Étiquette : Culture organisationnelle

Étude du Conference Board sur les récentes interventions des actionnaires activistes


Comme vous le savez, je suis désireux d’être au fait des derniers développements eu égard aux interventions des actionnaires activistes car je pense que ce mouvement peut avoir des conséquences positives sur la gouvernance des sociétés, même si le management a tendance à se défendre âprement contre les « intrusions des actionnaires activistes et opportunistes »

L’article ci-dessous, paru sur le site du Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, nous fait part d’une récente étude du Conference Board* sur l’évolution du phénomène de l’activisme aux É.U.

L’étude en question, Proxy Voting Analytics (2010-2014), montre que le mouvement, loin de s’essouffler, a continué d’avoir un impact significatif sur les relations entre les actionnaires et les dirigeants des grandes entreprises américaines.

Voici donc un résumé des faits saillants de cette étude. Bonne lecture !

The Recent Evolution of Shareholder Activism

Proxy Voting Analytics (2010-2014), a report recently released by The Conference Board in collaboration with FactSet, reviews the last five years of shareholder activism and proxy voting at Russell 3000 and S&P 500 companies.

Data analyzed in the report includes:

  1. Shareholder activism, including proxy fights, exempt solicitations, and other public agitations for change.
  2. Most frequent activist funds and their tactics.
  3. Volume, sponsors, and subjects of shareholder proposals.IMG00571-20100828-2241
  4. Voted, omitted, and withdrawn shareholder proposals.
  5. Voting results of shareholder proposals.
  6. Shareholder proposals on executive compensation.
  7. Shareholder proposals on corporate governance.
  8. Shareholder proposals on social and environmental policy.
  9. Volume and subjects of management proposals.
  10. Failed say-on-pay proposals among Russell 3000 companies.
  11. Say-on-pay proposals that received the support of less than 70 percent of votes cast.

Additional insights (including volume by index, industry, and sponsor, most frequent sponsors, and support levels) are offered with respect to key issues from the last few proxy seasons, including: majority voting; board declassification; supermajority vote requirements; independent board chairmen; proxy access; sustainability reporting; political issues; election of dissident’s director nominee.

The report pays special attention to trends and developments that have emerged in the last few months. In fact, what started as an unremarkable proxy voting season has blossomed into a series of developments that may influence annual general meetings for years to come.

There is a clear indication that activist investors are turning their attention to new issues. For example, in the Russell 3000, five investor-sponsored proposals restricting golden parachutes received the support of a majority of shareholders. While the volume remains low, it is the highest ever recorded on this topic and it signals that voting on executive compensation issues other than say on pay can still find its way to general meetings of shareholders. Political spending and lobbying activities, a topic virtually absent from voting ballots until a few years ago, became the most frequently submitted shareholder proposal type of 2014, with 86 voted proposals and five receiving more than 40 percent of votes cast (compared to only one in 2013). Finally, support for resolutions on proxy access reached a tipping point in the first six months of the year, with five proposals approved and four receiving more than 40 percent of votes cast in favor.

The advisory vote on executive compensation was a game changer for corporate/investor relations and, in 2014, more than ever before, shareholders have been pursuing opportunities to engage with senior management and be heard ahead of a shareholder meeting. This trend was reflected in the rate of withdrawals of shareholder proposals, which doubled from a few years ago as companies chose to preempt a vote on certain investor requests by voluntarily implementing their own reforms. It was not all a product of engagement, however, and guidelines on board responsiveness from proxy advisory firm ISS also drove the surge of management proposals on issues previously raised by activists.

Increased dialogue with senior executives and board members as well as the progress made by many large companies in the adoption of baseline corporate governance practices prompted large institutional investors to reconsider their role as agents of corporate change. For example, while some public pension funds such as the California State Teachers Retirement System (CalSTRS) cut back significantly on their submissions in 2014, others such as the New York City Employees’ Retirement Systems remained prolific proponents and galvanized around proxy access requests. Similarly, the popularity of social and environmental policy issues observed this year is in part explained by the larger number of proposals filed by labor-affiliated investment funds, which, before the introduction of mandatory say on pay, had always concentrated on executive compensation issues. Despite the traditional focus of this type of fund on industrial sectors, in 2014, for the first time, more than 20 percent of the 86 proposals submitted by labor unions were directed at companies in the finance industry.

Social media and other new technologies allow a broad outreach that was unimaginable only a few years ago, and activists are perfecting their use. This year, a growing number of activist investors, especially hedge funds, have agitated for change without even filing a shareholder proposal, let alone waging a proxy fight. Despite the increase in activism campaign announcements, there was a sensible decline in the number of campaigns related to shareholder meetings held in the first six months of 2014. This decline suggests that, rather than urge other shareholders to oppose a director election or vote for a certain resolution, these activism campaign announcements now serve to publicize the investor’s view of the business strategy or organizational performance. It is a first step that may lead to the future filing of a proposal or the solicitation of proxies but that may also prove sufficient to persuade the company to seek dialogue and reach a compromise.

The following are the major findings of the report:

Although activism campaign announcements in the Russell 3000 were up in 2014, the number of campaigns related to a shareholder meeting declined, as some hedge funds chose to agitate for change without even filing a shareholder proposal.

 

Observations made in 2013 that hedge funds were starting to set their sights on larger companies appear disputed by numbers for 2014, when a sharp decline in activism campaign volume was recorded among S&P 500 companies.

 

Proxy contests were the only type of activist campaign related to a shareholder vote to increase among Russell 3000 companies in 2014, with a concentration in the retail trade and finance industries, and dissidents reported their highest success rates in years.

 

Engagement between corporations and investors has not curbed the most hostile forms of activism, as the volume of proposals to elect a dissident’s nominee remains fairly high.

 

Shareholder proposal volume was slightly lower this year, with a sharper decline among larger companies as investors focus on new topics and broaden their targets.

 

Excess cash on US companies’ balance sheets fueled the growth of the activist hedge fund industry, and the number of resolutions sponsored by hedge funds surpassed the record levels of 2008.

 

The 2014 proxy season marked another sharp year-over-year decline in the number of proposals submitted by multiemployer investment funds affiliated with labor unions, as those investors showed new interests, especially in social and environmental policy issues.

 

Proposals on corporate governance, once a stronghold for pension funds, were sharply reduced as more companies introduced engagement policies with large investors.

 

Shareholder resolutions on social and environmental policy rose to unprecedented levels, while some institutional investors dropped governance issues that were a staple of their past activity but never garnered widespread support.

 

The rate of withdrawals of shareholder proposals doubled from a few years ago as companies preempted some of the issues by voluntarily implementing their own reforms.

 

As large groups of institutional investors reduced their 14a-8 filings or shifted their attention to new and less popular topics, the percentage of voted proposals winning the support of a majority of shareholders reached a new low.

 

Proposals on board declassification and majority voting have become a sure bet for labor unions and public pension funds, as they are widely recognized as a baseline in corporate governance.

 

A surge in requests from corporate gadflies made the separation of CEO and chairman roles the top shareholder proposal topic by volume, but the institutional investment community remains skeptical of a one-size-fits-all approach to board leadership.

 

For the first time in the same proxy season, five investor-sponsored proposals restricting golden parachutes received majority support, signaling that voting on executive compensation issues other than say on pay may still find its way to the AGM.

 

 hareholder proposals on political spending and lobbying activities skyrocketed this year, with five receiving more than 40 percent of votes cast (compared to only one in 2013).

 

Support for shareholder proposals on proxy access rights reached a tipping point in 2014, with five proposals approved and four others receiving the support of more than 40 percent of votes cast, and a handful of companies submitted board-sponsored proposals.

 

Say-on-pay analysis confirms a significant turnover in failed votes, with several companies losing the confidence of their shareholders this year after winning the vote by a wide margin in 2013.

__________________________________________________

*Matteo Tonello is vice president at The Conference Board. This post relates to a report released jointly by The Conference Board and FactSet, authored by Dr. Tonello and Melissa Aguilar of The Conference Board. The Executive Summary is available here (the document is free but registration is required).

L’évaluation du conseil d’administration revisitée


Aujourd’hui, nous abordons le thème de l’évaluation du fonctionnement du conseil d’administration. Il n’y a pas de doute que le processus d’évaluation est un moyen très efficace pour l’amélioration de la gouvernance des sociétés.

La presque totalité des entreprises, et toutes celles du NYSE, ont mises en place des mécanismes d’évaluation sur une base annuelle; mais encore faut-il que cette activité soit conduite avec beaucoup de compétence et de doigté par le président du conseil, ce qui n’est pas nécessairement le cas puisque beaucoup d’administrateurs ne prennent pas encore cet exercice assez au sérieux.

En effet, plusieurs études montrent que l’on ne se contente trop souvent que d’une autoévaluation sommaire, produite dans le but de satisfaire aux exigences réglementaires. Le sujet est délicat … les administrateurs sont relativement réticents à se faire évaluer … et à évaluer le travail de leurs pairs !

, dans un article paru sur le blogue de Securities & Corporate Governance Group, nous présente un rappel de l’importance de bien concevoir l’évaluation du conseil d’administration.

Il expose les principales étapes de l’évaluation, donne un exemple d’une plus grande divulgation du processus, et insiste sur l’exploitation des résultats et sur la nécessité de faire le suivi, tout en soulevant l’épineux problème de la conservation des données et des risques légaux associés à leur divulgation.

Bonne lecture ! Vos commentaires relatifs à l’activité d’évaluation dans vos conseils sont les bienvenus.

Re-evaluating the Board Evaluation 

Board evaluations have long been standard practice among public companies. With shareholder interest in corporate governance practices at an all-time high, the focus on board evaluations is expected to increase.  Given that board evaluations can be an effective tool to improve board and company performance, now may be a good time to review your company’s current board evaluation process and the disclosure of that process.

The Evaluation Process

A recent study by PwC found that 63% of directors believe self-evaluations are mostly a “check the box” exercise.  This attitude may stem from the fact that NYSE listed companies are required to conduct evaluations on an annual basis.  (See NYSE Rule 303A.09; NASDAQ does not require an annual evaluation.)  That means that a significant number of boards may be missing out on a valuable opportunity to identify issues with and improve on various board functions.  Evaluations may provide helpful information about how the board conducts its meetings and interacts with management, what type of board education programs are needed in the upcoming year and whether the current structure of the board is appropriate in guiding and executing the company’s strategy.  The evaluations may identify small changes, like changing the order of items on board meeting agendas, or more substantive areas for improvement, like a gap in expertise and the need to add a new director.

Securities & Corporate Governance Group

Because the process should fit the board’s culture, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to designing effective board evaluations.  Furthermore, a process designed years ago may no longer fit the company’s current culture and strategic goals.  Therefore, it is necessary to re-evaluate from time to time the effectiveness of the process and implement any necessary changes.

In taking on this challenge, you should consider the following:

  1. What is the current culture?  Are director interactions formal or informal?  Are there clear leaders and followers?  Does anyone unduly dominate the meetings?  Are there factions (activist investor or private equity fund designees, long-tenured versus recently elected, etc.)?  Do some directors seem passive or prefer anonymity?
  2. What are the objectives?  Has an area of concern (like lack of board alignment) been identified? Or is the board engaging in the process to determine what, if anything, might be done better?
  3. Who will be evaluated? The board as a whole? Each committee?  Will individual directors review each other?  Will individual directors perform a self-evaluation?  Will the board solicit the opinion of members of management that have regular contact with the board?
  4. Who will do the evaluating? Recent trends show a slight increase in the retention of external advisors to conduct the evaluations, but the majority of public companies still employ an internally driven process lead by either the Chairman, Lead Independent Director, Chair of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee or General Counsel.
  5. How will they be evaluated? Typically, evaluations are conducted using written questionnaires or interviews.  Written questionnaires may include any combination of a standardized survey of questions, comment sections meant to facilitate the explanation of the standard survey of questions and open-ended questions intended to solicit feedback.  Interviews may be conducted on an individual basis or in a group setting.  The objectives of the evaluation will dictate the content of questions being solicited.  And the questions should be refreshed on an annual basis to ensure they are relevant and effective.
  6. What will be done with the results of the evaluations? This will partially depend on the method of evaluation but may include a discussion of the results, a memo summarizing the results or an individual meeting with each director.  The company should also use the results of the evaluations to resolve issues, make changes and achieve goals.

While the benefits of board evaluation are widely accepted, it is important to consider how such evaluations may impact the collegiality and trust that is vital for board room discussions, along with what, if any, impact the board evaluation process may have on director candidates.  Another consideration in designing the process is how evaluation material could be used in litigation and what the board can do to mitigate that risk.  On one hand, it is important for the board to develop a written record that demonstrates that the board acted deliberately in conducting evaluations.  On the other hand, questionnaires and other evaluation material are discoverable and may contain damaging information regarding board performance.  Accordingly, it is important to consider whether questionnaires and other evaluation material need to be retained after the evaluations have taken place. Regardless of whether the evaluation material is retained or not, it is important that the board apply this policy consistently for all evaluations – good or bad – year after year.

Enhancing Disclosure of Board Evaluation

While most U.S. public companies have a board evaluation process in place, the disclosure explaining the evaluation process (whether in the proxy statement of corporate governance guidelines) is minimal.  Recently, however, the Council of Institutional Investors released a report entitled Best Disclosure: Board Evaluation, which delineates two approaches for disclosing board evaluations that the Council believes are helpful to investors.  The first approach describes the board evaluation process and the mechanics of the board’s self-evaluations.  The second approach provides not only a description of the process employed to evaluate the board, but also the takeaways and results of the evaluation.

One U.S company that has presented a more in-depth description of its board evaluation process is General Electric.  The disclosure does not appear in the company’s proxy statement, but instead it is contained in its “Governance and Public Affairs Committee Key Practices” document.  General Electric’s proxy statement provides a high-level overview of the process and directs shareholders to the “Governance and Public Affairs Committee Key Practices” document by providing a link.  An excerpt from the disclosure is provided below:

Method of Evaluating Board and Committee Effectiveness. The committee will oversee the following self-evaluation process, which will be used by the board and by each committee of the board to determine their effectiveness and opportunities for improvement. All of the board and committee self-evaluations should be done annually at the November board and committee meetings. Every October, an independent expert in corporate governance will contact each director soliciting comments with respect to both the full board and any committee on which the director serves, as well as director performance and board dynamics. These comments will relate to the large question of how the board can improve its key functions of overseeing personnel development, financials, other major issues of strategy, risk, integrity, reputation and governance. In particular, for both the board and the relevant committee, the process will solicit ideas from directors about:

a. improving prioritization of issues;
b. improving quality of written, chart and oral presentations from management;
c. improving quality of board or committee discussions on these key matters;
d. identifying how specific issues in the past year could have been handled better;
e. identifying specific issues which should be discussed in the future; and
f. identifying any other matter of importance to board functioning.

The independent expert in corporate governance will then work with the committee chairs and the lead director to organize the comments received around options for changes at either board or committee level. At the November board and committee meetings, time will be allocated to a discussion of – and decisions relating to – the actionable items.

Robust disclosure of the board evaluation process is not yet common practice.  However, shareholders value the board evaluation process and are eager for details about the process, what the board has learned from the process and how the board intends to address issues or objectives identified in the process.  Accordingly, companies should expect to receive more interest (or pressure) to adopt a more formal evaluation process and provide more robust disclosure about the process.

Whether to address existing board effectiveness issues, to simply update outdated processes or to anticipate increased shareholder interest in board functionality, now is a good time to review your company’s board evaluation process and related public disclosures.

Les failles du benchmarking dans l’établissement des rémunérations !


Voici le point de vue de l’auteure Claire Linton-Evans*, paru dans le  Sydney Morning Herald récemment, à propos des pratiques de benchmarking, largement utilisées dans le domaine de la sélection et de la rémunération.

Ces méthodes ont du succès parce qu’elles sont utiles, autant aux employés qui tentent de se situer parmi leurs pairs, qu’aux entreprises qui comptent sur ces mesures pour recruter et rémunérer les employés-cadres.

L’auteure montre que cette approche peut conduire à toute sorte d’aberrations et d’iniquités car les titres des emplois et leurs salaires peuvent varier considérablement selon les situations. Elle donne également lieu à une inflation des rémunérations car aucune entreprise ne souhaite recruter un employé « moyen » !

Mme Linton-Evans affirme que l’approche peut cependant être utile au niveau gouvernemental car les emplois sont spécifiés très rigoureusement et ils jouissent de descriptions uniformes d’un secteur à un autre, permettant ainsi de faire des comparaisons sensées.  

Dans tous les cas, les organisations devraient considérer d’autres facteurs pour établir la rémunération.

Je vous invite à prendre connaissance de ce cours article. Quelles sont vos expériences avec le benchmarking ? Bonne lecture !

The death of salary benchmarking

 

For decades benchmarking has been the private sector’s employment solution, forcing candidates into salary bands the way square pegs fit into round holes – often by shaving off some sides. Published by industry bodies and recruitment firms after surveying multiple companies, these annual benchmarking studies attempt to explain what salary range a role (usually by job title) is paid within each industry.

Cleverly marketed, they have been popular for so long because the data « benefits » two client segments: the employees and companies. Employees are told to use the range to ascertain their market value, while firms use the data to budget for new roles, with a level of comfort that they are in step with what the market is paying. However, as anyone who has interviewed or recruited recently knows, benchmarking is becoming increasingly unreliable.

P1020617

Using salary benchmarks is dangerous for both the companies that rely on it to recruit and for executives who expect to be paid within a range. Some companies give benchmarking a cursory glance at budget time. Other companies absurdly state publicly and proudly that they pay only « up to the 75th percentile » of the industry’s benchmark, a declaration that rarely attracts top talent (nor motivates their existing employees).

By evaluating a candidate and their eligibility for a role on salary rather than experience, these businesses often remove the most qualified candidates from the process, and it’s these companies that employees should be wary of. The tip-off? The « What is your current salary/salary expectation? » question which will be often one of the first questions in the screening interview.

I was reminded of this recently when an old colleague shared his dismay after commencing a senior role in the software industry. It had been a delicate  hiring process because the previous manager of the division had held the title of executive general manager…and  before   this had been the executive assistant!  It was a classic and all too common case of a company that used a job title to reward an under-skilled employee, who didn’t have the experience of an EGM and wasn’t being paid the salary of a senior manager either. Obviously, this person couldn’t perform the role and my colleague was hired to fix the problem. So, if this company was involved with a salary benchmarking survey, what did their figures do to pull the average salary of a software EGM down?

And that’s exactly where the concept of benchmarking becomes redundant – job titles and salaries can vary wildly from employee to employee, company to company and situation to situation. Benchmarking them on the criteria of industry, title and salary is not enough for companies to use as a mandatory remuneration guide. The best and most in demand employees will expect to be paid well above a salary band they know has been derived from a motley crew of industry peers. They will know what their value is and wait for an educated employer to offer them an attractive salary. Moreover, successful companies are more aware than ever that their people create their competitive advantage and by offering a salary that is not competitive, they can’t expect their people to stick around.

Where salary benchmarking is successful is within the Government. Generally departments work on strict salary bands aligned to job codes. This works well because they are limited by budgets set annually, and they vigilantly hire employees into strict bands and titles.  Given the  number of variables in the private sector, the concept isn’t vaguely relatable, which is why salary benchmarking should be an interesting, but never a deciding factor these days in the hiring process.

______________________________________________

*Claire Linton-Evans is a senior executive and author of the career bible for modern women, Climbing the Ladder in Heels – How to Succeed in the Career Game of Snakes and Ladders. 

Nouvelles capsules vidéos en gouvernance – La diversité et la gestion des risques


Le Collège des administrateurs de sociétés est heureux de vous dévoiler sa 3e série de capsules d’experts, formée de huit entrevues vidéo.

Pendant 3 minutes, un expert du Collège partage une réflexion et se prononce sur un sujet d’actualité lié à la gouvernance. Une capsule est dévoilée chaque semaine.

Aujourd’hui, je vous propose le visionnement des deux plus récentes capsules d’experts qui sont maintenant en ligne. Elles ont pour thèmes « La diversité » par Mme Nicolle Forget, administratrice de sociétés, et « La gestion des risques » par M. Martin Leblanc, CA, CMC, Associé, Services-conseils – Management et Gestion des risques, KPMG.

Visionnez ces deux capsules d’experts :

La diversité, par Nicolle Forget [+]

 

________________________________________________

Sur quoi les organisations doivent-elles d’abord travailler : sur la stratégie ou sur la culture ?


Voici un article très intéressant de Elliot S. Schreiber* paru sur le blogue de Schreiber | Paris récemment. L’auteur pose une question cruciale pour mieux comprendre la nature et la priorité des interventions organisationnelles.

À quoi le management et le C.A. doivent-ils accorder le plus d’attention : À stratégie ou à la culture de l’organisation ?

L’auteur affirme que la culture, étant l’ADN de l’entreprise, devrait se situer en premier, …  avant la stratégie !

Le bref article présenté ci-dessous pose deux questions fondamentales pour connaître si l’entreprise a une culture appropriée :

(1) Does it cost us the same, more or less than competitors to recruit and retain top talent ?

(2) Are customers happy with the relationship they have with our company versus our competition ?

If it costs you more to recruit and retain your best talent or if customers believe that competitors are easier to deal with, you have cultural issues that need to be dealt with.   We can guarantee that if you do not, you will not execute your strategy successfully, no matter what else you do.

Ce point de vue correspond-il à votre réalité ? Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus. Bonne lecture !

Which To Work on First, Strategy or Culture ?

 

Peter Drucker famously stated “culture eats strategy for breakfast”.   A great quote no doubt and quite right, but it still raises the question – one that we recently got from a board member at a client organization – “which should we work on first, strategy or culture”?

Consider the following; you are driving a boat.  You want to head east, but every time you turn the wheel the boat goes south.  In this analogy, the course direction is strategy; the boat’s rudder is culture.  They are not in synch.  No matter how hard you turn the wheel, the rudder will win.  That is what Drucker meant.

Every organization has a culture, whether it was intentionally developed or not.  This culture gets built over time by the personalities and principles of the leaders, as well as by rewards, incentives, processes and procedures that let people know what really is valued in the company.

Culture is defined as “the way we do things around here every day and allow them to be done”. Employees look to their leaders to determine what behaviors are truly values, as well as to the rewards, incentives, processes and procedures that channel behaviors.

Executives we work with often get confused about culture, thinking that they need to duplicate the companies that are written up in publications as having the best cultures.  We all know the ones in these listings.  They are the ones with skate ramps, Friday beer parties, and day care centers.  All these things are nice, but there is no need to duplicate these unless you are attempting to recruit the same employees and create the same products and services.  No two companies, even those in the same market segment, need to have the same culture.

We know from discussions with other consultants and business executives that there are many who strongly believe that culture comes first.  What they suggest is that since culture is there—it is the DNA of the company—it comes before strategy.  It may be first in historical order, but that is not what matters. You don’t need pool tables and skate ramps like Google to have a good culture.   What matters with culture is whether or not it drives or undermines value creation, which comes from the successful interaction of employees and customers.

…..

____________________________________

* Elliot S. Schreiber, Ph.D., is the founding Chairman of Schreiber Paris.  He has gained a reputation among both corporate executives and academics as one of the world’s most knowledgeable and insightful business and market strategists. Elliot is recognized as an expert in organizational alignment, strategy execution and risk management.  He is a co-founder in 2003 of the Directors College, acknowledged as Canada’s « gold standard » for director education.

Laxisme et passivité au conseil d’administration | La situation en G-B


Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, l’extrait d’un article très pertinent publié par Dina Medland , laquelle couvre le domaine de la gouvernance dans Forbes, qui fait état d’une entrevue conduite avec le professeur de Gouvernance Andrew Kakabadse, de la Henley Business School de Grande-Bretagne.

L’article met le doigt sur le conservatisme (et le traditionalisme) crasse des administrateurs qui siègent sur les conseils d’administration en Grande-Bretagne. L’attitude de non-intervention de plusieurs administrateurs conduit à un sérieux manque d’innovation dans la gouvernance des entreprises anglaises (UK).

Trouve-t-on le même laxisme et la même résistance aux changements dans nos organisations nord-américaines ?

Personnellement, je ne crois pas que ce soit à la même échelle mais les conseils d’administration souffrent beaucoup du manque de questionnement de leurs membres. Il y a, ici aussi, trop de passivité eu égard aux questions d’orientation de l’entreprise ainsi qu’aux actions de la direction.

Je vous invite donc à lire ce court article et à partager votre point de vue sur le sujet. Bonne lecture !

There Is A Crying Need For Innovation In Boardrooms

Andrew Kakabadse has built a reputation for sharp, insightful commentary on the boardrooms of publicly listed companies. Professor of Governance and Leadership at Henley Business School since last summer, he has spoken out before now on the declining worth of non-executive directors.

In an interview with me in April 2013, he suggested many non-executive directors in the UK’s boardrooms were ‘of little or no value to the business.’ Particularly scathing about the UK, he said : “We have a culture where we don’t ask questions.”

Dina Medland
Dina Medland, Contributrice pour Forbes

We also have a boardroom culture in the UK where we believe that “if it has worked fine for hundreds of years, why change it?” It is part and parcel, it seems of a national love of ritual – at which we clearly excel. The world’s love for very British celebrations -often involving members of the Royal family, horses, logistical feats of military planning and discipline and split-second timing- bears testimony to that. But the flip side of that seems to be that innovation is both rare, and resisted.

It is worth noting, therefore, that ICSA, the professional body for company secretaries – who are required for listed companies in the UK – chose Professor Kakabadse to undertake a piece of research on The Company Secretary, with a view to finding a way to progress the value of the role. (Note: for transparency, the software arm of ICSA which provides technology solutions for the boardroom is the commercial sponsor of my blog Board Talk but has no editorial control on input).

“On average, UK boards consist of 9 to 11 members, if whom the majority are over the age of 50. Fewer than half of these board members had had a job description and the chairman is very likely to be white, male and over the age of 60. Barriers to diversity remain firmly set throughout most boardrooms in the country” says the report.

It says the management and governance realities of boards indicate “animosity, a lack of intimacy with strategy, and poor communication” when it comes to top team strategy. Board and executive relations are “non-cohesive” when it comes to “shaping/negotiation of strategy, open interaction and trust.” Board members are described as “out of touch” – with “reality, markets and employees, unclear member role and contribution, productivity of meetings, engagement with the executive.”

……

Quelques mythes persistants à propos de la culture de gouvernance


Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, un article tout à fait pertinent et intéressant, paru sur le site de INC.COM et publié par le .

Voici onze (11) affirmations, ou mythes, à propos de la culture organisationnel et comment les administrateurs de sociétés peuvent tirer profit de ces enseignements.

Bonne lecture !

« Culture is a manifestation of your company’s values, and it impacts everything from talent recruiting to innovation. Unfortunately, some founders and CEOs, especially at early-stage startups, confuse culture with perks or, worse, believe that defining a company’s culture is a task best left up to someone else. Eleven founders from the Young Entrepreneur Council (YEC) call out the most persistent culture myths–and what you can do to overcome them »

11 Stubborn Myths About Company Culture

1. Perks = Culture

« Many startup founders mistakenly think that fun perks automatically make for a good culture. Don’t get me wrong–happy hours, Ping-Pong tables and catered lunches are great, but they’re not going to keep employees happy unless you work to create a fundamental culture of respect. It’s a lot easier to provide perks than it is to make sure that employees feel motivated and valued. » —Jared Feldman, Mashwork

2. Culture Doesn’t Start With You

« Most CEOs don’t realize that they are defining the culture by how they are behaving. Snap at people often? Anger will become part of your culture. Undermine your staff? Bureaucracy will invade your culture. Pretend everything is always amazing? You’ll create a culture full of fakes. If you want a culture that is always evolving and becoming more beautiful, invest in doing so yourself. » —Corey Blake, Round Table Companies

3. Employee Feedback Isn’t Important

« Some CEOs do not treat employee feedback as if it was as important as their own thoughts, because they are not viewed as equals. Though it is clear a CEO’s role is more expansive then other positions, the culture of a company can be negatively affected if people’s ideas and thoughts are suppressed. Each employee has a unique view of the organization, and the culture of sharing views is important to the company’s success. » —Phil Chen, Systems WatchIMG_00001932

4. Remote Work Doesn’t Impact Culture

« I’ve worked for several companies remotely for years, and none of them have worked out long term. You always have things going on, and you are never as productive as when you’re together in a group. Working with others next to you is the best way for your company culture to grow. If you have to work remotely, find a way to get to the office at least twice a week to improve culture. » —John Rampton, Adogy

5. Someone Else Owns It

« They assume it’s someone else’s problem to deal with. HR doesn’t own culture. Employees don’t own culture. Everyone owns culture, and senior leaders have an enormous impact on how business gets done in the day-to-day. CEOs who don’t understand this are destined to live with whatever they get. CEOs who do understand their roles are better equipped to be intentional about the culture they create in ways that drive performance. »–Chris Cancialosi, GothamCulture

6. Culture Doesn’t Need to Be Defined

« Chris Wood of Paige Technologies says it best, ‘Organizations are really only a representation of the people in them; employers must be diligent about mapping culture.’ Products and services can be duplicated, but people can’t. Your people drive your culture and they are the one defining difference of a company. CEOs forget to understand and define the culture that they have in place early on. » —Jason Grill, JGrill Media | Sock 101

7. Culture Is Just a Set of Values

« We help many growing companies build culture, and the one thing most CEOs get wrong is forgetting to operationalize it. Culture isn’t just a set of core values on the wall–it’s a set of consistent behaviors. You have to be clear what those values look like in practice (we call them work rules) so current and future employees see culture in action and understand how works gets done in the company and align the company to them. » —Susan LaMotte, Exaqueo

8. Culture Only Matters When You Reach X Size

« Most CEOs think they don’t have to worry about company culture until their business meets certain profit or growth margins. In reality, company culture is affecting your bottom line regardless of your margins. I’ll say it again: Your company’s culture is inextricable from your company’s success. Focus on hiring the right people and offering them a place to thrive. With the wrong staff or an unmotivated staff, your company will go nowhere. » —Sean Kelly, HUMAN

9. You Can’t Hire for Culture

« You have to carefully select the type of people you add to your team if you’re going for a particular culture. For instance, if you’re a fashion company, you probably want to hire people that are actually passionate about fashion. It’s good to have people with different ideas, but generally they should have a shared common interest. With that shared interest, you can build a culture that your team members and customers can get behind. » —Andy Karuza, Brandbuddee

10. Compensation Is the Only Motivator

« Once they reach a certain salary, most non-sales employees could honestly care less about additional compensation. Employees work to feel needed, so remind them that they are your company. Recognize them, and make it public recognition. » —Justin Gray, LeadMD

11. Culture Will Wait for You to Create It

« The interesting thing about a company culture is that it will create itself if you don’t create it first. CEOs need to define and personify the company culture and instill it at every level of the organization. The best companies all have a culture based on their mission, and all employees know why they’re working so hard. When the opposite is true, the culture will create itself–and it may not be the culture you envisioned. » —Andrew Thomas, SkyBell Technologies, Inc.

Le mentorat | Une démarche précieuse pour préparer la relève


Debra Wheatman* a publié un billet intéressant dans CEO.com qui fait l’éloge du mentorat en vue de mieux réussir le processus de préparation de la relève du président et chef de direction (PCD, CEO).

Une firme de recrutement au niveau mondial, InterSearch Worldwide, a montré que seulement 45 % des organisations avait un processus de planification de la succession du premier dirigeant !

L’auteure propose de mettre en place un plan de mentorat à l’échelle de toute l’organisation et elle expose les avantages pressentis d’une telle démarche.

Pour elle le mentorat est bénéfique pour le raffermissement de la culture, la croissance et la viabilité de l’organisation. Voici un extrait de ce court article. Bonne lecture !

 

Getting A CEO Succession Right

 

Mentoring Provides a Foundation for Positive Performance

Given the dynamic and changing business environment in which we all work, there are many instances in which people with little to no experience are required to assume new responsibilities and adapt to rapidly changing business situations. Oftentimes, these people are asked to do things that are unfamiliar and represent unchartered territory.

Pairing these individuals with senior executives with the expertise and organizational knowledge can help more inexperienced staff develop the skills and expertise to be effective and grow within the organization. By working with a mentor, a mentee will be able to develop a positive work approach and be motivated to assume increasing responsibility, with the resulting impact being strong job performance, productivity and confidence.

Mentoring Supports a Culture of Learning and Knowledge Transfer

The ongoing health and wellness of any organization is largely predicated on ensuring employees are equipped to add continuous value. Providing staff with the means to acquire the knowledge and skills to be effective supports short- and long-term goals for learning and sets the tone for organization-wide knowledge distribution. By encouraging knowledge transfer efforts, the foundation of learning is established.IMG_20140515_143618

Mentoring programs also serve to empower employees, promoting a culture of inclusivity where people are encouraged to communicate, fostering productivity and a focus on achieving corporate goals.

Mentoring is Key for Developing Future Leaders

One of the key benefits of a robust mentoring program is that it helps to provide a solid training ground for future leaders. One of the things that employees desire when they join an organization is to have an understanding of opportunities for upward mobility and growth.

With a well-developed mentoring program, employees can review their career goals and pursue advancement opportunities. The partnerships established from the program helps employees understand what they need to do to progress within the organization. The assistance from a mentor can help propel employees forward, providing a strong foundation of commitment and drive for success.

Mentoring Leads to Increased Employee Retention

Mentoring increases employee retention because it sends a positive message that the organization cares about employees’ development into leadership roles. One of the things that can sometimes hinder growth is an employee’s inability to understand or embrace an organization’s corporate culture. With an active mentoring program, mentees are given the opportunity to navigate such intangibles, thereby increasing opportunities for long-term success.

Mentoring Increases Self-Awareness

One of the things that help people grow into effective leaders is the understanding of their own strengths and shortcomings. This can be a hard thing for a person to identify on his or her own. In a mentoring relationship, the mentee will be given feedback by the mentor as a means to conducting a thoughtful self-evaluation. Though it might be difficult, self-awareness is critical to understanding areas for improvement and is the first step in making meaningful changes that can positively impact career outcomes.

Mentoring Is a Great Idea Even If You Aren’t Going Anywhere Anytime Soon

Mentoring provides significant benefits both to you and your successor. As a teacher, you will have the opportunity to revisit past decisions, plans and re-assess the company’s goals and objectives. As your mentee asks tough questions about why things are the way they are, it will give you the chance to look at the past, present and future through a set of fresh eyes. Even if you don’t plan on going anywhere soon, mentoring and building your succession plan can dramatically improve the performance of you, your team and your organization.

______________________________________________

* Career and personal branding expert Debra Wheatman is president and owner of Careers Done Write. She is globally recognized as an expert in advanced career search techniques, with more than 18 years’ corporate human resource experience helping clients make gratifying career choices.

Quel est le rôle du conseil dans une entreprise familiale ?


La gestion des entreprises familiales est un sujet qui concerne un grand nombre d’organisations, souvent très petites mais qui ont néanmoins besoin d’une certaine configuration de gouvernance. L’article de Dan Ryan, président des pratiques réglementaires à PricewaterhouseCoopers, est basé sur une publication de PwC. 

On y présente un modèle de gouvernance qui reflète l’évolution des entreprises familiales ainsi que les nombreux avantages à se doter des mécanismes de gouvernance appropriés.

Également, l’article décrit les principales réticences des entrepreneurs et des fondateurs à aller de l’avant; l’auteur tente d’apporter des réponses concrètes aux préoccupations des propriétaires-dirigeants. Enfin, l’article aborde les attentes que les entreprises doivent avoir eu égard à la mise en place d’un conseil d’administration.

Je vous invite donc à prendre connaissance de l’extrait ci-dessous et de poursuivre la lecture complète de l’article en cliquant sur le lien suivant :

What Is a Board’s Role in a Family Business?

Individual- and family-owned businesses are a vital part of our economy. If you or your family owns such a company you understand how important the company’s success is to your personal wealth and to future generations. If you’re a nonfamily executive at a family company, you also recognize that its profitability and resilience is vital to your job security and financial well-being.

We see more family companies interested in corporate governance today than we did a decade ago, as shown in changes they’ve made to their boards. While some family companies have a board only to satisfy legal compliance requirements, more are moving toward the outer rings on the family business corporate governance model, below. Ultimately, owners will choose which level best suits the company’s needs and when changing circumstances mean the company’s governance should transition to another ring.

Family Business Corporate Governance Model*

pwc-wbrfb1

 

Compliance board. While most states require companies incorporated in the state to have a board, the requirement may be as simple as a board of at least one person that meets at least once per year. A company may have only the founder on its board. In the early stages of a founder-led company, this type of board may well be the best fit for the company, since the founder is usually more focused on building the business than on governance.

Insider board. Such a board often includes family members and members of senior management. This membership can better involve the family in the business, help with succession planning, and introduce additional perspectives to board discussions. The insider board may be created by the founder—who may no longer be the CEO—or by the next generation owner(s) of the company. That said, the founder/owner(s) retain decision-making authority.

Inner circle board. In this type of board the founder/owner adds directors he or she knows well. These may include an accountant, lawyer, or other business professional that guided or influenced the company, or the founder’s close friends. These directors may bring skills or experience to the board that are otherwise missing and may be in a position to challenge the founder/owner(s) in a positive way. Such boards might create an audit committee or other committees. That said, the founder/owner(s)—who may or may not be the CEO—retains decision-making authority.

Quasi-independent board. This level introduces outside/independent directors who have no employment or other tie to the company apart from their role as a director. (See the Family Business Corporate Governance Series module Building or renewing your board for a more complete discussion of independent/outside directors.) These directors introduce objectivity and accountability to the board and they expect their input to be respected. Board processes and policies will likely become more formalized with outside/independent directors on the board. The number of committees may increase. This outermost ring on the family business corporate governance model is most similar to governance at a public company.

59% of CEOs and CFOs of 147 family-owned/owner-operated companies report having a “formal board of directors that acts on behalf of company owners to oversee the business and management,” per a PwC 2013 survey.

We recognize that governance at any family company will be determined almost exclusively by what the founder (or family members who control the company) wants. You may have a compliance board or an inner circle board—and those may be entirely appropriate for where your company is at present. We’ve seen numerous family companies that benefited greatly from moving toward the outer rings in the governance model—especially when anticipating a generational transition.

In this post, we’ll help you understand how to build an effective board for your family company, and how boards can assist with some of the particularly challenging issues family companies face. This first module discusses why you might want to evolve or change your governance model and what you could expect from a board if you do so.

Each family company’s situation is unique and we can’t address every scenario. Our goal is to provide a framework of how corporate governance practices apply to family companies so you can decide what’s best for you.

___________________________________________

* Some companies also have an Advisory Board to advise management (and directors). Advisory Board members don’t vote or have fiduciary responsibilities.

…..

La saga d’American Apparel | Une affreuse gouvernance


Voici un article publié par Gael O’Brien dans Business Ethics sur la saga de la gouvernance à American Apparel. Le fondateur Charney est en guerre contre son conseil d’administration pour une foule de raisons, valables à mon point de vue.

La situation est d’autant plus saugrenue que le président Charney est responsable de la nomination des membres du C.A. !

Je vous invite à une lecture pimentée d’une situation surréelle dont vous trouverez un extrait ci-dessous.

 

American Apparel: Sex, Power and Terrible Corporate Governance

The American Apparel story gets crazier by the moment.

Actions taken by the company’s board two weeks ago to attempt to remove founder Dov Charney as chairman and CEO have prompted him to launch a counteroffensive to regain control of American Apparel.  Working with hedge fund investors, Charney has borrowed money to increase his shares in the company to 43 percent and is threatening a proxy fight. But the hedge fund investors working with Charney are now negotiating with the very board that fired him – and there’s a possibility that a new management team could be appointed that does not include Charney.IMG_00000962

Whether Charney is successful or not, the result of his past leadership is an American Apparel characterized by two faces in opposition to each other. When that happens, the worst face eventually outweighs the best. The retail company’s  attempts at socially responsible practices — clothes touted as ethically made in the United States – have ended up being plowed under by the repugnant behavior of its leader, who sexualized the workplace as a stalking ground for employee relationships called consensual, disregarding disparity of age and power.

American Apparel’s drama illustrates two key problems: In companies where there is a dominant founder running the company according to the beat of his (or her) own drum, how hands-on can a hand-picked board be when it is necessary to reign in the founder? And, when ethical issues surface in a company with a sexually provocative brand image, how does a hand-picked board ensure a clear stand is taken?

Charney’s hand-picked board supported him for years through several very public sexual harassment lawsuits — not appearing to reign in his philosophy that a sexually-charged workplace fosters creativity; it authorized a quiet, internal investigation this year which uncovered examples where they said Charney misused company funds and didn’t prevent the posting of naked photos of a former employee who had sued him for sexual harassment a few years before.

___________________________________________________

Gael O'Brien_2012_CropGael O’Brien, a Business Ethics Magazine columnist, is a consultant, executive coach, and presenter focused on building leadership, trust, and reputation. She publishes the The Week in Ethics and is The Ethics Coach columnist for Entrepreneur Magazine.

 

Les PCD (PDG) d’OBNL ne sont pas « tout puissant » !


Voici un autre article intéressant d’Eugene Fram sur son blogue Nonprofit Management. Le PCD (CEO) d’un OBNL doit avoir beaucoup de pouvoir mais ne doit pas se comporter en « matamore » mais plutôt en partenaire du conseil d’administration.

Le C.A. constitue, bien sûr, l’autorité suprême de l’OBNL, mais on constate souvent que l’on doive laisser beaucoup d’initiatives au PCD compte tenu de la situation particulière de plusieurs organisations à but non lucratif.

Voici un court extrait de l’article que je vous invite à lire afin de mieux saisir les nuances en gouvernance de ce type d’organisation.

 

Nonprofit CEO: Board Peer – Not A Powerhouse

Some nonprofit CEOs make a fetish out of describing their boards and/or board chairs as their “bosses.” Others, for example, can see the description, as a parent-child relationship by funders. The parent, the board, may be strong, but can the child, the CEO, implement a grant or donation? Some CEOs openly like to perpetuate this type of relationship because when bad decisions come to roost, they can use the old refrain: the board made me do it.

The Networked Nonprofit
The Networked Nonprofit (Photo credit: HowardLake)

My preference is that the board-CEO relationship be a partnershipamong peers focusing on achieving desired outcomes and impacts for the nonprofit. (I, with others, would make and have made CEOs, who deserve the position, voting members of their boards!)

Quelques articles reliés aux OBNL :

 

Recommandations utiles pour la création d’un conseil aviseur (Advisory Board) efficace !


Voici un excellent article paru sur le blogue de Josse Tores, un auteur reconnu pour ses qualités d’influenceur, de conférencier et d’éditeur. M. Tores explique bien l’importance pour tout entrepreneur de se doter d’un conseil aviseur.

L’article fait état de huit facteurs qui contribuent à l’efficacité d’un conseil aviseur. Vous trouverez ci-dessous un sommaire des 8 caractéristiques.

Je vous conseille de prendre le temps de lire ce court article.

Bonne lecture. Vos commentaires sont appréciés.

 

 8 Tips to Creating an Effective Advisory Board

 

Advisory boards are used by the best entrepreneurs as a way to fill knowledge gaps with subject matter experts. Advisory board members are not directors in the traditional sense. Advisory board members do not serve a governance function and do not represent shareholders or other stakeholders. An advisory board’s role is simply to provide advice to the entrepreneur relative to achieving business goals.

Business in London
Business in London (Photo credit: Stuck in Customs)

At its most basic level an advisory board acts as a sounding board for the business owner. At its best, an advisory board provides expertise, guidance, and business development opportunities. In all cases, the advisory board provides the entrepreneur a group of experts with whom to talk about opportunities, challenges, and next steps.

The following are 8 tips to creating an effective advisory board:

1. Have a Purpose: “Management by objective works – if you know the objectives. Ninety percent of the time you don’t.” – Peter Drucker

2. Recruit Doubters: “The path of sound credence is through the thick forest of skepticism.” – George Jean Nathan

3. Leverage the Network: “The purpose of human life is to serve, and to show compassion and the will to help others.” – Albert Schweitzer

4. Write It Down: “A verbal contract isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.” – Samuel Goldwyn

5. Time is Money: “Price is what you pay. Value is what you get.” – Warren Buffett

6. Keep It Intimate: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” – Margaret Mead

7. Maximize Value: “Success depends upon previous preparation, and without such preparation there is sure to be failure.” – Confucius

8. Ongoing Communication: “Number one, cash is king…number two, communicate…number three, buy or bury the competition.” – Jack Welch

Entrepreneurs should consider forming an advisory group as early in the life of the business as possible. Advisory boards should be dynamic, changing composition as challenges change. Advisors should know their role may be temporary. They should be recognized and praised by the entrepreneur to ensure they remain engaged and involved. Above all else, advisors should recognize that they are there to provide advice to the entrepreneur and not to govern the business. Utilizing these eight tips enables an entrepreneur to achieve greater success in a shorter amount of time.

Related articles

Réflexions sur le rajeunissement des conseils d’administration


Guy Le Péchon, associé gérant de Gouvernance & Structures vient de faire paraître dans le journal LesEchos.fr, une piste de réflexion sur le rajeunissement des conseils d’administration qui, je crois, mériterait d’être expérimentées et pourraient changer le processus de gouvernance des entreprises.

Quelles entreprises ont déjà mis en place des processus de renouvellement similaire ? Quelles seront les entreprises novatrices en matière de diversification des conseils ?

Voici un large extrait de l’article en question.

Rajeunir les conseils d’administration

 

Alors, comment procéder ? L’approche suggérée par ce billet par Gouvernance & Structures est, sous la houlette du conseil d’administration, de créer un conseil de jeunes. Avec des objectifs un peu différents, certaines municipalités utilisent cette approche. Ce conseil de jeunes serait composé d’une dizaine bénévoles de 18 à 25 ans, défrayés des frais éventuels. Ils seraient recrutés par annonces Internet pour 3 ans (avec renouvellement d’un tiers d’entre eux chaque années) en visant la parité femmes / hommes et une large diversité de milieu d’origine. Ils seraient pilotés par le secrétaire du conseil d’administration aidé par un responsable RH.

"Le Conseil de Classe" (Philippe Dan...
« Le Conseil de Classe » (Philippe Danvin) Compagnie Raymond Pradel (Photo credit: saigneurdeguerre)

Le conseil, en leur fournissant la documentation nécessaire, leur demanderait, disons trois fois par an, de réfléchir à un thème examiné à un prochain conseil et de faire des propositions. On peut penser aux questions sur lesquelles les jeunes peuvent être sensibilisés; technologies nouvelles dont réseaux sociaux et protection des données, écologie, éthique, international… Une fois par an, sur un de ces thèmes, serait organisé une demi-journée d’échange direct avec présence physique des membres du conseil d’administration à l’occasion d’une de ses réunions.

La formule serait légère et n’entraînerait pas de dépenses importantes, elle permettrait aux membres du conseil d’administration, dans un cadre souple et convivial, d’être positivement et concrètement confrontés aux idées de jeunes et pourquoi pas d’en retenir certaines pour mise en application. Les jeunes en tireraient sûrement un profit personnel, et indirectement leurs proches.

En effet, ils bénéficieraient ainsi d’une ouverture sur la « Corporate Gouvernance » des entreprises et leurs hauts dirigeants. L’entreprise pourrait incidemment dans ce cadre repérer des jeunes talents à embaucher plus tard. La société pourrait utiliser cette approche pour améliorer son image de marque, en particulier auprès de jeunes. Bien des discours et écrits prônent l’innovation, et comme on commence à le savoir, l’innovation n’est pas seulement technologique, elle peut être aussi organisationnelle et sociale.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

On vous offre de siéger sur un C.A. | Posez les bonnes questions avant d’accepter ! **


Voici un ensemble de questions très pertinentes que vous pourriez (devriez) poser avant de vous joindre à un conseil d’administration. Cet article, rédigé par Ellen B. Richstone*, a été publié aujourd’hui dans NACD Directorship; il présente un genre de « check list » qui vous sera sûrement d’une grande utilité au moment de considérer une offre de participation à un C.A.

Je sais, on ne se préoccupe généralement pas de faire un examen (« due diligence ») aussi serré que ce qui est proposé ici mais, si vous avez la chance d’avoir une offre, pourquoi ne pas considérer sérieusement les questions ci-dessous.

C’est un prélude au genre de travail que vous aurez à faire quand vous siégerez à ce conseil : poser des questions !

L’article nous invite à se questionner sur les aspects suivants :

Question 2
Question 2 (Photo credit: Blue Square Thing)

(1) La mission, la vision, les stratégies, le plan d’action

(2) La dynamique du marché et la part de marché

(3) Les produits

(4) Les compétiteurs

(5) Les clients

(6) Les aspects financiers

(7) Les aspects légaux et l’assurance-responsabilité des administrateurs

(8) Les relations entre le C.A. et la direction

(9) La structure du conseil et la nature des relations entre les administrateurs

(10) Les relations avec les actionnaires

(11) La qualité des produits et services

(12) La qualité des ressources humaines et les relations de travail

(13) Vos valeurs personnelles

(14) Le risque de réputation

(15) Le modèle de gouvernance

Après avoir obtenu des réponses à ces questions, vous devez voir si la culture organisationnelle vous sied et, surtout, si votre contribution peut constituer une valeur ajoutée à ce conseil.

What to Ask Before Joining a Board

You are considering joining a company’s board. You reviewed the publicly available financial, legal, and business information; spoke with management, internal and external legal counsel, and auditors; and evaluated the D&O policy.

You are all set, right? In fact, this is the beginning of your due diligence process: the hardest questions are the least measurable, but equally and sometimes more important than the measurable ones.

With many questions, a company might not want to share the details until you have actually joined the board. In those cases, focus on whether the board and management have a process in place that supports a thoughtful discussion. In particular, think about these questions against the backdrop of your board value and effectiveness.

______________________________________

* Ellen B. Richstone has extensive board and operating experience, both as a CEO and a CFO, and as a director in companies ranging in size from venture capital-backed to S&P 500, public, and private. She currently serves on the board of the NACD New England Chapter, along with several other boards.

** En reprise

Articles reliés au sujet :
Enhanced by Zemanta

Sept leçons apprises en matière de communications de crise **


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.

Voici donc l’article en question, reproduit ici avec la permission de l’auteur. Vos commentaires sont appréciés. Bonne lecture.

 

Sept leçons apprises en matière de communications de crise

Par Richard Thibault*

La crise la mieux gérée est, dit-on, celle que l’on peut éviter. Mais il arrive que malgré tous nos efforts pour l’éviter, la crise frappe et souvent, très fort. Dans toute situation de crise, l’objectif premier est d’en sortir le plus rapidement possible, avec le moins de dommages possibles, sans compromettre le développement futur de l’organisation.

Voici sept leçons dont il faut s’inspirer en matière de communication de crise, sur laquelle on investit généralement 80% de nos efforts, et de notre budget, en de telles situations.

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill as seen from s...
The Deepwater Horizon oil spill as seen from space by NASA’s Terra satellite on May 24, 2010 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

(1) Le choix du porte-parole

Les médias voudront tout savoir. Mais il faudra aussi communiquer avec l’ensemble de nos clientèles internes et externes. Avoir un porte-parole crédible et bien formé est essentiel. On ne s’improvise pas porte-parole, on le devient. Surtout en situation de crise, alors que la tension est parfois extrême, l’organisation a besoin de quelqu’un de crédible et d’empathique à l’égard des victimes. Cette personne devra être en possession de tous ses moyens pour porter adéquatement son message et elle aura appris à éviter les pièges. Le choix de la plus haute autorité de l’organisation comme porte-parole en situation de crise n’est pas toujours une bonne idée. En crise, l’information dont vous disposez et sur laquelle vous baserez vos décisions sera changeante, contradictoire même, surtout au début. Risquer la crédibilité du chef de l’organisation dès le début de la crise peut être hasardeux. Comment le contredire ensuite sans nuire à son image et à la gestion de la crise elle-même ?

(2) S’excuser publiquement si l’on est en faute

S’excuser pour la crise que nous avons provoqué, tout au moins jusqu’à ce que notre responsabilité ait été officiellement dégagée, est une décision-clé de toute gestion de crise, surtout si notre responsabilité ne fait aucun doute. En de telles occasions, il ne faut pas tenter de défendre l’indéfendable. Ou pire, menacer nos adversaires de poursuites ou jouer les matamores avec les agences gouvernementales qui nous ont pris en défaut. On a pu constater les impacts négatifs de cette stratégie utilisée par la FTQ impliquée dans une histoire d’intimidation sur les chantiers de la Côte-Nord, à une certaine époque. Règle générale : mieux vaut s’excuser, être transparent et faire preuve de réserve et de retenue jusqu’à ce que la situation ait été clarifiée.

(3) Être proactif

Dans un conflit comme dans une gestion de crise, le premier à parler évite de se laisser définir par ses adversaires, établit l’agenda et définit l’angle du message. On vous conseillera peut-être de ne pas parler aux journalistes. Je prétends pour ma part que si, légalement, vous n’êtes pas obligés de parler aux médias, eux, en contrepartie, pourront légalement parler de vous et ne se priveront pas d’aller voir même vos opposants pour s’alimenter.  En août 2008, la canadienne Maple Leaf, compagnie basée à Toronto, subissait la pire crise de son histoire suite au décès et à la maladie de plusieurs de ses clients. Lorsque le lien entre la listériose et Maple Leaf a été confirmé, cette dernière a été prompte à réagir autant dans ses communications et son attitude face aux médias que dans sa gestion de la crise. La compagnie a très rapidement retiré des tablettes des supermarchés les produits incriminés. Elle a lancé une opération majeure de nettoyage, qu’elle a d’ailleurs fait au grand jour, et elle a offert son support aux victimes. D’ailleurs, la gestion des victimes est généralement le point le plus sensible d’une gestion de crise réussie.

(4) Régler le problème et dire comment

Dès les débuts de la crise, Maple Leaf s’est mise immédiatement au service de l’Agence canadienne d’inspection des aliments, offrant sa collaboration active et entière pour déterminer la cause du problème. Dans le même secteur alimentaire, tout le contraire de ce qu’XL Foods a fait quelques années plus tard. Chez Maple Leaf, tout de suite, des experts reconnus ont été affectés à la recherche de solutions. On pouvait reprocher à la compagnie d’être à la source du problème, mais certainement pas de se trainer les pieds en voulant le régler. Encore une fois, en situation de crise, camoufler sa faute ou refuser de voir publiquement la réalité en face est décidément une stratégie à reléguer aux oubliettes. Plusieurs années auparavant, Tylenol avait montré la voie en retirant rapidement ses médicaments des tablettes et en faisant la promotion d’une nouvelle méthode d’emballage qui est devenue une méthode de référence aujourd’hui.

(5) Employer le bon message

Il est essentiel d’utiliser le bon message, au bon moment, avec le bon messager, diffusé par le bon moyen. Les premiers messages surtout sont importants. Ils serviront à exprimer notre empathie, à confirmer les faits et les actions entreprises, à expliquer le processus d’intervention, à affirmer notre désir d’agir et à dire où se procurer de plus amples informations. Si la gestion des médias est névralgique, la gestion de l’information l’est tout autant. En situation de crise, on a souvent tendance à s’asseoir sur l’information et à ne la partager qu’à des cercles restreints, ou, au contraire, à inonder nos publics d’informations inutiles. Un juste milieu doit être trouvé entre ces deux stratégies sachant pertinemment que le message devra évoluer en même temps que la crise.

(6) Être conséquent et consistant

Même s’il évolue en fonction du stade de la crise, le message de base doit pourtant demeurer le même. Dans l’exemple de Maple Leaf évoqué plus haut, bien que de nouveaux éléments aient surgi au fur et à mesure de l’évolution de la crise, le message de base, à savoir la mise en œuvre de mesures visant à assurer la santé et la sécurité du public, a été constamment repris sur tous les tons. Ainsi, Maple Leaf s’est montrée à la fois consistante en respectant sa ligne de réaction initiale et conséquente, en restant en phase avec le développement de la situation.

(7) Être ouvert d’esprit

Dans toute situation de crise, une attitude d’ouverture s’avérera gagnante. Que ce soit avec les médias, les victimes, nos employés, nos partenaires ou les agences publiques de contrôle, un esprit obtus ne fera qu’envenimer la situation. D’autant plus qu’en situation de crise, ce n’est pas vraiment ce qui est arrivé qui compte mais bien ce que les gens pensent qui est arrivé. Il faut donc suivre l’actualité afin de pouvoir anticiper l’angle que choisiront les médias et s’y préparer en conséquence.

En conclusion

Dans une perspective de gestion de crise, il est essentiel de disposer d’un plan d’action au préalable, même s’il faut l’appliquer avec souplesse pour répondre à l’évolution de la situation. Lorsque la crise a éclaté, c’est le pire moment pour commencer à s’organiser. Il est essentiel d’établir une culture de gestion des risques et de gestion de crise dans l’organisation avant que la crise ne frappe. Comme le dit le vieux sage,  » pour être prêt, faut se préparer ! »

____________________________________

* Richard Thibault, ABCP

Président de RTCOMM, une entreprise spécialisée en positionnement stratégique et en gestion de crise

Menant de front des études de Droit à l’Université Laval de Québec, une carrière au théâtre, à la radio et à la télévision, Richard Thibault s’est très tôt orienté vers le secteur des communications, duquel il a développé une expertise solide et diversifiée. Après avoir été animateur, journaliste et recherchiste à la télévision et à la radio de la région de Québec pendant près de cinq ans, il a occupé le poste d’animateur des débats et de responsable des affaires publiques de l’Assemblée nationale de 1979 à 1987.

Richard Thibault a ensuite tour à tour assumé les fonctions de directeur de cabinet et d’attaché de presse de plusieurs ministres du cabinet de Robert Bourassa, de conseiller spécial et directeur des communications à la Commission de la santé et de la sécurité au travail et de directeur des communications chez Les Nordiques de Québec.

En 1994, il fonda Richard Thibault Communications inc. (RTCOMM). D’abord spécialisée en positionnement stratégique et en communication de crise, l’entreprise a peu à peu élargi son expertise pour y inclure tous les champs de pratique de la continuité des affaires. D’autre part, reconnaissant l’importance de porte-parole qualifiés en période trouble, RTCOMM dispose également d’une école de formation à la parole en public. Son programme de formation aux relations avec les médias est d’ailleurs le seul programme de cette nature reconnu par le ministère de la Sécurité publique du Québec, dans un contexte de communication d’urgence. Ce programme de formation est aussi accrédité par le Barreau du Québec.

Richard Thibault est l’auteur de Devenez champion dans vos communications et de Osez parler en public, publié aux Éditions MultiMondes et de Comment gérer la prochaine crise, édité chez Transcontinental, dans la Collection Entreprendre. Praticien reconnu de la gestion des risques et de crise, il est accrédité par la Disaster Recovery Institute International (DRII).

Spécialités : Expert en positionnement stratégique, gestion des risques, communications de crise, continuité des affaires, formation à la parole en public.

http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=46704908&locale=fr_FR&trk=tyah

** Article en reprise

Enhanced by Zemanta

Cinq (5) principes simples et universels de saine gouvernance ? *


Quels sont les principes fondamentaux de la bonne gouvernance ? Voilà un sujet bien d’actualité, une question fréquemment posée, laquelle appelle, trop souvent, des réponses complexes et peu utiles pour ceux qui siègent sur des conseils d’administration.

L’article de Jo Iwasaki, paru sur le site du NewStateman, a l’avantage de résumer très succinctement les cinq (5) grands principes qui doivent animer et inspirer les administrateurs de sociétés.

Les principes évoqués dans l’article sont simples et directs; ils peuvent même paraître simplistes mais, à mon avis, ils devraient servir de puissants guides de référence à tous les administrateurs de sociétés.

Les cinq principes retenus dans l’article sont les suivants :

Un solide engagement du conseil (leadership);

Une grande capacité d’action liée au mix de compétences, expertises et savoir être;

Une reddition de compte efficace envers les parties prenantes;

Un objectif de création de valeur et une distribution équitable entre les principaux artisans de la réussite;

De solides valeurs d’intégrité et de transparence susceptibles de faire l’objet d’un examen minutieux de la part des parties prenantes.

« What board members need to remind themselves is that they are collectively responsible for the long-term success of their company. This may sound obvious but it is not always recognised ».

What are the fundamental principles of corporate governance ?

Our suggestion is to get back to the fundamental principles of good governance which board members should bear in mind in carrying out their responsibilities. If there are just a few, simple and short principles, board members can easily refer to them when making decisions without losing focus. Such a process should be open and dynamic.

Institute of Chartered Accountants in England ...
Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In ICAEW’s  recent paper (The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales) What are the overarching principles of corporate governance?, we proposed five such principles of corporate governance.

Leadership

An effective board should head each company. The Board should steer the company to meet its business purpose in both the short and long term.

Capability

The Board should have an appropriate mix of skills, experience and independence to enable its members to discharge their duties and responsibilities effectively.

Accountability

The Board should communicate to the company’s shareholders and other stakeholders, at regular intervals, a fair, balanced and understandable assessment of how the company is achieving its business purpose and meeting its other responsibilities.

Sustainability

The Board should guide the business to create value and allocate it fairly and sustainably to reinvestment and distributions to stakeholders, including shareholders, directors, employees and customers.

Integrity

The Board should lead the company to conduct its business in a fair and transparent manner that can withstand scrutiny by stakeholders.

We kept them short, with purpose, but we also kept them aspirational. None of them should be a surprise – they might be just like you have on your board. Well, why not share and exchange our ideas – the more we debate, the better we remember the principles which guide our owbehaviour.

 

______________________________________________________

De son côté, l’Ordre des administrateurs agréés du Québec (OAAQ) a retenu six (6) valeurs fondamentales qui devraient guider les membres dans l’accomplissement de leurs tâches de professionnels. Il est utile de les rappeler dans ce billet :

Transparence 

La transparence laisse paraître la réalité tout entière, sans qu’elle ne soit altérée ou biaisée. Il n’existe d’autre principe plus vertueux que la transparence de l’acte administratif par l’administrateur qui exerce un pouvoir au nom de son détenteur; celui qui est investi d’un pouvoir doit rendre compte de ses actes à son auteur.

Essentiellement, l’administrateur doit rendre compte de sa gestion au mandant ou autre personne ou groupe désigné, par exemple, à un conseil d’administration, à un comité de surveillance ou à un vérificateur. L’administrateur doit également agir de façon transparente envers les tiers ou les préposés pouvant être affectés par ses actes dans la mesure où le mandant le permet et qu’il n’en subit aucun préjudice.

Continuité

La continuité est ce qui permet à l’administration de poursuivre ses activités sans interruption. Elle implique l’obligation du mandataire de passer les pouvoirs aux personnes et aux intervenants désignés pour qu’ils puissent remplir leurs obligations adéquatement.

La continuité englobe aussi une perspective temporelle. L’administrateur doit choisir des avenues et des solutions qui favorisent la survie ou la croissance à long terme de la société qu’il gère. En lien avec la saine gestion, l’atteinte des objectifs à court terme ne doit pas menacer la viabilité d’une organisation à plus long terme.

Efficience

L’efficience allie efficacité, c’est-à-dire, l’atteinte de résultats et l’optimisation des ressources dans la pose d’actes administratifs. L’administrateur efficient vise le rendement optimal de la société à sa charge et maximise l’utilisation des ressources à sa disposition, dans le respect de l’environnement et de la qualité de vie.

Conscient de l’accès limité aux ressources, l’administrateur met tout en œuvre pour les utiliser avec diligence, parcimonie et doigté dans le but d’atteindre les résultats anticipés. L’absence d’une utilisation judicieuse des ressources constitue une négligence, une faute qui porte préjudice aux commettants.

Équilibre

L’équilibre découle de la juste proportion entre force et idées opposées, d’où résulte l’harmonie contributrice de la saine gestion des sociétés. L’équilibre se traduit chez l’administrateur par l’utilisation dynamique de moyens, de contraintes et de limites imposées par l’environnement en constante évolution.

Pour atteindre l’équilibre, l’administrateur dirigeant doit mettre en place des mécanismes permettant de répartir et balancer l’exercice du pouvoir. Cette pratique ne vise pas la dilution du pouvoir, mais bien une répartition adéquate entre des fonctions nécessitant des compétences et des habiletés différentes.

Équité

L’équité réfère à ce qui est foncièrement juste. Plusieurs applications en lien avec l’équité sont enchâssées dans la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés de la Loi canadienne sur les droits de la personne et dans la Charte québécoise des droits et libertés de la personne. L’administrateur doit faire en sorte de gérer en respect des lois afin de prévenir l’exercice abusif ou arbitraire du pouvoir.

Abnégation

L’abnégation fait référence à une personne qui renonce à tout avantage ou intérêt personnel autre que ceux qui lui sont accordés par contrat ou établis dans le cadre de ses fonctions d’administrateur.

__________________________________________

* En reprise

Articles reliés au sujet :

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Les PDG d’OBNL doivent-ils (ou doivent-elles) être membres de leurs C.A. ? *


Quels sont les pratiques exemplaires de gouvernance eu égard à l’appartenance des PDG (DG/CEO) aux conseils d’administration de leurs organisations, plus particulièrement des OBNL ?

C’est l’une des recherches les plus effectuées sur Google avec plus de cinq millions de références reliées à ce sujet… On note également des discussions très animées sur les groupes de discussion LinkedIn, tels que Non-Profit Management Professionals.

C’est un sujet très populaire et, comme vous vous en doutez, les avis diffèrent largement en fonction du (1) type d’organisation, (1) de son histoire, (3) de sa mission et (4) des obligations règlementaires.

Dans certaines organisations à but non lucratif, le ou la PDG siège au conseil d’administration mais, à mon avis, ce n’est pas le cas pour la plupart des associations de bénévoles, des fondations et des entreprises philanthropiques. Une recherche rapide montre que les PDG ne siègent pas sur des entreprises telles que la Croix Rouge canadienne, le Festival d’été de Québec, Centraide du grand Montréal, le Club Musical, l’OSQ, Musique de chambre à Sainte-Pétronille, l’Ordre des administrateurs agréés du Québec, pour n’en nommer que quelques-unes.

Français : Sainte Prétonille, Île d'Orléans, p...
Français : Sainte Prétonille, Île d’Orléans, province de Québec, Canada (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Généralement, si la législation ou la réglementation l’autorise, c’est au conseil d’administration de décider si le ou la PDG a le statut de membre du C.A., avec plein droit de vote, ou sans droit de vote. On observe que certaines législations américaines (la Californie, notamment) ne permettent pas aux PDG de voter à titre de membres du conseil. Au Québec, c’est le cas du CLD de Québec, par exemple.

Dans les sociétés d’état québécoises, les PDG sont nommé(e)s par le gouvernement sur recommandation du C.A.; les PDG siègent habituellement de plein droit sur les conseils d’administration. Dans le monde municipal, les DG ne sont pas membres des conseils municipaux, des MRC et des CRÉ.

Comme on le constate, un tour d’horizon rapide indique qu’il y a plusieurs possibilités : (1) le ou la PDG est membre à part entière du C.A., (2) le ou la PDG est membre du C.A., mais sans droit de vote, (3) le ou la PDG n’est pas membre du C.A. Dans presque tous les cas cependant, les PDG assistent aux réunions du conseil à titre de personnes ressource, même sans être membres du C.A.

Afin de bien départager les rôles complémentaires exercés par les membres du conseil et les membres de la direction et éviter les conflits qui pourraient naître dans certaines zones d’intérêt, notamment dans le domaine lié aux rémunérations, il m’apparaît être une bonne pratique de gouvernance de ne pas accorder un statut de membre du conseil d’administration à un ou une PDG.

Pour les organisations qui vivent avec une situation particulière, il serait souhaitable que le C.A., par l’intermédiaire du ou de la PCA, mette en œuvre une stratégie de changement (à plus ou moins long terme) pour revoir cet aspect de leur gouvernance.

L’article ci-dessous publié par Eugene Fram, Professeur émérite au Saunders College of Business du Rochester Institute of Technology, explique un peu la situation. Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus.

Voici un extrait de l’article :

Should a Nonprofit CEO Be a Voting Member of the Board of Directors ?

Here are the issues as I see them:

State Legislation: Most nonprofit charters are issued by states, and it appears that the vast majority of American nonprofits are governed by these regulations. California does not permit the CEO to be a voting member. Until a recent change, New York did allow the CEO to become a board member. The motivations behind the legislation center on preventing a CEO developing conflicts-of interest, especially as they relate to salary decisions. Also, there is a feeling among some nonprofit directors that the board must be the « boss. » This attitude can even go as far as one nonprofit board member’s comment: « We tell the CEO exactly what to do. »

It appears that the restriction is considered a « best practice. » Some nonprofits move around it by naming the CEO an ex-official member of the board, a member without a vote. However, there is a « better practice, » available where permitted by legislation.

Developing An Even Better Practice in a Nonprofit

Start At The Top: Allow the CEO to hold the title of President/CEO and allow the senior volunteer to become board chair. This signals to staff and public that the board has full faith in the CEO as a professional manager. In addition, the change absolves the senior volunteer of potential financial liability, not unlike the volunteer who unwittingly received a $200,000 bill from the IRS because it appeared he had strong control of a bankrupt nonprofit’s finances and operations.

Ask The CEO: Make certain the CEO is willing and able to accept full responsibility for operations. Not all CEOs, designated as Executive Directors, want the increased responsibilities attached to such a title and to become a board member. These managers only feel comfortable with having the board micromanage operations and often openly discuss their reservations.

The CEO Becomes A Communications Nexus: Under the CEO’s guidance, board-staff contact takes place on task forces, strategic planning projects, at board orientations and at organization celebrations. It openly discourages the staff making « end runs » to board members, not a small problem in community-focused nonprofits

Brand Image: As a board director, the CEO can be more active in fund development. The board position and the title can easily help the CEO to build the organization’s public brand image through the clear public perceptions of the board’s choice to lead the organization. This provides leverage to make greater use of the board-CEO relationship required to develop funds. It can allow the CEO to be the spokesperson for the organization’s mission.

Peer Not Powerhouse: Probably descending from early religious nonprofits, its personnel may be seen by part of the public as not being « worldly. » They must be over-viewed by a group of laypersons that encounters the real world daily. The CEO, as a voting member and a team peer, takes on increasing importance to reducing these attitudes. As long as the CEO works successfully as a peer not a powerhouse, there should be substantial benefits to the organization.

_____________________________________

* En reprise

Articles reliés :
Enhanced by Zemanta

Obtenir un siège sur le C.A. d’une grande entreprise | Difficile … même pour une gestionnaire expérimentée ! *


L’article de J.T. O’Donnell est très direct et, possiblement, assez juste ! Personne ne me fera dire qu’obtenir un siège sur le C.A. d’une grande entreprise cotée en bourse est une chose facile … même pour une personne expérimentée qui possède déjà un poste de haute direction ! Non, c’est une avenue qui demande beaucoup, beaucoup de temps, de volonté et de stratégies !

Ainsi que l’auteure le mentionne, en plus de l’expérience, la bonne …, il faut beaucoup de chance car vous n’êtes pas le seul, ou la seule, à vouloir accéder aux postes de commandes (sur les C.A.). Vous devez avoir un solide réseau de contacts professionnels et faire connaître votre disponibilité, ce que plusieurs refusent de faire parce qu’ils ou elles ont peur de l’échec.

De plus, vous devez avoir les « bonnes connections », le bon profil LinkedIn, la bonne réputation sur les réseaux sociaux, le bon parcours d’emploi dans les grandes organisations, le bon mentor, le bon timing, la bonne formation académique et, de plus en plus, la bonne formation en gouvernance de sociétés.

Si vous êtes intéressés par un poste sur un C.A. prestigieux (à votre retraite, par exemple) préparez-vous en conséquence en utilisant une démarche structurée et en le laissant savoir dans votre milieu, auprès des firmes de recrutement, sur les réseaux sociaux et auprès d’administrateurs chevronnés. Même si vous êtes le fils ou la fille du propriétaire, ce ne sera pas « une marche dans le parc ».

Je vous invite à lire ce bref article qui vous expliquera quelques barrières à l’entrée… Et n’oubliez pas de lire les commentaires à la fin !

Voici un bref extrait de l’article :

 

Board Seats: Elusive Carrots? (4 Reasons Why)

In the last several weeks, I’ve had three separate conversations with smart, proven C-suite members – all men in their late 50s/early 60s. They’re all credentialed and have previous board experience. Each has been aggressively seeking executive board positions over the last 18 months. Not one of them has been successful. Their only solace? Colleagues trying to do the same are failing too.

LinkedIn One Percent Most Viewed Profiles Email
LinkedIn One Percent Most Viewed Profiles Email (Photo credit: DavidErickson)

As it turns out, more than a few executive Baby Boomers are looking to grab coveted roles on corporate boards. And, why not? Getting paid five-figures to attend quarterly meetings and do some business strategy work seems like a great deal. However, based on my discussions with industry professionals over the last 10 months, for even the most proven executives, it might be easier to win the lottery than to land a board seat. There’s clearly a supply and demand issue – too many senior, white, male executives for too few board positions. Plus, to add insult to injury, according to Jack Welch, some of the executives getting those board seats aren’t very effective.

If you’re an executive who had a board seat(s) in mind for the next phase of your career, here are some things to ponder…

 

 

____________________________________

* En reprise

Quels sont les grands enjeux de gouvernance ? | Six thèmes chauds ! *


En rappel, vous trouverez, ci-joint, une excellente publication de la NACD (National Association of Corporate Directors) qui présente les grands défis et les enjeux qui attendent les administrateurs de sociétés au cours des prochaines années.

Ce document est un recueil de textes publiés par les partenaires de la NACD : Heidrick & Struggles International, Inc., KPMG’s Audit Committee Institute, Marsh & McLennan Companies, NASDAQ OMX, Pearl Meyer & Partners et Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP.

Vous y trouverez un ensemble d’articles très pertinents sur les sujets de l’heure en gouvernance. J’ai déjà publié un billet sur ce sujet le 23 juin 2013, en référence à cette publication.

Chaque année, la NACD se livre à cet exercice et publie un document très prisé !

Voici comment les firmes expertes se sont répartis les thèmes les plus « hot » en gouvernance. Bonne lecture.

Boardroom, Tremont Grand
Boardroom, Tremont Grand (Photo credit: Joel Abroad)

(1) What to Do When an Activist Investor Comes Calling par Heidrick & Struggle

(2) KPMG’s Audit Committee Priorities for 2013 par KPMG’s Audit Committee Institute

(3) Board Risk Checkup—Are You Ready for the Challenges Ahead ? par Marsh & McLennan Companies

(4) Boardroom Discussions par NASDAQ OMX

(5) Paying Executives for Driving Long-Term Success par Pearl Meyer & Partners

(6) What Boards Should Focus on in 2013 par Weil, Gotshal and Manges, LLP

NACD Insights and Analysis – Governance Challenges: 2013 and Beyond

Today, directors are operating in a new environment. Shareholders, regulators, and stakeholders have greater influence on the boardroom than ever before. In addition, risks and crisis situations are occurring with greater frequency and amplitude. Directors have a responsibility to ensure their companies are prepared for these challenges—present and future.This compendium provides insights and practical guidance from the nation’s leading boardroom experts—the National Association of Corporate Directors’ (NACD’s) strategic content partners—each recognized as a thought leader in their respective fields of corporate governance.

_______________________________________

* En reprise

Article relié :

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Pouls de la profession | PMI


Voici un documentent recommandé par Denis Lefort, CPA, CA, CIA, CRMA, présentant  le rapport annuel intitulé Pouls de la profession (Pulse of the profession) publié par le Project Management Institute concernant les enjeux en matière de gestion de projets et de programmes.

Ce sondage annuel met en lumière des enjeux de taille, notamment celui à l’effet que 44% des initiatives stratégiques ne sont pas fructueuses en raison de projets non alignés avec la stratégie organisationnelle.

Qui sait, peut-être que certaines observations seront utiles pour la gestion de votre service d’audit interne….

Bonne lecture!

http://www.pmi.org/~/media/PDF/Business-Solutions/PMI_Pulse_2014.ashx