Étiquette : Comportements

Les scandales dans les OBNL : Revoir les pratiques de gouvernance !


Plusieurs scandales ont éclaboussés les OBNL au cours des dernières années. On retrace souvent l’origine de ceux-ci à des problèmes de gouvernance. L’article de Alice Korngold, publié sur son blogue dans le HuffingtonPost, décrit avec justesse ce qui est requis pour améliorer la gouvernance de ce type d’organisations, souvent très notables. Voici un extrait de l’article en question. Bonne lecture.

« The nonprofit board scandals of the past year are highly distressing: revealing everything from complete board dysfunction in the firing of the CEO at the University of Virginia, to the cover-up of criminal behavior at Penn State, to policy decisions that arguably destroyed Komen’s leading nonprofit brand. In all three cases, the financial and reputational losses are quite severe. People to be served by the mission and outsiders have been harmed, the victims at Penn State devastatingly so.

The most important value must be the integrity of the institution, and the driving purpose must be the mission of the organization and the community it serves. Let the transparency of these scandals and the severity of the consequences serve to move nonprofit board governance forward.

Nonprofit Board Scandals: Let Them Move Governance Forward EC Mission Statement and Commitments (Wordle)

What’s required for a board to ensure that an organization achieves its mission to the fullest is  (1) a board composed of people who:

– are fully committed to the mission, and understand the role of the board in achieving the mission

– have the diversity of experience, expertise, networks, relationships and perspectives that are needed for the particular board to advance the organization in achieving its greater vision

– will work in partnership with the CEO to create and achieve the revenue model for success

– have leadership potential

– commit to the legal duties of care, loyalty and obedience

and (2) a board that is organized efficiently and effectively in terms of:

– board structure: size (not too large), number and duration of meetings

– committee structure

– board meeting agendas

– expectations and accountability of board members

– leadership succession planning

– board member identification and recruitment

– practices, such as terms and term limits

– board member orientation and education

La transparence en matière de rémunération des hauts dirigeants : Une initiative mondiale


Je porte à votre attention un compte rendu du Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), paru dans triplepundit.com, qui propose des changements majeurs dans la divulgation des données sur la rémunération des hauts dirigeants, à l’échelle mondiale. Le GRI propose notamment la publication du ratio – rémunération de la direction par rapport à la moyenne des employés. Je vous encourage donc à appréhender l’ampleur du phénomène et à être mieux informés sur la mise en oeuvre d’un standard international en matière de rédaction de rapports de développement durable. 

« The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting transparency around economic, social and environmental issues at all organizations – companies to NGOs to governments at any level. Basically, it’s an international standard for writing sustainability reports – and interest in the reporting standard is growing rapidly. In 2011, 2834 reports were registered with GRI.

The Global Reporting Initiative is tremendously popular in Europe with 47% of reports originating there. GRI reporting in the US is growing like gangbusters, however, with 350 reports registered in 2011 compared to only 100 in 2010. That’s partly thanks to the attention and commitment of Mike Wallace, Director of GRI’s Focal Point USA. The GRI guidelines are continuously updated based on feedback from users, which is filtered through working groups. I must say that when I dove into the guidelines, I wasn’t expecting any surprises. But I was wrong.  Check out this note from the summaryon the changes to the “Governance” section of reporting :

EXECUTIVE PAY BY COUNTRY VS AVERAGE WORKER CRO...
EXECUTIVE PAY BY COUNTRY VS AVERAGE WORKER CRONY CAPITALISM (Photo credit: snowlepard)

G4 is proposing a number of changes to governance and remuneration disclosures to strengthen the link between governance and sustainability performance, taking into account the consistency within existing governance frameworks and developments in that field. The proposed changes include new disclosures in the Profile section of the report on the ratio of executive compensation to median compensation, the ratio of executive compensation to lowest compensation and the ratio of executive compensation increase to median compensation ».

Gouverner pour assurer une valeur ajoutée à long terme | CFA Institute


La présidente du Cercle des administrateurs de sociétés, Mme Louise Champoux-Paillé, partage avec nous cet excellent document émanant du CFA Institute  « prodiguant des conseils afin d’éviter le piège des orientations à court terme ». Le rapport présente également les résultats d’un « sondage sur les pratiques de gouvernance en matière de communication avec les actionnaires, de rémunération, de gestion des risques, de sélection des administrateurs et de l’importance accordée aux discussions stratégiques au sein des C.A. »

Visionary Board Leadership | Stewardship for the Long Term

Voici un aperçu de la table des matières :

« Visionary Boards—Areas of Focus That Can Influence

Long-Term Value

Quarterly Earnings Practices

Shareowner Communications

Strategic Direction

Risk Oversight

Executive Compensation

Culture (Board Culture/Company Culture)

Conclusion »

Comment la direction des sociétés évalue-t-elle l’efficacité (et l’utilité) de son conseil d’administration ?


Une étude de Heidrick & Struggles du Center for Effective Organizations de University of Southern California’s Marshall School of Business  montre que les perceptions qu’ont les présidents | chefs de la direction (PCD ou CEO) de l’efficacité du conseil d’administration (C.A., Board) sont significativement différentes de celles qu’ont les membres du conseil (C.A.) de leur propre utilité et efficacité !  Les auteurs proposent plusieurs moyens pour améliorer la dynamique entre le C.A et le management des sociétés. Vous pouvez lire l’article au complet sur le site de la NACD (nacdonline.org).

 Closing the Gap

Achieving the Perfect CEO-Board Dynamic – Resources – NACD

« Nine out of 10 directors think their boards are doing a good job. Their CEOs think only one director in five is effective. Who is right?

A study conducted by Heidrick & Struggles with the Center for Effective Organizations at the University of Southern California’s Marshall School of Business surveyed 768 directors, nearly 75 percent of whom are outside directors, at 660 of the 2,000 largest publicly traded companies in the United States. CEOs confide that they have at most one or two effective directors who provide wise counsel, offer advice on key issues. But 95 percent of directors rate their boards as either effective or very effective overall ».

Closing the Gap

When CEOs see only about 10 to 20 percent of directors as effective and their top management teams often regard working with the board as a demotivating experience, what are the issues? The good news is that the causes of the demotivating disconnect are clear and there are readily available remedies to address them ».

Values-based Governance Versus Rules-Based Governance


Voici un article publié dans NACD qui présente le débat entre une gouvernance basée sur des valeurs et une gouvernance basée sur des règles. Fascinant !

Ci-dessous un extrait de cet article :

Whatever Happened to Values-Based Corporate Governance?

« The emphasis on compliance and regulation de-emphasizes the basic building block of good business and good relationships: trust.

Simply put, values-based corporate governance has been referred to as the “institutionalization of ethics” into the conduct of the board and management. The belief is that the overwhelming majority of people behave in ethical ways, prefer the moral high ground and understand the short- and long-term benefits of doing the right thing by customers, suppliers, employees, communities and shareholders. The rules are still there, of course, but they are broadly written, serving to show where mismanagement, malfeasance and criminal behavior are present and also indicating the extent of negative consequences for behaving badly.Diagram picturing governance as a system

Rules-based corporate governance starts with an entirely different assumption. It assumes temptation and the desire for personal gain is rife in corporate life; therefore monitoring, reporting, strict guidelines and detailed restrictions on behavior are the avenue to achieving ethical and right behavior from management and boards. Clearly the cycles of dishonest, improper and criminal behavior in some companies over the past decade followed by increased legislation and regulation have squarely placed directors in a rules-based environment. Yet rules alone are not enough. They cannot easily adapt or allow for nuance and so, because of this, a rules-based system of governance alone is incapable of addressing the complexity and mutability of the global economy ».

Les raisons et la logique d’accroître le nombre de femmes sur les C.A.


Vous trouvez, ci-dessous, un excellent rapport publié par le CED (Committee for Economic Development) et partagé par Louise Champoux-Paillé avec les commentaires suivants :

« Plaidoyer auprès des dirigeants d’entreprises américaines pour qu’ils accélèrent le pas »

«Corporate leaders must actively commit to make advancement decisions that take advantage of the power of diverse views from leaders who don’t think, act or look like themselves. That will require diligently breaking old habits of selection that still favor those similar to existing leadership at the top. Nominating committees need to re-examine the narrow selection criteria that often exclude those who have not served in a CEO role. For example, it has been reported that of the 78 women currently serving as CFOs of Fortune 1000 companies, 53 are not currently serving on any outside board»

English: CED Logo
English: CED Logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Je vous encourage à lire au moins le sommaire exécutif (pages 7 à 9)

Fulfilling the Promise: How More Women on Corporate Boards Would Make America and American Companies More Competitive

Trois questions fondamentales que les C.A. doivent se poser : Indépendance, chimie, diversité


Voici un article publié par NACD (National Association of Corporate Directors) dans lequel S. R. Walker pose trois questions que les C.A. doivent absolument se poser. Le rôle du président du conseil (PCA) à cet égard est très important parce qu’il doit s’assurer que les membres réfléchissent sérieusement à ces trois questions, en apparence toutes simples !

Sommes-nous indépendants ? (réellement indépendants)

Avons-nous la chimie nécessaire ? (pour créer une solide synergie)

Avons-nous la bonne équipe ? (en terme de diversité)

   

A point reflection.
A point reflection. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Trois questions fondamentales que les C.A. doivent se poser : Indépendance, chimie, diversité

 

« The stakes are higher than ever before. Public expectations are greater than ever before. It is an immensely challenging business environment in which boards must now play a decisively stronger role to ensure the highest standards of corporate governance. To that end, boards need to embark on a continuous process of self-assessment. We cannot do better tomorrow until we ask ourselves an important question : How are we doing today? Only where self-reflection is part of the board’s DNA can it provide the strategic guidance that defines its mission. While many large and small questions drive self-reflection, three essential questions begin the process ».

Les actionnaires disent de plus en plus NON aux rémunérations excessives !


Encore un solide article, partagé par Richard Leblanc et publié dans Bloomberg.com, sur la propensité de plus en plus grande des actionnaires à dire NON à des « packages » de rémunération jugés excessifs. À lire.

More Shareholders Are Just Saying No on Executive Pay

« It is often said that social change can’t occur until what was seen as misfortune is seen as injustice. There is a corollary in the financial world. It says change can’t occur until what was seen as immaterial is seen as risky. That’s happening with executive compensation. Investors are recognizing that excessive pay for chief executive officers does more than shave a few cents off earnings; it also provides important clues about the alignment of executives’ and shareholders’ interests. Misalignment can be very expensive. More important, compensation provides crucial information about the effectiveness of a board’s independent oversight. If directors can’t say no to the CEO on pay, they probably can’t say no to poorly designed strategy or head off operational fiascos ».

Les administrateurs de sociétés doivent-ils « twitter » ?


Voici un article très intéressant sur le « twittage » (gazouillage) publié sur le blogue de Ann-Maree Moodie, Managing Director de The Boardroom Consulting Group. La question se pose de plus en plus et l’article montre que les administrateurs de sociétés sont sur leurs gardes à ce stade-ci, et avec raison !  Il faut apprendre à apprivoiser le média et on commence à voir plusieurs hauts dirigeants et administrateurs se lancer dans l’aventure.  Mais pas n’importe comment ! Pourquoi ? Lisez l’article pour vous former une opinion.

Boards and Governance

« He’s 63, well-educated, a former accountant-turned-bureaucrat, who has a portfolio of company, government and not-for-profit boards. We’re not meeting in a public place because the topics we’re discussing are sensitive. As a chairman, he’s seeking independent counsel; it’s understood the conversation is confidential. As we conclude our business, we joke about what would happen if we tweeted about the meeting. It’s immediately apparent that there is nothing that we could say even if we were remotely serious.

English: Jack Dorsey and Barack Obama at Twitt...
English: Jack Dorsey and Barack Obama at Twitter Town Hall in July 2011 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“I’ve always thought of Twitter as a waste of time,” he says. “Now I realise that even if I simply tweeted, ‘having a coffee with Ann-Maree Moodie’, there would be a number of people who may surmise the reason for the meeting. So even for company directors just tweeting that you’re meeting with someone could be market-sensitive or could become material. It’s a game-changer.”

 

Comment réconcilier la conduite éthique et la rémunération ?


Richard Leblanc, dans Canadian Business, présente plusieurs moyens pour les conseils de réconcilier la rémunération des hauts dirigeants avec les comportements attendus de ces derniers. L’article décrit, entre autre, certaines clauses de recouvrement (clawbacks et malus). Voici quelques extraits :

How can boards tie ethical conduct to executive compensation?

President Barack Obama delivering remarks on n...
President Barack Obama delivering remarks on new executive compensation restrictions. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

« If the board is doing its job, there should be no battle and no need to ask the CEO to relinquish compensation, given what happened. The compensation (cash and stock) should not have been awarded or vested to Diamond in the first place, if the Barclays board (and other bank boards) is complying with the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision’s guidance….

Boards have wide leverage to align ethical conduct and internal controls with executive compensation. There are two main tools: “clawbacks” and “malus.”

In short, if the board wants an executive to focus on ethics, tie his or her compensation to these outcomes. Doing this—which executives will resist—will focus executives’ minds on doing what’s right, as their money is on the line. This is exactly what regulators want in the aftermath of the financial crisis. And clawbacks and malus clauses for banks will likely migrate to non-banks as all companies will be expected to have risk-adjusted compensation in the future ».

À quoi servent les actionnaires de nos jours ?


Excellent article de Justin Fox et Jay W. Lorsch dans le dernier numéro (juillet-août) de Harvard Business Review. On y décrit les rôles que devraient jouer les actionnaires de nos jours et on présente plusieurs suggestions pour les aider à mieux contribuer au succès des organisations. Un must !
 
What Good Are Shareholders? – Harvard Business Review 

Walmart Shareholders' Meeting 2011
Walmart Shareholders’ Meeting 2011 (Photo credit: Walmart Stores)
« The path forward for corporate executives and shareholders appears blocked. Executives complain, with justification, that meddling and second-guessing from shareholders are making it ever harder for them to do their jobs effectively. Shareholders complain, with justification, of executives who pocket staggering paychecks while delivering mediocre results. Boards are stuck in the middle—under increasing pressure to act as watchdogs and disciplinarians despite evidence that they’re more effective as friendly advisers…
 

Our aim here is to focus on shareholders. Who are they? What are their incentives? What are they good at? What are they bad at? The body of research and discussion on these questions is growing. (For a summary, see “Are Institutional Investors Part of the Problem or Part of the Solution?,” a working paper by Ben W. Heineman Jr. and Stephen Davis, published by Yale’s Millstein Center for Corporate Governance and Performance.) Our contribution is to offer a framework for thinking about shareholders’ role and to make some suggestions for changes. We’ve divided shareholders’ contributions into three areas: money, information, and discipline ».

Les administrateurs doivent-ils communiquer avec les investisseurs ?


Voici une question fondamentale à laquelle tout administrateur sera probablement confronté durant son mandat. Comme c’est un sujet assez controversé, il est très important de soulever cette question dans le cadre de ses fonctions au sein d’un C.A. Les membres de conseils d’administration doivent savoir quelle est la politique à cet égard. L’article du Financial Times donne un apeçu des avis d’experts à ce sujet. Vous devez vous inscrire pour consulter cet article; c’est gratuit et je vous encourage à vous inscrire .
 
Investors and their directors need to talk – FT.com

Financial Times
Financial Times (Photo credit: Christine ™)

« So why don’t boards engage more directly with the shareholders who elect them into office?

… One director of a large blue chip multinational told me: “I put myself in the camp [that believes] that management should do all the speaking.” Another said: “There is a great deal of uneasiness about directors establishing relationships directly with investors and a perception that they could inadvertently get in management’s way.” Their main worry was that shareholders might discern differences between themselves and the company’s management. Other directors, meanwhile, were anxious of falling foul of rules such as the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation Fair Disclosure which bans the selective release of information. One lead director of a large US company told me the “danger is higher than ever; one could blunder quite easily in saying something the company has not disclosed”.

Élaboration d’un continuum de comportements (soft-hard) en gouvernance


L’auteur, Mijntje Lückerath-Rovers, (Professeur de Corporate Governance à Nyenrode Business University et Directeur de l’Institute Nyenrode Corporate Governance des Pays-Bas) présente un continuum très utile en gouvernance : à une extrémité, l’approche comportementale (soft); à l’autre extrémité, la législation stricte (hard).

Pour éviter d’accroître induement la législation, l’auteur propose une réflexion sur les éléments culturels relatifs au C.A. et l’utilisation de mécanismes d’évaluation du C.A.

Learning Mores and Board Evaluationsblogs.law.harvard.edu

English: Corporate Governance
English: Corporate Governance (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

« In the paper, Learning Mores and Board Evaluations – Soft Controls in Corporate Governance, which was recently made publicly available on SSRN, I argue that the prevailing boardroom mores, the unwritten rules, are at one end of having an impact on board effectiveness. Legislation, the more tangibly written rules, is at the other end. In between are voluntary codes of conduct, or legally embedded corporate governance codes….

… How, non-executive directors can avoid further legislation. In other words, how can they take a closer look at their own mores and unwritten rules? The answer lies in the board evaluation. A formal and rigorous evaluation will bring to light whether

1) the highly desired open culture is present,

2) the individual non-executive directors are sufficiently dedicated,

3) the supervisory board and its members do indeed operate sufficiently, independently, and have a critical attitude towards each other and executive directors, and

4) the board is sufficiently diverse to prevent group thinking and tunnel vision. The evaluation needs to discuss these themes seriously and formally. In the end, when it comes to board effectiveness, mores may have more authority than legislation ».

The Director’s Dilemma – Juillet 2012


Voici un cas présenté par Julie Garland McLelland www.mclellan.com.au. À chaque mois Julie présente un cas qui est analysé par trois experts. Vous pouvez vous abonner à la série Director’s Dilemma.

Welcome to the July 2012 edition of The Director’s Dilemma.

This newsletter provides case studies that have been written to help you to develop your judgement as a company director. The case studies are based upon real life; they focus on complex and challenging boardroom issues which can be resolved in a variety of ways. There is often no one ‘correct’ answer; just an answer that is more likely to work given the circumstances and personalities of the case.

These are real life cases; the names and some circumstances have been altered to ensure anonymity. Each potential solution to the case study has different pros and cons for the individuals and companies concerned. Every month this newsletter presents an issue and several responses.

Consider: Which response would you choose and why?

Miriam is the Regional Managing Director for a large multi-national company. She oversees a group of companies that manufacture and sell products across the region and also export from it. One of the subsidiaries in her group is in a country that has a small market for the products and is fundamentally unprofitable. She has recommended on several occasions that the board allow her to close this subsidiary and supply that market by importing product from other group companies. She has backed her recommendations with detailed market analyses and projections as well as implementation plans.

Each time the board has denied her request and she is forced to continue to see the subsidiary drain her region’s profits and the shareholders’ returns. Last time the board met in her region she made the usual request and was denied again. She lost her temper and said some fairly harsh words in an unprofessional tone.

Miriam is a professional manager and has produced good results so her transgression was forgiven. However the board is, once again, meeting in her region and she has another invitation to present her recommended strategy to them.

What should Miriam do?

Eli’s Answer

Before addressing the board again, Miriam needs to find out why its members have so far refused to close the subsidiary. There may be a surface agenda as well as a hidden agenda, and she needs to uncover both. Once she finds out what the real concerns are, she needs to factor them into any proposed solution, which may be something other than her first choice.

When proposing the eventual solution, Miriam should first acknowledge respectfully the concerns about the proposed closing, and then explain the challenge she has in balancing these concerns with the need to be fiscally viable. The fact that she acknowledges the board’s concerns with utmost respect will likely make it easier for the board to listen to her proposed solution. Again, the proposed solution would probably not be an outright shutdown, but one that would somehow optimize the positive outcomes and minimize the risks.

Of course, there is a possibility that Miriam will discover that the board’s resistance to a shutdown is not legitimate but is emotionally or personally-based (e.g., the board Chair is the one who orchestrated the start-up of this subsidiary and takes personal offence to any suggestion of a shut down). If this is the case, Miriam may consider whether she can tolerate working in this setting. If her professionalism is substantially compromised, she should consider resigning.

One other issue to consider is whether the board should even be involved in decisions to start-up or wind-down a subsidiary, or whether such decisions should be delegated to the CEO who would make them on strictly professional considerations. However, such a change would require a revision of board policy to delegate more authority to management and remain focused primarily on strategic priorities, fiduciary duties, and organizational policies.

Eli Mina is a consultant on board effectiveness, shared decision making, and meeting procedures. He is the author of « 101 Boardroom Problems and How to Solve Them » and is based in Vancouver, Canada.

Julie’s Answer

Miriam must set the correct strategic context for a board discussion. She should investigate and understand the reasons the subsidiary was established and the assumptions presented to the board when they approved establishment. She should ask:

  1. Were the assumptions wrong?
  2. Were the assumptions right but the world has now changed?
  3. Have the reasons for setting up in such a small market ceased to exist?
  4. Can the aims of the subsidiary be addressed by another strategy?

Loss of temper (or any emotional control) is not acceptable behaviour for a senior executive. Miriam is lucky to have a second chance. She must make the most of this by establishing a strong shared understanding of strategy for the subsidiary. She needs to present the facts and align herself with the board by building agreement about what the subsidiary was set up to accomplish before she asks the board to endorse a change of strategy.

She then needs to demonstrate that the board can rely on her leadership to implement the strategy she is recommending. This is not just a question of financial logic and brief implementation plans; she must address risks including legal issues around staff redundancies and closure of facilities. The board needs to satisfy itself that the strategy recommended will be satisfactorily implemented under her leadership.

Board time is precious and Miriam should write a good board paper so that all directors are able to engage in a productive discussion and confidently make a decision.

If the board is still unwilling to close the subsidiary she will just have to carry on running it. By engaging in a proper high level discussion Miriam should gain an insight into the reasons for retaining a loss-making subsidiary. She may even find that she agrees with the directors.

Miriam needs to relax. It is the board’s decision, not hers. She has done her duty by providing the information required to facilitating a proper debate and decision.

Julie Garland McLellan is a practising non-executive director and board consultant based in Sydney, Australia.

Michelle’s Answer

Miriam is forgetting that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting different results! If the board is saying ‘no’ – then it’s ‘no’! The good news for Miriam is that ‘no’ is just feedback that she didn’t properly understand her audience’s attitude. Miriam simply hasn’t reflected to the board that she understands their perspective before seeking approval. ‘No’ means try again, just do something different!

To date Miriam has presented her logic, data and analysis and only covered what she wanted to say, and it’s not working. Miriam should remember, ‘it’s not about me, it’s all about the audience’. I suggest Miriam think about the issues from the board member’s (not her own) perspective. She should ask herself, ‘what is this audience thinking, feeling and doing in relation to this issue?’ She could phone each board member prior to the board meeting and elicit their concerns. She could seek feedback from her direct reports as they are possibly more connected to the issues at the coal face. I expect Miriam would find that her previous approach was misdirected. Instead of focusing on profitability (her main concern) there’s probably a different matter getting in the way of their approval, such as a prior commitment to the staff in the unprofitable subsidiary or to the wider financial market regarding the closure of the subsidiary.

We are more likely to be influenced by our emotions first and then substantiate our views with logic and data. It’s important that Miriam dedicates some time in the opening of her upcoming board presentation to re-establish rapport with her board. Only then is she in a position to deliver the relevant facts and data based on her assessment of their perspective.

This matter is important, so I encourage her to allocate the time important matters deserve. Miriam must plan her approach and rehearse until she is confident. A professional presentation skills coach can help dramatically with the necessary preparation for this type of business presentation.

Michelle Bowden, CSP is a Master of Influence and presentations coach. She is the author of « Don’t Picture me Naked » – how to present your ideas and influence people using techniques that actually work. She is based in Sydney, Australia.

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed above are general in nature and are designed to help you to develop your judgement as a director. They are not a definitive legal ruling. Names and some circumstances in the case study have been changed to ensure anonymity. Contributors to this newsletter comment in the context of their own jurisdiction; readers should check their local laws and regulations as they may be very different.

This newsletter – If you have any ideas for improving the newsletter please let me know. If you are reading a forwarded copy please visit my website and sign up for your own subscription.

www.mclellan.com.au | PO Box 97 Killara NSW 2071 email julie@mclellan.com.au | phone +61 2 9499 8700 | mobile +61 411 262 470 | fax +61 2 9499 8711

Comment un PDG peut-il mieux communiquer avec son C.A. ?


Voici un article paru dans blog.openviewpartners.com qui montre la nécessité d’établir une bonne communication entre le PDG et le C.A. Si les réunions avec le C.A. sont un cauchemar pour vous, dépêchez-vous de lire cet article !

How to Take Advantage of Your Board of Directors

« It’s no secret a lot of CEOs aren’t big fans of their boards of directors. They derive very little value from them and in some cases find the board to be an utter distraction. Even seasoned CEOs who have managed to assemble a valuable team of advisors and mentors sometimes struggle with board management. They’re not sure how often to communicate with them, how involved they should allow board members to be, or in which areas the board could provide the most value…

The most common Board of Directors (BOD) challenges are often functions of these three issues:

  1. You don’t communicate with your BOD: If the only time you talk with your board is during quarterly meetings, an information gap will inevitably exist. That can cause a huge operational disconnect that results in ineffective and inefficient meetings. Too much of the BOD meetings are spent getting caught up, versus having a meaningful dialogue about the key issues.
  2. You don’t want to show your weaknesses: CEOs are very often hesitant to open up and reveal their weaknesses. This may be born out of a bad experience in the past or just pure ego. They worry that if they’re candid about the challenges the business is facing, they’ll be viewed as incompetent.
  3. You don’t want to bother them: Entrepreneurs too often assume that their board members are too busy to be bothered with seemingly menial issues, and they feel like a nuisance if they ask for help ». 

Gouvernance universitaire vs gouvernance corporative !


Ci-dessous un article publié par Patricia McGuire, President, Trinity Washington University, dans le Huffingtonpost.com et partagé par Estelle Metayer. C’est une lecture qui présente un point de vue qui est partagé par plusieurs auteurs et qui met en garde l’application des principes de gouvernance des grandes entreprises à la gouvernance des uviversités.

 
 

Run It Like a Business? Really?

« Let’s stop trashing academic governance while exalting corporate governance as perfect. There’s a need for governance reform in many different kinds of businesses — for-profit and not-for-profit, academic and commercial — and that need often coalesces around the same issues: innovation, speed to market, inclusion of those affected, ethics.

There’s a lot to be said for the wisdom of the group, whether a board meeting in full session — not in one-off emails or phone calls about vitally important decisions — or academic committees vetting the latest great idea about new programs or technologies. In higher education we call this « shared governance, » but it’s not really just an academic notion. In fact, some of the best boards and companies in America honor exactly the same idea that the people affected by decisions should have some say in them.

Thomas Jefferson had something to say about that idea. He called it democracy — the basis for our most fundamental principles of governance ».

Newsletter de l’Institut français des administrateurs (IFA) : édition de juin 2012


Découvrez le N° 40 de la lettre de liaison mensuelle de l’IFA partenaire du Collège des administrateurs de sociétés. Cette publication électronique mensuelle au format pdf téléchargeable via le site internet a pour objectif de faciliter l’accès aux informations-clés sur les activités de l’IFA pour tous les adhérents : l’agenda des prochains évènements et séminaires, les activités en région, les actualités de la gouvernance, les dernières publications et les principaux services disponibles.

On y présente notamment une étude inédite réalisée par BearingPoint, en partenariat avec l’Institut Français des Administrateurs (IFA). Son objectif est de relever les principaux facteurs-clé de succès de la gouvernance d’entreprise en France et d’identifier les enjeux d’amélioration pour les prochaines années. Vous trouverez, ci-dessous un extrait des conclusions.

 
 

Une gouvernance en progrès, « à la française »

« Face à une complexité croissante des organisations, le visage des Conseils d’administration change et progresse clairement dans le sens des « recommandations de place », notamment en termes de compétences, de féminisation et d’expériences des profils. Ces 3 critères sont d’ailleurs les plus souvent retenus dans la nomination d’un nouvel administrateur. La fonction d’administrateur se professionnalise et tend à s’aligner sur les pratiques internationales. Le temps consacré à la préparation du Conseil et des Comités augmente : plus de 3 jours par mois pour 40% des administrateurs. Un temps essentiellement consacré à la préparation et à la participation aux réunions du Conseil et de ses Comités, mais aussi aux séminaires du Conseil, de plus en plus fréquents.

Cela se traduit aussi par une exigence accrue des compétences rassemblées au sein des Co nseils qui se sont beaucoup renouvelés ces dernières années. Malgré une gouvernance en net progrès, il subsiste toutefois quelques points à éclaircir en termes d’organisation des pouvoirs :

– Dissociation des pouvoirs : contrairement à leurs homologues internationaux, les entreprises françaises restent marquées par la non-dissociation des pouvoirs exécutifs et non-exécutifs avec des personnes identiques siégeant à la tête des instances de gouvernance, qu’il s’agisse du Conseil d’Administration et du Comité de Direction, ou du Conseil de Surveillance et du Directoire. Ainsi, dans la présidence exercée des différentes instances, la dissociation des pouvoirs reste minoritaire : en 2011, 52% des entreprises du CAC 40 sont dirigées par un Président Directeur Général, contre seulement 38% en 2008. Même si pour beaucoup d’administrateurs, la séparation du pouvoir reste dévoyée au regard de la « bonne gouvernance ».

– Indépendance des administrateurs : bien que facteur important de la bonne gouvernance, l’indépendance des administrateurs ne ressort pas comme un critèreclé dans le renouvellement des Conseils (seulement 10% des sondés la jugent clé). C’est sans doute un des enjeux d’évolution pour la gouvernance avec le cas particulier des entreprises dont l’État est actionnaire et pour lesquelles les bonnes pratiques de gouvernance sont encore en devenir…. »

Administrateurs de sociétés | Tendances, défis et opportunités


Excellent article de Susan Shultz du The Board Institute Inc. Vous trouverez, dans le document ci-dessous, 11 éléments-clés qui confrontent les administrateurs de sociétés aujourd’hui. À lire.

English: Frame of reference for research of in...
English: Frame of reference for research of integrateg Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Administrateurs de sociétés | Tendances, défis et opportunités

« Boards of directors matter — and now they matter more than ever. The market continues to demand increased transparency and accountability. New compliance mandates, regulation and shareholder activism are the drivers. Boards and their constituencies are clamoring for more strategic engagement and value-add by the directors. Yet this trend seems to be in stark contrast to the drumbeat for compliance and regulation. How can boards balance the pressures from their attorneys, auditors and regulators to be risk averse (Read: safe) with Wall Street calling for creativity, innovation and job creation? Challenges and opportunities for boards have never been greater, and good governance is more than just compliance ».

Les administrateurs doivent exercer un jugement sûr : Quelques éléments fondamentaux à considérer


The logo of KPMG.
The logo of KPMG. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, quelques conseils que les administrateurs de sociétés devraient suivre afin de s’assurer d’avoir un jugement robuste dans le cadre de la prise de décision. Cet article paru dans NACD Directorship le 24 juin 2012 met l’accent sur le texte « Enhancing Board Oversight: Avoiding Judgment Traps and Biases », un document du COSO (Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission) dont les auteurs sont KPMG et les professeurs Steven M. Glover and Douglas F. Prawitt de Brigham Young University.

Good Judgment Requires Discipline, Awareness of Traps and Biases

It used to be that exercising good judgment largely meant “using common sense.” But today, while common sense is still essential, exercising good judgment—consistently— in a business environment that is increasingly complex and dynamic, volatile and uncertain, and under high pressure requires a disciplined process. It also requires an understanding of common traps and biases that can undermine the judgments of even seasoned professionals and boards.

Voici quelques considérations importantes à connaître. Il faut lire l’article au complet lequel réfère au document du COSO.

A good judgment process followed consistently can help improve decision-making and oversight, but “traps and biases” can undermine the process.

Our “intuitive” judgment can betray us.

Beware of three particularly common judgment traps How you “frame” an issue largely determines how you see it (or don’t see it).

Beware of four common biases that can undermine good judgment (unwittingly).

Le Board : dernier rempart | ultimement responsable !


Voici une excellente prise de position de Richard Leblanc dans Listed Magazine à propos du rôle du conseil d’administration dans les cas de fraudes, malversations, corruption, contrôles internes déficients, problèmes éthique, etc. L’article explique que le C.A. est ultimement responsable de la conformité, de la surveillance des processus de contrôle et de la conduite éthique des dirigeants. Comme le dit Leblanc,  « The buck stops at the Board… Saying the “directors didn’t know” is no excuse ».

Headquarters of SNC-Lavalin engineering firm i...

The buck stops at the board

Un extrait de l’article :

« If the CEO of SNC-Lavalin allegedly overrode his own CFO and breached the company’s code of ethics in authorizing $56 million of questionable payments to undisclosed agents that the federal Canadian police are now investigating, did the board of directors of SNC-Lavalin have a role to play? If RBC, as alleged by a U.S. regulator, made “material false statements” in connection with non-arm’s length trades, did the board of directors of RBC have a role to play?

The answer is “Yes” in these and similar cases. Speaking generally, as all allegations have yet to be proven, it is not credible to argue—as some do—that boards do not have a determinative role to play in compliance and reputational failure, or that directors did not know. A board is the only body that has the legal authority and power to control management and designate all compliance and control systems. It alone acts or fails to act. A board is paid to take all reasonable steps consistent with best practices, to ensure that it does know ».