Voici un article de Richard Leblanc, avocat, expert-conseil en gouvernance et professeur-chercheur, publié récemment dans le HuffPost Business Canada, qui alimentera les discussions portant sur les changements requis en gouvernance au Canada.
L’auteur présente un changement réglementaire qui permettrait à des actionnaires d’avoir accès à la circulaire d’information pour fins de votation aux assemblées annuelles. Présentement, les actionnaires n’ont pas la possibilité de faire inscrire des candidatures d’administrateurs dans la circulaire de la direction; cela est du ressort du conseil d’administration qui fait des propositions de candidatures basées sur les recommandations d’un comité de gouvernance formé de membres du C.A.
Cette façon de fonctionner, selon Richard Leblanc, a pour résultat de bloquer la nomination de nouveaux administrateurs issus de la base actionnariale, ouvrant ainsi la voie à de grandes batailles d’opinions lorsque les actionnaires-investisseurs activistes exigent des changements à la gouvernance des sociétés.
La proposition de Richard Leblanc permettrait l’inclusion de candidatures d’actionnaires dans le prospectus de sollicitation à certaines conditions :
(1) L’actionnaire ou le groupe d’actionnaires doit posséder un minimum d’actions dans l’entreprise (disons environ 3 %);
(2) Les actions doivent avoir été acquises depuis une certaine période de temps (disons trois ans);
(3) Les actionnaires peuvent soumettre annuellement des candidatures d’administrateurs jusqu’à un maximum de 25 % des administrateurs proposés dans la circulaire (dans le cas d’une élection non contestée, c’est-à-dire dans le cas où un changement de contrôle n’est pas envisagé).
L’auteur est très conscient que le management des entreprises est susceptible de résister à un tel changement car il ne veut pas de surprises (le management veut conserver son pouvoir d’influence dans le processus …). De plus, le C.A. veut conserver ses prérogatives de choisir ses pairs !
Que pensez-vous de cette approche ? En quoi celle-ci peut-elle améliorer la gouvernance ? Les actionnaires minoritaires auront-ils un rôle significativement plus crucial à jouer ? Est-ce le bon moyen pour susciter une plus grande participation des actionnaires ?
L’argumentation pour les changements proposés est développée dans l’article de Richard Leblanc présenté ci-dessous.
Bonne lecture ! Je souhaite avoir votre opinion sur cette approche, à première vue, favorable aux actionnaires.
I teach my students and counsel board clients that shareholders elect directors; directors appoint managers; directors are accountable to shareholders; and managers are accountable to directors. This is largely theoretical.
Here is the reality: Shareholders: (i) cannot select directors; (ii) cannot communicate with directors; and (iii) cannot remove directors, by law, without great cost and difficulty. Therefore, directors are largely homogenous groups who are selected by themselves, or, worse yet, management.
Addressing the foregoing is the one piece of reform that will change corporate governance and performance for the better. The rest is, as they say, window dressing.
I have encouraged institutional investors and regulators to consider advocating what is known as « proxy access. » This means that a shareholder, or a group of shareholders, who (i) own a modest, minimum threshold of shares (say 3 per cent, although the percentage could be higher or lower, or floating, depending on the size of the company); (ii) for a period of time (say three years, although the time period could be shorter); (iii) can select up to 25 per cent of proposed directors, of the total board size, in an uncontested election (meaning a change of control is not desired by the shareholders) in a given year.
When shareholders « select » their nominees for the board, these directors would be alongside, in the management proxy circular, in alphabetical order, with profile parity (short bios and areas of competency), the management slate of directors. Management would be obliged to include shareholder-nominated directors, at a cost to the company, not shareholders, if the above ownership and time requirements are met. There would be no costly proxy battles or dissident slates. There would be no undue influence by management to marginalize shareholder-nominated directors within or outside of the proxy. Rules of the road will be set.
Then, shareholders get to decide, as they should, on the best directors from among the management-proposed and the shareholder-proposed directors. Ideally, the selection should be as blind or neutral as possible. The focus should be solely on the qualifications, competencies and track record of the proposed directors for election at that company. May the best directors win, as should be the case in any election, versus a slate of management-nominated directors, which is the case now. Under this new regime, there will be winners and losers. The practical effect may be that legacy or unqualified directors may withdraw from this scrutiny, as Canadian Pacific directors did at the time of shareholder Pershing Square’s involvement. This is not an undesired outcome and creates a market for the most qualified directors to rise to the top.
When proxy access was proposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the U.S., management and lawyers who work for management used shareholder money to fight proxy access proposed under Dodd Frank, and won in the U.S. Court of Appeals, on the basis of an inadequate cost benefit analysis. Canadian investors and regulators should learn from this experience. Proxy access now is left to companies on a one-off basis, rather than being system wide. Meaningful proxy access has only occurred at a small number of companies as a result. The SEC should revisit proxy access. Industry Canada is currently looking at implementing proxy access at the 5 per cent level for all federally incorporated companies.
Opponents to proxy access argue that shareholders selecting directors will propose special purpose directors or directors who lack the background or experience. The evidence is the opposite. Shareholders are better at proposing directors who have the shareholder track record and industry expertise that the current board lacks. Recall Canadian Pacific, where not a single director possessed rail experience prior to shareholder involvement. There are other examples at Hess, Office Depot, Darden, Bob Evans, Abercrombie and Occidental Petroleum (see Field Experience Helps Win Board Seats), where shareholder-advocated directors were either better than incumbent ones, or caused the renewal of management-advocated ones. A director qualification dispute is welcome and will focus the lens on competencies of directors, including industry expertise, which is a good thing. Ann C. Mule and Charles Elson report in « Directors and Boards » that « One study concludes that more powerful CEOs tend to avoid independent expert directors. »
Herein lies the real resistance to proxy access: Management does not want it, and, the record shows, will fight vigorously to resist it. Management-retained advocates hired to oppose proxy access should disclose whom their client is. Directors however, when deciding to support proxy access, or not, should not be beholden to management, nor their advisors, nor act out of self-interest in entrenching themselves, but should be guided only by the best interests of the company, including its shareholders.
There is evidence that the market values strong proxy access positively, leading to an increase in shareholder wealth. If a director possesses the independence of mind, and the competency and skills to serve on the board, they should welcome proxy access. It will mean that the under performing directors on the board will be ferreted out, and current directors can avoid this uncomfortable task. Shareholders and the new competitive market for corporate directors will do it for them.
Tracy E. Houston* est présidente de Board Resources Services; elle possède une solide expérience des conseils d’administration et de de la consultation en gouvernance.
Dans le cadre de ses activités de consultation, elle a souvent l’occasion d’orienter les candidats vers des postes de membres de conseils d’administration d’organisation publiques (cotées). Dans ses fonctions, elle est en mesure de fournir certaines recommandations aux futurs administrateurs.
Voici donc, selon elle, les sept principaux défis que les administrateurs de sociétés potentiels doivent envisager. Bonne lecture !
Over the last few years, I have heard from a number of board candidates about their biggest challenges. I have dug through my notes to share these. My hope is that the definitions and tips will bring further insights that will leverage and prioritize your time and efforts to gain a board seat.
1. Time
Boards move slowly. This makes keeping in touch essential for director candidates. Some become discouraged, lose momentum, or completely stop networking. Those who remain consistent in their networking and communication efforts have an advantage.
2. A Clear Focus
The board world is large and mysterious. Without a well-defined board-level value proposition of what you bring to a board—one that provides focus and definition—then, time and energy is spent in a mud-on-the-wall approach and drains any sense of confidence that could be used to capitalize on potential opportunities. This is not just about having a good resume, you need to know how you can bring value, to what size company boards, and in what industry.
3. Priorities that Have Impact
There is a diverse set of stakeholders that are a part of the networking to gain a board seat. This is a complex business ecosystem in which to execute and can cause indecisiveness. Stakeholders, once defined, must be weighted for level of importance and leveraged to help you gain visibility.
4. Relearn
Boards are in a time of transition in defining who will be the next director. For the transformations happening now and in the future, your talents need to be closely aligned with the agendas and priorities with the boards on your target list. Build a strategic message about why you should be their next director.
5. Fragmentation
The market is producing a number of new ways to identify the next generation candidate. This makes it hard to know where you need to be and to stay on top of the trends. Ensure your reading and networking time gains key information in this area.
6. Foundational Changes
There are three foundational changes needed for a 21st century director candidate:
(1) Develop the skills, routines, and tools to truly leverage your potential from social media.
(2) Create and champion your brand or value proposition—it must be grounded in tangible differences.
(3) Deeply understand the boards you have targeted and create insights that naturally engage those to whom you present yourself as a board candidate. Be thoughtful so that the assumptions you make are not ones locked in the past.
7. Breaking Through the Clutter
Once on a short list for a director seat, be on your “A” game. Ask the right questions before the interviewing process to help shape your contributions in the interviews. Be consistent and have a few themes or main points developed.
_______________________________________
*Tracy E. Houston is the president of Board Resources Services, LLC. She is a refined specialist in board consulting and executive coaching with a heartfelt passion for rethinking performance, teams and the boardroom.
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 !
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.
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.
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 !
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.
Aujourd’hui, je veux vous faire partager le point de vue de Martin Lipton*, expert dans les questions de fusion et d’acquisition ainsi que dans les affaires se rapportant à la gouvernance des entreprises, sur les enjeux des C.A.. L’auteur met l’accent sur les pratiques exemplaires en gouvernance et sur les comportements attendus des conseils d’administration.
Ce texte, paru sur le blogue du Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance,résume très bien les devoirs et les responsabilités des administrateurs de sociétés de nos jours et renforce la nécessité, pour les conseils d’administration, de gérer les situations d’offres hostiles.
Bonne lecture ! Êtes-vous d’accord avec les attentes énoncées ? Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus.
The ever evolving challenges facing corporate boards prompts an updated snapshot of what is expected from the board of directors of a major public company—not just the legal rules, but also the aspirational “best practices” that have come to have almost as much influence on board and company behavior.
Boards are expected to:
Establish the appropriate “Tone at the Top” to actively cultivate a corporate culture that gives high priority to ethical standards, principles of fair dealing, professionalism, integrity, full compliance with legal requirements and ethically sound strategic goals.
Choose the CEO, monitor his or her performance and have a succession plan in case the CEO becomes unavailable or fails to meet performance expectations.
Maintain a close relationship with the CEO and work with management to encourage entrepreneurship, appropriate risk taking, and investment to promote the long-term success of the company (despite the constant pressures for short-term performance) and to navigate the dramatic changes in domestic and world-wide economic, social and political conditions. Approve the company’s annual operating plan and long-term strategy, monitor performance and provide advice to management as a strategic partner.
Develop an understanding of shareholder perspectives on the company and foster long-term relationships with shareholders, as well as deal with the requests of shareholders for meetings to discuss governance and the business portfolio and operating strategy. Evaluate the demands of corporate governance activists, make changes that the board believes will improve governance and resist changes that the board believes will not be constructive. Work with management and advisors to review the company’s business and strategy, with a view toward minimizing vulnerability to attacks by activist hedge funds.
Organize the business, and maintain the collegiality, of the board and its committees so that each of the increasingly time-consuming matters that the board and board committees are expected to oversee receives the appropriate attention of the directors.
Plan for and deal with crises, especially crises where the tenure of the CEO is in question, where there has been a major disaster or a risk management crisis, or where hard-earned reputation is threatened by a product failure or a socio-political issue. Many crises are handled less than optimally because management and the board have not been proactive in planning to deal with crises, and because the board cedes control to outside counsel and consultants.
Determine executive compensation to achieve the delicate balance of enabling the company to recruit, retain and incentivize the most talented executives, while also avoiding media and populist criticism of “excessive” compensation and taking into account the implications of the “say-on-pay” vote.
Face the challenge of recruiting and retaining highly qualified directors who are willing to shoulder the escalating work load and time commitment required for board service, while at the same time facing pressure from shareholders and governance advocates to embrace “board refreshment”, including issues of age, length of service, independence, gender and diversity. Provide compensation for directors that fairly reflects the significantly increased time and energy that they must now spend in serving as board and board committee members. Evaluate the board’s performance, and the performance of the board committees and each director.
Determine the company’s reasonable risk appetite (financial, safety, cyber, political, reputation, etc.), oversee the implementation by management of state-of-the-art standards for managing risk, monitor the management of those risks within the parameters of the company’s risk appetite and seek to ensure that necessary steps are taken to foster a culture of risk-aware and risk-adjusted decision-making throughout the organization.
Oversee the implementation by management of state-of-the-art standards for compliance with legal and regulatory requirements, monitor compliance and respond appropriately to “red flags.”
Take center stage whenever there is a proposed transaction that creates a real or perceived conflict between the interests of stockholders and those of management, including takeovers and attacks by activist hedge funds focused on the CEO.
Recognize that shareholder litigation against the company and its directors is part of modern corporate life and should not deter the board from approving a significant acquisition or other material transaction, or rejecting a merger proposal or a hostile takeover bid, all of which is within the business judgment of the board.
Set high standards of social responsibility for the company, including human rights, and monitor performance and compliance with those standards.
Oversee relations with government, community and other constituents.
Review corporate governance guidelines and committee charters and tailor them to promote effective board functioning.
To meet these expectations, it will be necessary for major public companies
(1) to have a sufficient number of directors to staff the requisite standing and special committees and to meet expectations for diversity;
(2) to have directors who have knowledge of, and experience with, the company’s businesses, even if this results in the board having more than one director who is not “independent”;
(3) to have directors who are able to devote sufficient time to preparing for and attending board and committee meetings;
(4) to provide the directors with regular tutorials by internal and external experts as part of expanded director education; and
(5) to maintain a truly collegial relationship among and between the company’s senior executives and the members of the board that enhances the board’s role both as strategic partner and as monitor.
________________________________________________
* Martin Lipton is a founding partner of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, specializing in mergers and acquisitions and matters affecting corporate policy and strategy
Michael Evans, l’auteur de ce court article publié dans Forbes, montre les nombreux avantages des entreprises (jeunes, petites, familiales, entrepreneuriales …) à recruter un ou quelques administrateurs externes au conseil d’administration.
Les administrateurs externes doivent être judicieusement choisis afin de compter sur leurs expériences du domaine d’affaires ainsi que sur leurs capacités à exposer plus de perspective et de vision.
L’auteur présente également les quatre rôles fondamentaux que les administrateurs externes peuvent contribuer à clarifier.
Voici un extrait de la première partie de l’article. Bonne lecture !
Middle-market companies often operate as small fiefdoms under the control of the king, or to use a business term, the CEO. Very few mid-sized companies have a formal board of directors and for those that do have boards, CEOs tend to populate them with family, friends, and internal management. The theory is that board members do not know the business of the company, cost too much, and often do not provide value. In some cases, those conclusions are often true. But in many cases, the establishment of an effective board and the inclusion of outside board members have saved many a company from ruin.
It is estimated that less than 5 percent of middle-market companies have an established board or advisory board, the primary reason for such a low percentage is that small- and middle-market businesses believe they are smart enough not to need a board, think it is too expensive, or believe it would constrain their decision-making abilities.
With the demands on CEOs — including ongoing regulatory changes, pressure from family and other founders, the rise of new competitors and business models, and the need to transform businesses at an ever-quickening pace — it may be time for you to get some help and add an outside director to your board.
Outside directors bring outside experience and perspective to the board. They keep a watchful eye on the inside directors and on the way the organization is run, and provide guidance as to risk management and good corporate governance practices. Outside directors are often useful in handling disputes between inside directors, or between shareholders and the board.
Selon une étude du The Wall Street Journal publié par Joann S. Lublin, les entreprises qui comptent moins d’administrateurs ont de meilleurs résultats que les entreprises de plus grandes tailles.
Bien qu’il n’y ait pas nécessairement de relation de type cause à effet, il semble assez clair que la tendance est à la diminution de nombre d’administrateurs sur les conseils d’administration des entreprises publiques américaines. Pourquoi en est-il ainsi ?
Il y a de nombreuses raisons dont l’article du WSJ, ci-dessous, traite. Essentiellement, les membres de conseils de petites tailles :
sont plus engagés dans les affaires de l’entité
sont plus portés à aller en profondeur dans l’analyse stratégique
entretiennent des relations plus fréquentes et plus harmonieuses avec la direction
ont plus de possibilités de communiquer entre eux
exercent une surveillance plus étroite des activités de la direction
sont plus décisifs, cohésif et impliqués.
Les entreprises du domaine financier ont traditionnellement des conseils de plus grandes tailles mais, encore là, les plus petits conseils ont de meilleurs résultats.
La réduction de la taille se fait cependant très lentement mais la tendance est résolument à la baisse. Il ne faut cependant pas compter sur la haute direction pour insister sur la diminution de la taille des C.A. car il semblerait que plusieurs PCD s’accommodent très bien d’un C.A. plus imposant !
Il faut cependant réaliser que la réduction du nombre d’administrateurs peut constituer un obstacle à la diversité si l’on ne prend pas en compte cette importante variable. Également, il faut noter que le C.A. doit avoir un président du conseil expérimenté, possédant un fort leadership. Un conseil de petite taille, présidé par une personne inepte, aura des résultats à l’avenant !
Voici deux autres documents, partagés par Richard Leblanc sur son groupe de discussion LinkedIn Boards and Advisors, qui pourraient vous intéresser :
Size counts, especially for boards of the biggest U.S. businesses.
Companies with fewer board members reap considerably greater rewards for their investors, according to a new study by governance researchers GMI Ratings prepared for The Wall Street Journal. Small boards at major corporations foster deeper debates and more nimble decision-making, directors, recruiters and researchers said. Take Apple Inc. In the spring when BlackRock founding partner Sue Wagner was up for a seat on the board of the technology giant, she met nearly every director within just a few weeks. Such screening processes typically take months.
But Apple directors move fast because there only are eight of them. After her speedy vetting, Ms. Wagner joined Apple’s board in July. She couldn’t be reached for comment.
Smaller boards at major corporations have more nimble decision-making processes, directors, recruiters and academic researchers say. Eric Palma
Among companies with a market capitalization of at least $10 billion, typically those with the smallest boards produced substantially better shareholder returns over a three-year period between the spring of 2011 and 2014 when compared with companies with the biggest boards, the GMI analysis of nearly 400 companies showed.
Companies with small boards outperformed their peers by 8.5 percentage points, while those with large boards underperformed peers by 10.85 percentage points. The smallest board averaged 9.5 members, compared with 14 for the biggest. The average size was 11.2 directors for all companies studied, GMI said.
« There’s more effective oversight of management with a smaller board, » said Jay Millen, head of the board and CEO practice for recruiters DHR International. « There’s no room for dead wood. »
Many companies are thinning their board ranks to improve effectiveness, Mr. Millen said. He recently helped a consumer-products business shrink its 10-person board to seven, while bringing on more directors with emerging-markets expertise.
GMI’s results, replicated across 10 industry sectors such as energy, retail, financial services and health care, could have significant implications for corporate governance.
Small boards are more likely to dismiss CEOs for poor performance—a threat that declines significantly as boards grow in numbers, said David Yermack, a finance professor at New York University’s business school who has studied the issue.
It’s tough to pinpoint precisely why board size affects corporate performance, but smaller boards at large-cap companies like Apple and Netflix Inc. appear to be decisive, cohesive and hands-on. Such boards typically have informal meetings and few committees. Apple directors, known for their loyalty to founder Steve Jobs, have forged close ties with CEO Tim Cook, according to a person familiar with the company. Mr. Cook frequently confers with individual directors between board meetings « to weigh the pros and cons of an issue, » an outreach effort that occurs quickly thanks to the board’s slim size, this person said.
Mr. Cook took this approach while mulling whether to recruit Angela Ahrendts, then CEO of luxury-goods company Burberry Group PLC for Apple’s long vacant position of retail chief. Private chats with board members helped him « test the thought » of recruiting her, the person said. She started in April.
Ms. Wagner, Apple’s newest director, replaced a retiring one. The board wants no more than 10 members to keep its flexibility intact, according to the person familiar with the company, adding that even « eye contact and candor change » with more than 10 directors.
Apple returns outperformed technology sector peers by about 37 cumulative percentage points during the three years tracked by GMI. An Apple spokeswoman declined to comment.
Netflix, with seven directors, demonstrated equally strong returns, outperforming sector peers by about 32 percentage points. Board members of the big video-streaming service debate extensively before approving important management moves, said Jay Hoag, its lead independent director.
« We get in-depth, » he said. « That’s easier with a small group. »
Netflix directors spent about nine months discussing a proposed price increase, with some pushing back hard on executives about the need for an increase, Mr. Hoag said. Netflix increased prices this spring for new U.S. customers of the company’s streaming video plan, its first price bump since 2011.
A board twice as big wouldn’t have time for « diving deeper into the business on things that matter, » Mr. Hoag said.
Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, les coordonnées d’un article d’Alan Mak et Andrew Hill sur le Blogue du FT du 2 juillet 2014. Les auteurs se questionnent sur la place des jeunes (millennials) dans les conseils d’administration du futur.
Vous y découvrirez plusieurs raisons qui militent en faveur de la nomination de jeunes au C.A. (Mak) ainsi que la prise de position d’un auteur qui ne croit pas à la contribution des jeunes sur des C.A., principalement à cause de leur manque d’expérience (Hill). Comme vous vous en doutez, je partage entièrement le point de vue de Mak qui propose l’engagement des jeunes sur les conseils.
La lecture des arguments pour et des arguments contre est intéressante. Qu’en pensez-vous ?
Lord Davies in his report “Women on Boards” rightly said the best boards contain “a mix of voices [that] must include women”. It should also include millennials.
Today’s rapidly changing marketplace is more complex than ever and businesses that want to stay competitive, especially in customer-facing sectors, need Generation Y to help them deal with the big trends, from the rise of digitally empowered consumers to the febrile post-financial crisis business environment.
The business case for younger directors is strong. Generation Y, also known as millennials, are aged 18-35 and, at 2bn people, are the world’s biggest demographic group. By 2018 they will have the biggest spending power of any age group, Deloitte says. And three in four millennials say they influence the purchasing decisions of other generations. So, every business needs to understand Generation Y’s behaviour and aspirations, and younger, suitably qualified directors can be their champion in the boardroom.
Meanwhile, better decisions are made when companies draw on the widest possible range of talent regardless of age, and when directors bring to bear the broadest range of experiences, perspectives and lifestyles. In this context, “diversity” must include generational diversity, not just gender diversity. Adding a Generation Y perspective can be a powerful antidote to age-related groupthink. For example, millennials are more likely to take a longer-term approach to risk taking because they have to live with the financial and reputational consequences of failure when older colleagues may not.
The financial crisis caused an irreversible cultural and structural shift. Corporations from banks to supermarkets are redefining their values and business models to become more accountable and sustainable. As David Jones explains in his book Who Cares Wins, for business, “the new price of doing well is doing good”.
Generation Y instinctively understands this new paradigm, and they are best placed to act as boardroom cultural translators.
Such rapid cultural change is itself largely driven by fast technological and demographic change. Social media have given today’s consumers more information about how companies do business than ever before. Whereas the industrial revolution empowered the corporation, the digital revolution empowered the consumer. As Jones observes, “ … there’s not been another time in history when the youngest people understood the most about what is going on”. Companies that fail to understand this new “good business zeitgeist” find their brands and share price diminished.
Generation Y directors add value by helping their companies to navigate this volatile, Twitter-driven landscape. That is why Starbucks appointed social media expert Clara Shih, then 29, to its main board.
Meanwhile, globalisation has created increasingly complex decision-making environments that require new skills and fresh insights – for example, into emerging markets and new technologies – that were simply not around, or as needed in the past. Every company must now balance Gen X’s experience with Gen Y’s inherently global outlook, digital aptitude and commitment to life-long learning. Putting younger leaders into the boardroom helps that development while sending a wider message that an organisation rewards talent and ambition.
Pessimists may say younger figures lack the industry knowledge or operational experience to step into the boardroom. These qualities can all be developed and naysayers should listen to Peter Cave-Gibbs, former London head of recruiter Heidrick & Struggles: “Board chairmen want outstanding leaders who can help their business succeed in today’s global marketplace. Gen Y talent is highly educated, multilingual, and comfortable with change and technology. They are changing the way business is done: age is just a number in business now.”
. . .
No
Andrew Hill
Boards are changing. The devastating economic and financial crisis has exposed the risk of groupthink in the boardroom and the weaknesses in established corporate governance, as pursued by establishment people, who, let’s face it, are still predominantly “white, male and stale”. Business logic and a simple sense of equity dictate that the gender and ethnic balance in the boardroom should alter. Research increasingly suggests that diverse teams come up with better ideas.
So, if more women and people from ethnic minorities are becoming non-executive directors, for these and other excellent reasons, shouldn’t large companies invite more young people to step up to the board?
No, they shouldn’t, and here’s why.
First, the immediate priority for large companies ought to be to assemble a balanced board with an accumulation of experience that will help supervise the executive team. By definition, younger candidates have less experience.
What ambitious and talented young people know could still be useful to the board and to the company. Millennials may help a consumer products company tailor its offering to younger customers.
While the boardroom dinosaurs are struggling with their iPads, they could help a natural resources company to understand coming risks to its reputation (posed, for example, by social media protests). But these contributions can be sought in better and more efficient ways than by inviting a representative into the boardroom. Smart companies are already tapping social media – the natural heir to focus groups – for a quantitative assessment of youth trends. Phil Clarke, Tesco’s chief executive, has a 20-something staffer in his office, precisely to keep him updated on such trends.
I am as suspicious as anyone of the power of vested interests. When a headhunter recently told me that a boardroom should “not be trying to reflect the demographic” and warned that 20-something non-executives with little corporate experience might “throw in grenades that are inappropriate”, I was almost ready to help them pull the pin.
Boards do need shaking up and young people with proven records of relevant achievement could have what it takes to hold their own in a boardroom packed with company veterans. But these candidates will be few and far between. Youth per se is no qualification.
Second, a bigger priority for boards is to reflect the gender and ethnic mix around them without compromising on experience. I would choose, say, a female executive informed by diverse experiences ahead of a promising younger businessperson with only youth on his or her side.
Finally, if companies want to draw on the energy and inspiration brought by younger people – and they should – they should employ them and promote them to executive roles. It may not have dawned on aspiring Gen Y non-executives, but the board is not the engine of creativity, innovation and strategy at big companies: it is a regulator of the engine, and an important sounding board for ideas brought by the executive team.
Most entrepreneurial young people I know would simply be frustrated by boardroom politics and bluster. Those young managers who feel they should start their non-executive portfolio in their 20s have got their careers back to front: they should be directing their best efforts to founding start-ups, or at least changing the way companies work, not the way they are supervised. If it is revolution they seek, they stand a better chance of pursuing it from the bottom up than from the top down.
Voici un bref condensé préparé par Roger Baker, de IoD (UK) et diffusé par Béatrice RICHEZ-BAUM, secrétaire générale de European Confederation of Directors’ Associations (ecoDa), relatif aux nouvelles directives contenues dans un code de conduite à l’intention des firmes conseils en recrutement de cadres et d’administrateurs de sociétés.
Ce nouveau code, dit volontaire, met l’accent sur la reconnaissance des efforts des sociétés du FSTE 350 eu égard à la planification de la relève des administrateurs, notamment des candidates féminines. Cette approche « soft » rejoint tout à fait le courant de pensée britannique en matière de changement dans le domaine de la gouvernance corporative (Comply or Explain).
The new Code of Conduct for Executive Search firms
The new Enhanced Voluntary Code of Conduct for Executive Search Firms gives recognition to those firms who have been most successful in the recruitment of women to FSTE 350 boards. It builds on the terms of the standard voluntary code and will also recognize the outstanding efforts of search firms working to build the pipeline of FTSE board directors of the future.
The Enhanced Voluntary Code was drawn up by the search firms themselves working with the Davies Steering Group. It contains 10 new provisions, from launching initiatives to support aspiring women to sharing of best practice and running awareness programmes within their own firms.
Under the new provisions, it is specified that:
Search firms should support chairmen and their nomination committees in developing medium-term succession plans that identify the balance of experience and skills that they will need to recruit for over the next two to three years to maximize board effectiveness. This time frame will allow a broader view to be established by looking at the whole board, not individual hires; this should facilitate increased flexibility in candidate specifications.
When taking a specific brief, search firms should look at overall board composition and, in the context of the board’s agreed aspirational goals on gender balance and diversity more broadly, explore with the chairman if recruiting women directors is a priority on this occasion.
During the selection process, search firms should provide appropriate support, in particular to first-time candidates, to prepare them for interviews and guide them through the process.
Search firms should provide advice to clients on best practice in induction and ‘onboarding’ processes to help new board directors settle quickly into their roles.
Voici un lien qui vous donnera plus de détails sur ce nouveau code ainsi qu’une vidéo de Viviane Reeding sur l’importance à accorder à l’accroissement du nombre de candidatures féminines aux conseils d’administration des sociétés européennes :
Philippe MASSÉ, agent de développement de l’organisation Leadership Montréal| Conférence régionale des élus de Montréal, m’a récemment fait parvenir les résultats d’une étude réalisée sur les profils d’administrateurs recherchés par les OBNL de la région de Montréal.
Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, l’introduction au document en guise de mise en contexte.
Bonne lecture. Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus.
Du 21 janvier au 7 février 2014, la Conférence régionale des élus (CRÉ) de Montréal et certains de ses partenaires ont invité des représentants d’organisations à but non lucratif (OBNL) à compléter un questionnaire relatif aux profils d’administrateurs recherchés par leur conseil d’administration. Cette démarche a été réalisée dans le cadre de l’initiative Leadership Montréal. Centraide du Grand Montréal, le Conseil des arts de Montréal et le Comité d’économie sociale de l’île de Montréal (CÉSÎM) ont participé à l’exercice et ont invité leurs membres et partenaires à répondre au questionnaire.
Montreal shining (Photo credit: Clément Belleudy)
Au total, 336 personnes ont répondu au questionnaire. De ce nombre, 264 l’ont complété, soit 78,6 % des répondants. Les données présentées dans ce document ne tiennent compte que des réponses fournies par ces 264 répondants. La démarche effectuée n’est pas scientifique et les réponses obtenues ne constituent pas un échantillon représentatif des OBNL de la région montréalaise. L’utilisation et l’interprétation des résultats doivent donc se faire avec la plus grande réserve. Les pourcentages indiqués reflètent le point de vue des répondants et ne représentent nullement l’ensemble des OBNL.
Vous trouverez ici une synthèse des réponses recueillies ainsi que quelques pistes de réflexion sur les enjeux de la relève au sein des conseils d’administration (C. A.) de la région de Montréal. Ce document compte 5 sections :
(1) Profils des organisations répondantes
(2) Profils des administrateurs recherchés
(3) Relève au conseil d’administration
(4) Attentes face aux administrateurs
(5) Accueil des nouveaux membres et reconnaissance de la contribution des administrateurs.
Comment, en tant que fiduciaires et stratèges, les membres des conseils d’administration doivent-il aborder l’enjeu le plus critique de la gouvernance : La relève du président et chef de la direction PCD (CEO). C’est un sujet difficile et délicat, un sujet qui requiert toute l’attention des administrateurs, notamment de son comité des ressources humaines.
L’article dont il est question dans ce billet est basé sur les résultats du Global Strategic Leadership Forumqui s’est tenu à Atlanta en 2013 et qui a paru dans le Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance.
Vous trouverez un extrait ci-dessous. Bonne lecture !
The World Affairs Council of Atlanta’s 2013 Global Strategic Leadership Forum focused on a critical issue facing boards of directors: CEO succession. As arguably its most crucial responsibility, the board’s process for hiring and developing CEOs must be an extraordinarily thorough one that addresses the complexities of the modern global company. While there is no exact template that fits all circumstances, the board must ensure that its processes and oversight accurately reflects the organization’s future needs, identifies the skills and experience required in today’s complex global economy, and builds and closely monitors a truly robust succession plan.
The critical questions include the following: How can the board best identify what the company most needs and match a candidate to meet those needs? Who among the CEO candidates is most capable of driving the company to greater growth and performance? What are the necessary attributes, contextual experience, and values that will drive effective, positive change in the company and in the industry? Of course, a company’s specific position in its industry and its own history are important distinctions that will impact the answers to these questions. All of these topics must be viewed in the context of the escalating risk factors and competitive forces facing all companies not only in the United States, but in other countries around the world, especially in emerging market countries.
215 px (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The responsibility of the board with respect to CEO succession is a part of the board’s increasing engagement in corporate strategic decision-making and broad operational focus. Because CEO selection and monitoring is carried out in the context of the company’s risk position in all its markets, the board and the CEO should be in full agreement as to the risk appetite of the company, where the company is heading, and how it plans to get there—understood in terms of the short, medium, and long-term strategic horizon.
The Process of CEO Succession is Ongoing
While the search and selection of a new corporate leader is a major event in a company’s life, in fact the CEO succession process is not a time-limited event. Rather, it must be an ongoing process of development and discernment that is constant and systematic, driven by the company’s strategy and core values, and involving the intentional engagement of all of the board members. As boards are becoming increasingly engaged in forming the strategic trajectory of the company, they also are coupling this focus on a longer-range view of CEO succession. Connecting these two principal board duties influences the defining of CEO attributes that will support the implementation of the long-range strategy. The CEO succession process must be seen as an integral part of the broader leadership and talent identification, development, and monitoring system within the organization. Although the board’s legal responsibility resides in selecting and overseeing the work of the CEO, it has an implied responsibility to ensure that a management development system provides a clear way to identify and nurture potential corporate leaders, including a pool of potential CEO candidates. While an outside search for a CEO is also a proven pathway for CEO selection in certain circumstances, the majority of new CEOs emerge from inside the company and, hence, should come out of an established leadership development program….
The Inside/Outside Choice
The company’s current strategic position almost surely will influence the board’s decision on whether to seek a candidate for CEO from inside or outside the company. There are some circumstances in which the board may perceive a real need to find a CEO who can address internal matters of culture and motivation and that may require a different skill set from the previous or current CEO.
While there is a substantial literature on the board’s decision to focus either inside or outside the company for a CEO, there is a broad consensus that the inside candidate is preferred if the company is performing well. The outside candidate may be better if the company is not meeting its strategic objectives or if the company’s competitive position in the industry is not meeting the board’s expectations. While an inside candidate may know the corporate culture quite well, in certain circumstances, including a need for major strategic change, the CEO may need to be an inspirational change manager, a “refresher” for the corporate culture, and a motivator….
Attributes and Values of the Exemplary CEO
As the board evaluates potential CEO candidates, it should systemically and constantly refine the list of specific attributes that the future CEO should possess. Clearly, most boards want a CEO candidate who is a strong leader, who is capable of a high level of critical and holistic thinking, has unquestioned integrity, courage to act, and who perceives the necessity for innovation in products, services, and stakeholder engagement. Four principal attributes at the top of any board’s list should be: operational ability, strategic outlook, congruence with the corporate culture, and a high level of social and emotional intelligence. In all interactions, the CEO must be able to listen and learn, be open to a variety of opinions in his or her approach to decision-making, and operate well under stress. Candidates’ attributes and the board’s evaluation criteria must include the ability to handle key relationships with three “masters” in mind: customers, shareholders, and employees. The board must evaluate the potential CEO’s track record in dealing with these three key, yet very different, constituencies. While these constituencies are not involved directly in the selection process, the CEO candidate’s knowledge of them and how to strengthen ties to them should be a primary consideration in the final decision.
More than ever, the essential attributes list will include an excellent understanding of finance, including a keen ability to articulate where the company’s value is being produced, its capital structure, cost dynamics, asset utilization, and any potential resource gaps. A thorough comprehension of global financial markets is increasingly vital. Moreover, a strong financial fluency will allow the CEO to speak effectively not only with the CFO, but also with analysts and institutional investors.
Beyond industry knowledge and operational acumen necessary to lead an enterprise in a globalized market, today’s CEO must be able to have a full grasp of a wide range of issues including the drivers of the global economy, the complexity of the regulatory environment wherever the company is operating, enterprise risk management including political risk and cultural differences, corporate growth strategies, and current or potential acquisition or merger targets. A major category of concern to any CEO is compliance with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which absorbs a lot of international companies’ corporate resources and must be managed carefully—especially in an era where the rise of whistleblowers, including the malicious ones, is a reality.
All CEOs must have a capacity to look forward, to envision what the future in the industry will look like, and anticipate, to the extent possible, the political and economic developments that may impact the company’s operations and performance. Global fluency and cross-cultural competence are essential ingredients for today’s CEO and some companies look very favorably on candidates who speak languages in addition to English.
Where CEO succession most often goes wrong is when there is not a good cultural fit, when the board uses the wrong metrics for evaluation, when the board does not know the candidate well enough, or when it fails to discerns how the candidate will react in specific and stressful situations. The candidates’ ethics and values must be clearly understood not only on their own, but also in the framework of the corporate culture.
Another critical dynamic in the selection of the CEO is to ensure that the candidate understands the impact of digitalization and the emergence of “big data” on his or her industry and company. Increasingly, the CEO must have a fulsome understanding of technology, especially those technological developments that are or will be impacting the industry….
Il est indéniable qu’un PCD (CEO) doit avoir une personnalité marquante, un caractère fort et un leadership manifeste. Ces caractéristiques tant recherchées chez les premiers dirigeants peuvent, dans certains cas, s’accompagner de traits de personnalité dysfonctionnels tels que le narcissisme.
C’est ce que Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic soutien dans son article publié sur le blogue du HuffPost du 2 janvier 2014. Il cite deux études qui confirment que le comportement narcissique de certains dirigeants (1) peut avoir des effets néfastes sur le moral des employés, (2) éloigner les employés potentiels talentueux et (3) contribuer à un déficit de valeurs d’intégrité à l’échelle de toute l’organisation.
L’auteur avance que les membres des conseils d’administration, notamment ceux qui constituent les comités de Ressources humaines, doivent être conscients des conséquences potentiellement dommageables des leaders flamboyants et « charismatiques ». En fait, les études montrent que les vertus d’humilité, plutôt que les traits d’arrogance, sont de bien meilleures prédicteurs du succès d’une organisation.
La première étude citée montre que les organisations dirigées par des PCD prétentieux et tout-puissants ont tendances à avoir de moins bons résultats, tout en étant plus sujettes à des fraudes.
La seconde étude indique que les valeurs d’humilité incarnées par un leader ont des conséquences positives sur l’engagement des employés.
Voici en quelques paragraphes les conclusions de ces deux études. Bonne lecture.
In the first study, Antoinette Rijsenbilt and Harry Commandeur assessed the narcissism levels of 953 CEOs from a wide range of industries, as well as examining objective performance indicators of their companies during their tenure. Unsurprisingly, organizations led by arrogant, self-centered, and entitled CEOs tended to perform worse, and their CEOs were significantly more likely to be convicted for corporate fraud (e.g., fake financial reports, rigged accounts, insider trading, etc.). Interestingly, the detrimental effects of narcissism appear to be exacerbated when CEOs are charismatic, which is consistent with the idea that charisma is toxic because it increases employees’ blind trust and irrational confidence in the leader. If you hire a charismatic leader, be prepared to put up with a narcissist.
In the second study, Bradley Owens and colleagues examined the effects of leader humility on employee morale and turnover. Their results showed that « in contrast to rousing employees through charismatic, energetic, and idealistic leadership approaches (…) a ‘quieter’ leadership approach, with listening, being transparent about limitations, and appreciating follower strengths and contributions [is the most] effective way to engage employees. » This suggests that narcissistic CEOs may be good at attracting talent, but they are probably better at repelling it. Prospective job candidates, especially high potentials, should therefore think twice before being seduced by the meteoric career opportunities outlined by charismatic executives. Greed is not only contagious, but competitive and jealous, too…
If we can educate organizations, in particular board members, on the virtues of humility and the destructive consequences of narcissistic and charismatic leadership, we may see a smaller proportion of entitled, arrogant, and fraudulent CEOs — to everyone’s benefit. Instead of worshiping and celebrating the flamboyant habits of corporate bosses, let us revisit the wise words of Peter Drucker, who knew a thing or two about management:
The leaders who work most effectively, it seems to me, never say ‘I’. And that’s not because they have trained themselves not to say ‘I’. They don’t think ‘I’. They think ‘we’; they think ‘team’. They understand their job to be to make the team function. They accept responsibility and don’t sidestep it, but ‘we’ gets the credit.
Voici un document australien de KPMG, très bien conçu, qui répond clairement aux questions que tous les administrateurs de sociétés se posent dans le cours de leurs mandats.
Même si la publication est dédiée à l’auditoire australien de KPMG, je crois que la réalité règlementaire nord-américaine est trop semblable pour se priver d’un bon « kit » d’outils qui peut aider à constituer un Board efficace. C’est un formidable document électronique de 130 pages, donc long à télécharger. Voyez la table des matières ci-dessous.
J’ai demandé à KPMG de me procurer une version française du même document mais il ne semble pas en exister. Bonne lecture en ce début d’été 2014.
Our business environment provides an ever-changing spectrum of risks and opportunities. The role of the director continues to be shaped by a multitude of forces including economic uncertainty, larger and more complex organisations, the increasing pace of technological innovation and digitisation along with a more rigorous regulatory environment.
At the same time there is more onus on directors to operate transparently and be more accountable for their actions and decisions.
To support directors in their challenging role KPMG has created The Directors’ Toolkit. This guide, in a user-friendly electronic format, empowers directors to more effectively discharge their duties and responsibilities while improving board performance and decision-making.
Key topics :
Duties and responsibilities of a director
Oversight of strategy and governance
Managing shareholder and stakeholder expectations
Structuring an effective board and sub-committees
Enabling key executive appointments
Managing productive meetings
Better practice terms of reference, charters and agendas
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 !
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 (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 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 (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
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.
Voici un court billet de Tom Okarma, président fondateur de Vantage Point | For NonProfit, exposant certaines idées pour accroître l’efficacité de C.A. d’OBNL.
Ci-dessous, un extrait de son billet ainsi que quelques liens utiles pour améliorer la performance des « Boards ». Bonne lecture !
Here are a few ideas to help ministry and nonprofit leaders work more closely (and pleasurably) with their boards. Who knows, maybe everyone will actually start enjoying board meetings!
Nonprofit_Expo_01 (Photo credit: shawncalhoun)
Reconnect regularly with each director, one-to-one if possible, to tap into their wisdom, learn their perspective, and gain valuable confidential input
Invest to improve on your strengths through seminars, workshops, or conferences…like CLA 2014
Identify existing nonprofit board best practices and install the top two that you feel add the most value to your organization
When meeting with key external stakeholders, ask how they think the organization is performing
Be more available to your staff, volunteers, and key community partners
Become a director on another nonprofit or ministry board and gain valuable perspective of just what that is like
Review your calendar monthly and the organization’s budget to determine if you are allocating time and treasure in line with the year’s goals
Conduct periodic board update (they hate “training”) sessions
For a few other easy and effective ideas on how to improve board relations and effectiveness in 2014, read :
La formation en gouvernance est de plus en plus un préalable à l’exercice du rôle d’administrateur de sociétés. L’article retenu montre que l’apprentissage sur le tas est en voie de disparition dans les conseils d’administration de grandes sociétés. La formation préparatoire peut prendre différentes formes : training sur mesure, coaching, séminaires, etc.
Cependant, il semble de plus en plus évident que les programme de formation en gouvernance (tels que IoD, C.dir., ASC, IAS) menant à une certification reconnue, constituent la voie à suivre dans le futur.
L’article de Hannah Prevett, paru dans le Sunday Times, montre que les formations organisées sont de meilleurs endroits pour un apprentissage de qualité que les tables de conseils d’administration… Bonne lecture !
Diplômés ASC du Collège des administrateurs de sociétés 2012
The received wisdom is that new directors learn on the job. If they are not equipped with the necessary skills when they accept their first board appointment, they will need to be quick on the uptake.
Not any more: the tidal wave of new governance requirements means it is not good enough to acquire expertise over time. And, as a result, many prospective boardroom stars are seeking training to help them do the job they’re paid to do from day one. When Alan Kay learnt he was to join the executive board of Costain in 2003, he immediately began considering how to prepare for his new role at the engineering and construction group.
“A lot of people haven’t really thought about how to prepare for a board role. [They think] it’s something that happens naturally: you get on the board and then you think, I’m going to learn on the job,” said Kay, who is Costain’s technical and operations director. “But once you’re appointed, becoming competent and learning as you go takes several months, which is not ideal.”
He researched training options for new board members and came across the Institute of Directors’ accredited programmes, including the certificate and diploma in company direction. The IoD fills 6,000 places on such courses annually with representatives of both large and small organisations — not all of them young guns, as Roger Barker, head of corporate governance at the IoD, explained.
“The directors of large organisations were reluctant to undertake any form of formalised director training. These were typically seasoned former executives, with extensive experience of serving on boards as chief executives or chief financial officers. It has been difficult to persuade such individuals that director training is relevant to them,” said Barker.
_________________________________
* En reprise
Articles d’intérêt reliés au thème de la formation en gouvernance
Voici un excellent article publié par Jeffrey Gandz, Mary Crossan, Gerard Seijts et Mark Reno* dans la revue Ivey Business Journal. Les auteurs insistent sur trois critères d’évaluation du rôle d’administrateur de sociétés : (1) compétences, (2) engagement et (3) caractère.
Bien que ces trois critères soient déterminants dans l’exercice du rôle d’administrateur, la dimension la plus difficile à appréhender est le leadership qui se manifeste par le « caractère » d’un administrateur.
Les auteurs décrivent 11 caractéristiques-clés dont il faut tenir compte dans le recrutement, la sélection, l’évaluation et la rotation des administrateurs.
Je vous invite donc à lire cet article. En voici un extrait. Qu’en pensez-vous ?
« When it comes to selecting and assessing CEOs, other C-suite level executives or board members, the most important criteria for boards to consider are competencies, commitment and character. This article focuses on the most difficult of these criteria to assess – leadership character – and suggests the eleven key dimensions of character that directors should consider in their governance roles ».
Competencies matter. They define what a person is capable of doing; in our assessments of leaders we look for intellect as well as organizational, business, people and strategic competencies. Commitment is critical. It reflects the extent to which individuals aspire to the hard work of leadership, how engaged they are in the role, and how prepared they are to make the sacrifices necessary to succeed. But above all, character counts. It determines how leaders perceive and analyze the contexts in which they operate. Character determines how they use the competencies they have. It shapes the decisions they make, and how these decisions are implemented and evaluated.
Seasonal Reflection on Ivey Business building (Photo credit: Marc Foster)
Focus on character
Our research has focused on leadership character because it’s the least understood of these three criteria and the most difficult to talk about. Character is foundational for effective decision-making. It influences what information executives seek out and consider, how they interpret it, how they report the information, how they implement board directives, and many other facets of governance.
Within a board, directors require open, robust, and critical but respectful discussions with other directors who have integrity, as well as a willingness to collaborate and the courage to dissent. They must also take the long view while focusing on the shorter-range results, and exercise excellent judgment. All of these behaviors hinge on character.
Our research team at Ivey was made very conscious of the role of character in business leadership and governance when we conducted exploratory and qualitative research on the causes of the 2008 financial meltdown and the subsequent recession. In focus groups and conference-based discussions, where we met with over 300 business leaders on three continents, participants identified character weaknesses or defects as being at the epicenter of the build-up in financial-system leverage over the preceding decade, and the ensuing meltdown. Additionally, the participants identified leadership character strengths as key factors that distinguished the companies that survived or even prospered during the meltdown from those that failed or were badly damaged.
Participants in this research project identified issues with character in both leadership and governance. Among them were:
Overconfidence bordering on arrogance that led to reckless or excessive risk-taking behaviors
Lack of transparency and in some cases lack of integrity
Sheer inattention to critical issues
Lack of accountability for the huge risks associated with astronomical individual rewards
Intemperate and injudicious decision-making
A lack of respect for individuals that actually got in the way of effective team functioning
Hyper-competitiveness among leaders of major financial institutions
Irresponsibility toward shareholders and the societies within which these organizations operated.
These character elements and many others were identified as root or contributory causes of the excessive buildup of leverage in financial markets and the subsequent meltdown. But the comments from the business leaders in our research also raise important questions about leadership character. Among them:
What is character? It’s a term that we use quite often: “He’s a bad character”; “A person of good character”; “A character reference.” But what do we really mean by leadership “character”?
Why is it so difficult to talk about someone’s character? Why do we find it difficult to assess someone’s character with the same degree of comfort we seem to have in assessing their competencies and commitment?
Can character be learned, developed, shaped and molded, or is it something that must be present from birth – or at least from childhood or adolescence? Can it change? What, if anything, can leaders do to help develop good character among their followers and a culture of good character in their organizations?
___________________________
*Jeffrey Gandz is a Professor of Strategic Leadership and Managing Director, Program Design, in Ivey Business School’s Executive Development division at Western University, Mary Crossan is Professor of Strategic Management and the Taylor/Mingay Chair in Business Policy at Ivey Business School, Gerard Seijts is a Professor of Organizational Behavior, holds the Ian O. Ihnatowycz Chair in Leadership, and is Executive Director of the Ian O. Ihnatowycz Institute of Leadership at the Ivey Business School, Mark Reno is a post-doctoral fellow at Ivey Business School working on several leadership-related projects.
Est-ce que les hauts dirigeants, reconnus pour leurs habiletés de gestionnaires, font de bons administrateurs d’organisations à buts non lucratifs (OBNL) ?
La thèse de William G. Bowen* (1994) est à l’effet que beaucoup de représentants du monde des affaires, siégeant sur des conseils d’administration d’OBNL, le font pour une multitude de raisons n’ayant pas toujours de relations avec les intérêts de l’organisation, mais servent plutôt à faire avancer leurs intérêts personnels !
Eugene H. Fram**, expert en gouvernance des OBNL et auteur du billet publié sur le blogue Nonprofit Management, croit qu’il faut peindre un portrait plus nuancé en 2014. Selon lui, les comités de gouvernance et de mise en nomination ne devraient cependant jamais prendre pour acquis que l’efficacité d’un gestionnaire dans une entreprise privée sera garante d’une valeur ajoutée pour l’OBNL.
Les perceptions de ceux-ci sont trop souvent à l’effet que les OBNL sont plus permissives, moins exigeantes, moins sérieuses … La réalité est tout autre et les dirigeants devraient y penser à deux fois avant de s’engager sur un C.A. d’OBNL ! Plusieurs témoigneront que les réunions de ces conseils sont très souvent complexes, sensitives, moins structurées et, souvent, éprouvantes pour des « gestionnaires chevronnés »…
On a ici un beau sujet d’étude (de recherche) car le modèle d’affaires des OBNL suppose toujours une contribution remarquable des gens d’affaires !
Pensez-vous que la situation a beaucoup évoluée depuis l’affirmation de Bowen, il y a 20 ans ? La gouvernance des OBNL a-t-elle changée au point de modifier les perceptions des gens d’affaires ?
Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus. Bonne lecture !
The names of the new board nominees have been announced. They include several outstanding recruits from the business community. Will these new formidable directors perform well in the nonprofit environment? William G. Bowen, a veteran director in both the for-profit and nonprofit environments, raised the following questions about such beginnings in a 1994 article:* Is it true that well-regarded representatives of the business world are often surprisingly ineffective as members of nonprofit boards? Do they seem to have checked their analytical skills and their “toughness” at the door? If this is true in some considerable number of cases, what is the explanation?
An example of the U.S. Nonprofit Organization postage meter marking made with a Pitney Bowes mailstream system. Letter. 2007. Русский: Пример штампа франкировальной машины системы Pitney Bowes, имеющего тариф « Nonprofit Organization » (США, 2007). Письмо. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Are Bowen’s observations about directors’ questionable motivations for accepting director positions still applicable in the 21st century? He noted that some nonprofit directors accept board positions because they are dedicated to the organization’s mission, vision and values. But he also hypothesized that business leaders are sometimes motivated to join nonprofit boards for a variety of other reasons. They may regard board membership as a “vacation from the bottom line … or the enjoyment of a membership in a new ‘club’.” Also they perhaps join nonprofit boards to “soften” community perceptions that, as tough bottom-line executives, they also may care as much about human issues as they care about shareholder returns. (It would probably be costly or impossible to obtain objective data of this observation.) Press reports through the years, since 1994, have indicated that such attitudes still hold leadership sway in nonprofit organizations. (See: Nonprofit Board Crisis.com)
In today’s nonprofit environment, there may remain senior business leaders or groups who are less serious about the responsibilities incumbent upon board members, as noted by Bowen. If this is the situation, a high level of board permissiveness, allowed by business-oriented directors and others, is still causing a level of board dysfunction business leaders would never allow on their own boards.
…
____________________________________
21st Century Reflections on Bowen’s Observations
Since Bowen’s 1994 observations, there have been some improvements. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act has driven some of the changes in audit committee’s procedures, overviews of internal controls, whistle-blower requirement, CEO’s & CFOs signatures attesting to financial statement accuracy, etc. Although not required by law, some larger nonprofits have adhered to all the provisions of the Act. I also feel business leaders now think more deeply about joining a nonprofit board, especially after the Penn State scandal and the reputation embarrassment the board encountered.
But do these changes indicate substantial change reducing the permissiveness in the nonprofit environment Bowen described? Anecdotally, here is a typical comment that I continue to hear, this one from the board chair large nonprofit with 300 employees. “We don’t expect the same standards of management performance that the business organization has.”
However, I am optimistic about the future. As nonprofit boards select more professional type CEO’s to lead their organizations, whether they are hired internally or externally, more change will take place. Hopefully, if boards want to retain these people, this movement should place some subtle pressures on board nomination committees to seek more candidates whose motivation is to focus on mission, vision and values, along with balanced budgets. A new breed should readily understand that this focus has the same meaning to nonprofit stakeholders, as a profit focus does to business stakeholders.
_____________________________________________
* William G. Bowen (1994), “When a Business Leader Joins a Nonprofit Board,” Harvard Business Review, September-October. Bowen currently is president emeritus of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and former president of Princeton University in Princeton. He has served as an outside director for a wide variety of for-profit and nonprofit organizations.
**Eugene H. Fram PRACTITIONER AND PROFESSOR OF MARKETING AND MANAGEMENT, AUTHOR & CONSULTANT. ALSO SIGNIFICANT EXPERTISE WITH BUSINESS & NONPROFIT BOARDS OF DIRECTORS.
Gouvernance | Jacques Grisé 