkers” Award.

Diverse Boardroom Cultures – Lucy P. Marcus Delivers an Insightful Boardroom Activism Keynote (TrendHunter.com) (trendhunter.com)

Quelles sont les attentes des PCD envers leur C.A. ?


Le site Boardmember.com, plus particulièrement la section intitulée The Boardroom channel, présente une vaste sélection de vidéos sur la gouvernance des sociétés. Je vous invite à consulter les nombreux vidéos présentés par des experts reconnus dans le domaine de la gouvernance. En voici une liste non-exhaustive :

Board Brief: ISS 2013 Policy Updates Andrew McElheran, Senior Consultant, Meridian Compensation Partners

Head shot of Susan Ivey, president, CEO and ch...
Head shot of Susan Ivey, president, CEO and chairman of Reynolds American, Inc. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

À titre d’exemple, j’ai choisi un vidéo très pertinent qui présente des entrevues avec des présidents et chefs de la direction (PCD – CEO) d’entreprises connues. Dans ce vidéo, les PCD expliquent les fondements d’une solide relation entre la haute direction et le conseil d’administration. Quelles sont les attentes des PCD envers leur C.A. ?

CEO Expectations of the Board

« A compilation of interviews with respected CEOs. Hear what respected CEOs have to say about characteristics that make for an effective CEO-board relationship and their biggest expectations of their boards ».

Board Governance series | PwC


Voici trois articles publiés dans le dernier numéro de la série Board Governance de PwC. Ces articles, écrits par des associés ou des partenaires de PwC, abordent des sujets de grande actualité en gouvernance. Je vous suggère la lecture des articles présentés ci-dessous !

Board Governance series – PwC

PwC & Charring Cross
PwC & Charring Cross (Photo credit: Jellykat)

Growth and Value in a Volatile World  |  In PwC’s latest CEO survey, chief executives of public companies share their views on the economy, growth trends, and global strategies and risks.

Executive Compensation Challenges in a Volatile Economy  |  Companies across industries are reviewing their performance metrics and their compensation structure to ensure that pay programs meet the needs of management as well as shareholders.

Digital Volatility and Director Literacy  |  In today’s environment, even as many more board members learn to use an e-portal or an iPad for board work, that doesn’t necessarily make them “digitally literate.”

Les actionnaires disent de plus en plus NON aux rémunérations excessives ! (jacquesgrisegouvernance.com)

Pourquoi chaque haut dirigeant devrait-il faire appel à un coach professionnel ?


Voici un excellent article de Ray B. Williams, paru dans Psychology Today, sur les raisons qui devraient inciter les présidents et chefs de direction (PCD – CEO) à faire appel à un coach.

C’est un article de vulgarisation basé sur plusieurs recherches empiriques qui fait la démonstration de la quasi nécessitée, pour un haut dirigeant, d’avoir les conseils d’un professionnel du coaching.

Voici quelques références sur le coaching professionnel des dirigeants :

  1. Coaching exécutif de leaders et dirigeants
  2. Diriger un cabinet de coaching pour hauts dirigeants c’est avant tout… être coach
  3. Le coaching du dirigeant
  4. Coaching d’entreprise: Définition de coach de dirigeants, management, coaching d’entreprise
  5. L’accompagnement des managers et des dirigeants
  6. Coaching de gestion

Vous serez étonné d’apprendre que c’est probablement l’un des secrets les mieux gardés et que c’est l’une des raisons qui expliquent le succès de plusieurs grands gestionnaires. À lire.

Bonne lecture !

Why Every CEO Needs a Coach ?

 

« Paul Michelman, writing in the Harvard Business Review Working Knowledge, cites the fact that most major companies now make coaching a core part of their executive development programs. The belief is that one-on-one personal interaction with an objective third party can provide a focus that other forms of organizational support cannot. A 2004 study by Right Management Consultants found 86% of companies used coaches in their leadership development program.

Eric Schmidt, Chairman and CEO of Google, who said that his best advice to new CEOs was « have a coach. » Schmidt goes on to say « once I realized I could trust him [the coach] and that he could help me with perspective, I decided this was a great idea…

this-bromantic-moment-between-barack-obama-and-joe-biden-may-make-you-feel-better-about-the-us-election-136411183440603901-161109211037

Douglas McKenna, writing in Forbes magazine, argues that the top athletes in the world, and even Barack Obama, have coaches. In his study of executive coaching, McKenna, who is CEO and Executive Director for the Center for Organizational Leadership at The Oceanside Institute, argues that executive coaches should be reserved for everyone at C-level, heads of major business units or functions, technical or functional wizards and high-potential young leaders.

Despite its popularity, many CEOs and senior executives are reluctant to report that they have a coach, says Jonathan Schwartz, one-time President and CEO of Sun Microsystems, who had an executive coach himself. Steve Bennett, former CEO of Intuit says, “At the end of the day, people who are high achievers—who want to continue to learn and grow and be effective—need coaching.”

John Kador, writing in CEO Magazine, argues that while board members can be helpful, most CEOs shy away from talking to the board about their deepest uncertainties. Other CEOs can lend a helping ear, but there are barriers to complete honesty and trust. Kador writes, “No one in the organization needs an honest, close and long term relationship with a trusted advisor more than a CEO.”

Kador reports conversations with several high profile CEOs: “Great CEOs, like great athletes, benefit from coaches that bring a perspective that comes from years of knowing [you], the company and what [you] need to do as a CEO to successfully drive the company forward,” argues William R. Johnson, CEO of the H.J. Heinz Co., “every CEO can benefit from strong, assertive and honest coaching.”

The cost of executive coaches, particularly a good one, is not cheap, but “compared to the decisions CEOs make, money is not the issue,” says Schwartz, “if you have a new perspective, if you feel better with your team, the board and the marketplace, then you have received real value.”

Il y a un problème lorsqu’un haut dirigeant est irremplaçable !


Très bon article publié dans le New York Times hier qui montre l’importance cruciale pour un Board de se préoccuper du processus de planification de la relève du PDG. L’article décrit la saga de la mise à pied de Robert Diamond Jr en tant que CEO de la Barclays

 
Barclay!
Barclay! (Photo credit: J Dueck)

« Was Robert E. Diamond Jr. really irreplaceable? The Barclays board operated for 15 years on the assumption that he was. As a result, the British bank’s chief executive became more powerful — and ever harder to replace. Now that he has been kicked out in the wake of the scandal over the rigging of a key interest rate, Barclays is struggling to find new leadership.

And the moral of the story? Boards must always counterbalance strong chief executives with strong chairmen and have good succession plans in place. Most importantly, they should never treat anybody as indispensable — in case that is what they become ».