Aujourd’hui, je vous propose la lecture de l’excellent article d’Ira Millstein* de la firme Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, paru dans Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, sur la saga JPMorgan Chase qui a alimenté les discussions en gouvernance au cours des derniers mois. Maintenant que la poussière sur l’échec de la séparation des rôles de PCD et PCA et sur l’opportunité d’utiliser un « administrateur principal » (Lead Directeur) est tombée, il y a certainement lieu d’en tirer des leçons très pertinentes pour le futur. C’est ce que fait admirablement bien l’auteure en précisant les différences fondamentales entre les rôles.
Dans le cas de JPMorgan Chase, la bataille de M. Dimon pour conserver ses fonctions de CEO et de Chairman a été féroce. Celui-ci a gagné son pari parce que les circonstances lui étaient favorables (le timing était bon). Selon l’auteure, il aurait été préférable de faire voter les actionnaires sur la séparation des rôles, pour le prochain CEO. L’article montre (1) qu’il est préférable d’avoir une séparation des rôles, (2) que la nomination d’un administrateur principal n’est pas la solution miracle parce que celui-ci n’aura jamais tout le pouvoir et toute la légitimité d’un président du conseil indépendant et (3) que dans les cas où un administrateur principal est requis, il faut définir son rôle en lui donnant le pouvoir et l’autorité nécessaire.
Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase (Photo credit: jurvetson)
Voici un extrait de cet article ainsi qu’un tableau montrant les comparaisons entre deux modèles de gouvernance : le modèle du président de conseil indépendant et le modèle dual « Chair/CEO ».
Substantial work was done on this issue by the National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD), in its Blue Ribbon Commission Report “The Effective Lead Director.” The role of the lead director as viewed in that report is not as strong a position as the independent chair, as indicated in a comparison chart included as Appendix A (below). In comparing the key duties of a typical independent chair to a lead director, the powers and duties of a lead director fall short in the following areas:
Power to call a board meeting: Unlike the chair, the lead director typically does not have convening power but only suggests to the chair/CEO that a meeting be called.
Control of the board agenda and board information: Unlike the chair who bears responsibility and authority for determining both the board agenda and the information that will be provided, the lead director collaborates with the chair/CEO and other directors on these issues.
Authority to represent the board in shareholder and stakeholder communications: Typically the chair/CEO represents the board with shareholders and external stakeholders; the lead director plays a role only if specifically asked by the chair/CEO or the board directly.
Appendix A Comparison of the Non-Executive Chair and the Chair/CEO Models
*Ira Millsteinis a senior partner at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP and co-chair of the Millstein Center for Global Markets and Corporate Ownership at Columbia Law School.
Une étude conduite par le Center for Leadership Development and Research de la Stanford Graduate School of Business, Stanford University’s Rock Center for Corporate Governance, et The Miles Group montre que les administrateurs évaluent piètrement la performance de leur PCD (CEO) sur les dimensions de la gestion des talents et de leur capacité (ou leur volonté) à créer les conditions favorables à l’engagement de leur conseil.
L’on s’en doute, les priorités sont toujours accordées aux performances financières. Ce n’est pas surprenant ! Seulement 5 % de la note finale est attribuée aux activités relatives au développement des talents et à la planification de la relève… Si l’on croit vraiment que ce sont deux activités stratégiques clés, il faut leur accorder une part plus substantielle de l’évaluation. Sinon, on lance le message que ce que l’on mesure est ce qui importe !
Voici un sommaire des points saillants de l’étude. Pour obtenir plus de détails sur les résultats de l’étude, je vous invite à consulter le site de Stanford. Bonne lecture.
Boards rate CEOs high in decision-making, low in talent development
More than 160 CEOs and directors of North American public and private companies were polled in the 2013 Survey on CEO Performance Evaluations, which studied how CEOs themselves and directors rate both chief executive performance as well as the performance evaluation process. When directors were asked to rank the top weaknesses of their CEO, “mentoring skills” and “board engagement” tied for the #1 spot. “This signals that directors are clearly concerned about their CEO’s ability to mentor top talent,” says Stephen Miles, founder and chief executive of The Miles Group.“Focusing on drivers such as developing the next generation of leadership is essential to planning beyond the next quarter and avoiding the short-term thinking that inhibits growth.”
Little weight given to customer service, workplace safety, and innovation in CEO evaluations.
While accounting, operating, and stock price metrics are assigned high value by boards, other factors generally hold little worth when boards rate their CEOs. “Seeming important things such as product service and quality, customer service, workplace safety, and even innovation are used in less than 5% of evaluations,” says Professor Larcker.
CEOs and boards believe the evaluation process is balanced.
Eighty-three percent (83%) of directors and 64% of CEOs believe that the CEO evaluation process is a balanced approach between financial performance and nonfinancial metrics, such as strategy development and employee and customer satisfaction.“Unfortunately, the truth of the matter is that the CEO evaluation process is not that balanced,” says Professor Larcker. “Amid growing calls for integrating reporting and corporate social responsibility, companies are still behind the times when it comes to developing reliable and valid measures of nonfinancial performance metrics.”
CEOs failing to engage boards.
“Board relationships and engagement” tied with “mentoring and development skills” as the #1 weakness in CEOs. “This serious disconnect between management and the boardroom has multiple negative ramifications,” says Mr. Miles. “Board engagement is absolutely vital to the function of the CEO – and to the health of a company. How can the board understand what’s going on in the company if the CEO is not engaging?”
Directors lukewarm when comparing their CEOs against peer group.
Forty-one percent (41%) of directors believe that their CEO is in the top 20% of his or her peers, while 17% believe that their CEO is below the 60th percentile. “For almost half of directors to say that their CEO is just ‘in the top 20 percent’ is not exactly a ringing endorsement,” says Mr. Miles. “The board hires the CEO – they should believe that they have the individual in that job who is absolutely the best, or can quickly become the best. The fact that nearly 20% of directors feel that their CEO ranks below the top 40% means that a lot of CEOs should be preparing their resumes.”
Disconnect in how CEOs and directors regard the evaluation process.
Sixty-three percent (63%) of CEOs versus 83% of directors believe that the CEO performance process is effective in their companies. “Nearly a third of CEOs don’t think that their evaluation is effective,” says Professor Larcker. “The success of an organization is dependent on open and honest dialogue between the CEO and the board. It is difficult to see how that can happen without a rigorous evaluation process.”
10% of companies say they have never evaluated their CEO.
“Given their fiduciary duties, it’s strange that any company would not evaluate its CEO,” says Professor Larcker. “The CEO performance evaluation should feed all sorts of board decisions, including goal setting, corporate performance measurement, compensation structure, and succession planning. Without an evaluation of the CEO, how can the board claim to be monitoring a corporation?”
CEOs highly likely to agree with the results of their performance evaluation.
Only 12% of CEOs believe that they are rated too high or too low overall, and almost half (49%) do not disagree with any area of their performance evaluation. “Shareholders have to wonder at the objectivity of the evaluation process,” says Professor Larcker. “It’s hard to believe that boards are pushing CEOs on their evaluations if they pretty much agree with their evaluation.”
Only two-thirds of CEOs believe that their own performance evaluation is a meaningful exercise.
“Even though a high percentage of directors and CEOs think that the CEO evaluation process is meaningful, this number really should be 100%,” says Mr. Miles. “Every board has the power to meaningfully evaluate the CEO – whether doing it themselves, or bringing in someone to do it, or some combination thereof.”
Directors unlenient on violations of ethics but more forgiving of CEOs with legal or regulatory violations that occur on their watch.
“A significant minority of directors – 27 percent – say that unexpected litigation against the company would have no impact on their CEO’s performance evaluation,” says Professor Larcker, while « approximately a quarter of directors (24%) say that unexpected regulatory problems would also have no impact. » By contrast, all directors (100%) say that their CEO’s performance evaluation would be negatively impacted by ethical violations or a lack of transparency with the board.
Ce billet présente le résumé d’une étude, produite par le Conference Board et récemment publiée sur le site de Harvard Law School Forun on Corporate Governance and Financial Régulation, laquelle fait état de la planification de la relève des PCD (CEO). L’étude intitulée CEO Succession Practices (2013 Edition) analyse les cas de rotation des PCD dans les entreprises du S&P 500. Le rapport présente les résultats en quatre sections :
Les tendances en matière de planification de la relève de 2000 à 2012 ainsi que la relation entre la performance des entreprises et le départ ou l’arrivée d’un PCD;
Les pratiques en matière de succession du PCD en 2012 : les responsabilités du conseil, le rôle du PCD démissionnaire au conseil et la nature de la divulgation aux actionnaires;
Une analyse des particularités de plusieurs cas célèbres de succession de PCD en 2012;
Divers exemples montrant comment l’activisme des actionnaires a une influence grandissante sur le processus de la planification de la relève en 2012.
Despite steady average CEO succession rates, dismissals hit a 10-year high in 2012.
In 2012, 53 CEOs in the S&P 500 left their post. The rate of CEO succession in calendar year 2012 was 10.9 percent, consistent with the average number of annual succession announcements from 2000 through 2011. The rate of CEO dismissals varies widely across the 2000–2012 period, ranging from 40.0 percent in 2002 to 13.2 percent in 2005 (on average, 24.5 percent for the period). In 2012, 31.4 percent of all successions were non-voluntary departures, the highest rate recorded since 2003.
Companies in the services industries experienced higher than average CEO succession rates.
The rate of CEO succession had significant variation across industry groups during 2012. The services industry had a succession rate of 18.0 percent in 2012, higher than its 13-year average of 16.2 percent. By contrast, the extraction industry, which includes mining, petroleum products, and natural gas companies, had a succession rate of only 5.6 percent during 2012, lower than its 13-year average of 9.5 percent.
Companies increasingly look outside to hire their CEOs.
In 2012, 27.1 percent of S&P 500 companies that faced a CEO succession hired an outsider for the top job. While the rate confirms a trend recorded since the 1970s, it is much higher than the 19 percent reported in 2011. This finding may suggest that there is a need to continue to strengthen companies’ leadership development practices. The heated pay-for-performance debate of the last few years has induced boards of directors to increase the rigor of the CEO selection process: the growing percentage of outsiders chosen as new CEOs may show that directors don’t always like what they find within the companies’ ranks. Moreover, a number of companies that underwent a succession event in 2012 selected a director from their own board as the new CEOs. The director-turned-CEO succession model provides companies with a chief executive who is familiar with corporate strategy and key stakeholders, thereby reducing leadership transition risk.
CEO departure may offer opportunity to reconsider board leadership model.
Only 18.8 percent of successions in 2012 involved the immediate joint appointment of an individual as CEO and chairman of the board of directors. Based on succession announcements, one-third of departing CEOs remained as board chairman for at least a brief transition period, typically until the next shareholder meeting, while several departing CEOs retained significant influence with the company as board chairman. In some cases (Iron Mountain), the succession was used as an opportunity to reconsider the board leadership structure and adopt a CEO/board chairman separation model. Alternatively, the boards of Altria Group, Boston Scientific, CA Inc., and Murphy Oil retained the expertise of the departing CEO via a consulting contract rather than a position on the board.
Formal succession process is credited for the choice of new CEO, except when the CEO is hired from outside.
Perhaps surprisingly, only 22.9 percent of succession announcements among S&P 500 companies in 2012 explicitly stated that the incoming CEO was identified through the board’s succession planning process. This is noticeably lower than the 32.4 percent of successions that referred to the succession planning process in 2011. There appears to be a link between inside promotion to the CEO position and the succession planning process—31.6 percent of announcements that mention the board’s role in the succession planning process involve an insider appointment as incoming CEO, whereas no successions that involve an outside hire reference succession planning.
Mantatory CEO retirement policies remain seldom used.
Mandatory CEO retirement policies based on age are an infrequent element of CEO succession plans. Only 11.8 percent of manufacturing companies and 8 percent of nonfinancial services companies adopt an age-based mandatory retirement policy for CEOs; the number is lower in the financial industry. The highest level of policy adoption (19.4 percent) is reported by manufacturing and nonfinancial companies with annual revenue of $20 billion or greater.
Voici une présentation de diapos très efficace préparée et partagée par Misha Charles, experte dans le domaine de la gouvernance organisationnelle. Sliseshares est une excellente façon de livrer votre message à vos réseaux. En voici un exemple.
Voici une excellente initiative de Leadership Montréal : un questionnaire destiné aux représentant(e)s d’organisations ayant des postes à combler dans les prochains mois au sein de leurs conseils d’administration.
Leadership Montréal favorise le contact entre des représentants de C.A. et des candidats talentueux souhaitant mettre leurs compétences au service d’organisations de la région de Montréal. Leadership Montréal et ses partenaires organiseront prochainement quelques événements qui réuniront candidat(e)s et représentant(e)s d’organisations. Le fait de compléter le questionnaire ne vous garantit pas une place lors des prochains événements. Toutefois, Leadership Montréal pourra diffuser les ouvertures de postes et vous appuyer dans la recherche de futurs administrateurs et administratrices ».
Vous aurez prochainement des postes à combler au sein de votre C. A. ou vous connaissez des gens souhaitant assurer la relève au sein de leur conseil d’administration ? Vous souhaitez rencontrer des candidats qui vous permettront d’enrichir et de diversifier la composition de votre conseil ? Cette invitation est pour vous !
Liberal leadership campaign launch. Oct 2, 2012. (Photo credit: Justin Trudeau)
Dans les prochaines semaines, Leadership Montréal et ses partenaires organisent deux événements qui réuniront une centaine de candidat(e)s talentueux aux profils variés et des représentant(e)s d’organisations à la recherche de membres de C. A. En participant à l’un de ces événements, vous pourrez rencontrer des candidat(e)s partageant un intérêt pour les questions de gouvernance et disposant d’une expertise utile et recherchée par les C. A. Leadership Montréal dispose d’un vaste réseau réunissant des professionnels et entrepreneurs intervenant dans des secteurs variés : droit, ingénierie, RH, finance, développement économique, développement durable, philanthropie, gestion, etc.
Leadership Montréal favorise la diversité au sein des lieux décisionnels. Vous pourrez ainsi rencontrer des jeunes de moins de 40 ans, des femmes, des personnes issues de l’immigration et des membres de minorités visibles à la recherche de défis au sein de nouveaux conseils d’administration. Plusieurs des candidat(e)s présents auront suivi une formation d’introduction à la gouvernance de sociétés offerte par le Collège des administrateurs de sociétés de l’Université Laval ou par les Jeunes administrateurs de l’Institut sur la gouvernance des organisations publiques et privées (IGOPP).
La participation aux événements est gratuite. Les représentants d’organisations intéressés doivent compléter un questionnaire dans lequel seront indiqués les détails quant aux postes à combler.
Que pensent vraiment les PCD de leur C.A. ? Les auteurs Jeffrey Sonnenfeld*, Melanie Kusin* et Elise Walton* ont procédé à des entrevues en profondeur avec une douzaine de PCD (CEO) expérimentés et ils ont publiés la synthèse de leurs résultats dans Harvard Business Review (HBR). Essentiellement, les chercheurs voulaient savoir comment les C.A. peuvent avoir une influence positive et devenir un atout stratégique. Ils ont résumé leur enquête en faisant ressortir 5 conseils à l’intention des conseils d’administration. Voici un extrait de cet article très intéressant. Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus !
Over the past several years, in the wake of corporate missteps that have taken a toll on shareholders and communities alike, we’ve heard plenty about how boards of directors should have been more responsible stewards. Corporate watchdogs, investors and analysts, members of the media, regulators, and pundits have proposed guidelines and new practices. But one voice has been notably missing from this chorus—and it belongs to the constituency that knows boards and their failings best. It’s the voice of the CEO.
Harkness Tower, situated in the Memorial Quadrangle at Yale (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
There are reasons for this silence from the chief executive camp. Few CEOs volunteer their views publicly; they know they’d risk looking presumptuous and becoming a target. They realize it would be foolhardy to draw attention to their own governance dysfunctions or seem to reveal boardroom confidences. Meanwhile, people who do make it their business to speak out on governance haven’t made much effort to elicit CEOs’ views. Extreme cases of CEO misconduct have created skepticism about whether CEOs can help fix faulty governance—a dangerous overreaction. Many observers, having seen grandiose, greedy, and corrupt CEOs protected by inattentive or complicit directors, consider excessive CEO influence on boards to be part of the problem. Others may lack the access to CEOs and the level of trust needed for frank conversations. Whatever the reasons, the omission is unfortunate. Not only do CEOs have enormous experience to draw on, but their views are the ones boards are most likely to heed.
We recently tapped our networks to bring CEOs’ opinions to light. We talked to dozens of well-regarded veteran chief executives, focusing on people with no particular reason to resent boards—we didn’t want bitterness or self-justification to color the findings. We wanted to know: What keeps a board from being as effective as it could be? Is it really the cartoon millstone around the CEO’s neck, or does it have a positive influence on the enterprise? What can a board do to become a true strategic asset?
We were surprised by the candor of the responses—even given our comfortable relationships with the CEOs and our assurances that quotes would not be attributed without express permission. Clearly, CEOs believe it is important to address problems and opportunities they’re uniquely positioned to observe. They know that their strategic visions and personal legacies can be undone by bad governance, and they have plenty to say on the subject. We’ve distilled their comments into five overarching pieces of advice for boards.
Don’t Shun Risk or See It in Personal Terms
Do the Homework, and Stay Consistently Plugged In
Bring Character and Credentials, Not Celebrity, to the Table
Constructively Challenge Strategy
Make Succession Transitions Less Awkward, Not More So
« Every board is different. If you serve on one, some of these comments may strike close to home; others may not. As we listened to CEOs and reviewed our transcripts looking for patterns, we identified three important takeaways.
First, contrary to what some critics believe, CEOs do not want to keep their boards in the dark or to chip away at directors’ power. They recognize that they and their shareholders will get more value if the partnership at the top is strong. Great CEOs know that if governance isn’t working, it’s everyone’s job to figure out why and to fix it.
Second, most boards aren’t working as well as they should—and it’s not clear that any of the systemic reforms that have been proposed will remedy matters. Although governed by bylaws and legal responsibilities, interactions between CEOs and directors are still personal, and improving them often requires the sorts of honest, direct, and sometimes awkward conversations that serve to ease tensions in any personal relationship. When strong relationships are in place, it becomes easier for CEOs to speak candidly about problems—for example, if the board isn’t adding enough value to decision making, or if individual directors are unconstructive or overly skeptical. For their part, directors should be clear about what they want—whether it’s less protocol and fewer dog and pony shows or more transparency, communication, and receptivity to constructive criticism.
Third, the best leadership partnerships are forged where there is mutual respect, energetic commitment to the future success of the enterprise, and strong bonds of trust. A great board does not adopt an adversarial, “show me” posture toward management and its plans. Nor does it see its power as consisting mainly of checks and balances on the CEO’s agenda. Great boards support smart entrepreneurial risk taking with prudent oversight, wise counsel, and encouragement ».
____________________________________
Jeffrey Sonnenfeld*, is the senior associate dean for executive programs and the Lester Crown Professor at Yale University’s School of Management, is the founding CEO of Yale’s Chief Executive Leadership Institute. Melanie Kusin* is the vice chairman of Korn/Ferry International’s CEO practice. Elise Walton*, is a former Yale–Korn/Ferry senior research fellow, consults on corporate governance and executive leadership.
Stephen Miles, fondateur et PCD de The Miles Group, une entreprise qui se spécialise dans le conseil en gestion des talents, met l’accent sur un véritable problème de plusieurs C.A. : leurs relatives faiblesses en gouvernance ! Après avoir fait ressortir les exigences accrues des investisseurs institutionnels pour une plus grande performance des membres de C.A., l’auteur présente cinq lacunes majeures de plusieurs conseils d’administration : (1) connaissances déficientes, (2) manque d’auto-évaluation, (3) sentiment de supériorité, (4) manque d’expérience de plusieurs membres dans certains comités et processus de recrutement déficient, (5) problème de leadership.
À mon avis, les membres de conseils d’administration devraient examiner leur efficacité à la lumière des constats évoqués par l’auteur. On voit que la composition d’un C.A. performant repose beaucoup sur le recrutement des membres, sur le leadership du président du conseil et sur le renforcement du comité de gouvernance, parent pauvre des comités statutaires selon Stephen Miles.
L’article est-il biaisé en faveur de la gestion des talents ? Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus. Bonne lecture.
No board member sets out to be mediocre. And yet as institutional shareholders and activists are “grading” board performance on a steeper curve than ever before, their view is that many boards are coming up short.
RDECOM Board of Directors holds meeting (Photo credit: RDECOM)
ISS, government regulators, the press, and others are exercising much greater scrutiny over whether boards are executing their fiduciary responsibilities and really acting in the best interests of shareholders. While activist shareholders traditionally were able to hold sway and demand board seats in smaller companies outside the Fortune 500, today we are seeing this happen with venerable names such as Procter & Gamble, Yahoo!, BMC Software, and JC Penney.
In this climate of stakeholders’ taking a much tougher stance on what they deem to be “underperforming directors,” it’s worth it to examine the causes of mediocre performance on boards today. Why are many boards missing the mark?
J’ai récemment pris connaissance d’une entrevue conduite par C-Suite Insight avec Douglas K. Chia*, secrétaire corporatif de la firme Johnson & Johnson. Cette entrevue aborde essentiellement quatre sujets très importants pour les parties prenantes de l’entreprise : (1) les pratiques de planification de la relève de la direction, surtout du PCD (2) les pratiques de rémunération et la préparation du document CD&A (Compensation Discussion and Analysis), (3) les relations et les discussions avec les investisseurs institutionnels et (4) les communications avec les actionnaires, notamment les aspects concernant le Say on Pay et la création de valeur à long terme.
Voici un compte rendu de cette entrevue. Vos commentaires sont appréciés. Bonne lecture.
C-Suite Insight: What are the big issues that you’re considering as Johnson & Johnson prepares for proxy season?
Doug: Like many other high-profile companies, executive compensation is a critical item for us during proxy season, and we are looking at the continuum of the story that we’ve been telling for the last few years in our proxy statements. As you may have seen, there have been some major changes in our executive suite from last year to this year, specifically a succession from a long-tenured CEO, who is retiring after a remarkable 41-year career at J&J, to a new CEO. So, obviously this recent leadership succession will be a big focus area. We’ll also continue to emphasize the changes in the design of our compensation programs that have been made over the past few years, which we put a lot of effort into describing in last year’s proxy statement.
Headquarters of the Johnson & Johnson Company, One Johnson & Johnson Plaza, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA. Architect: Henry N. Cobb of the I. M. Pei Company, built 1983. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
CSI: Succession planning is a weakness in a lot of companies. So could you take us through succession planning at Johnson & Johnson, when it started, and how you worked your way through it?
Doug: For us, succession planning has always been something which has gone smoothly because it’s been thought out in advance. J&J has had only seven CEOs since becoming a public company in the early 1940s, and each one has come from the internal ranks. In the current case, we have an outgoing CEO who had served in the position for the past decade. The process of identifying potential successors for him started a number of years ago, in the 2010-2011 timeframe, and the lead candidates became apparent to the public. Our major investors were familiar and quite comfortable with the individuals who were being considered.
CSI: In succession planning and other major processes at J&J, how do you view long-term sustainable value and how do you view your engagement with shareholders?
Doug: We’ve always managed our business for the long-term, which is reflected in our culture by the fact that people tend to have very long careers at Johnson & Johnson. So, we have the benefit of being able to train up-and-coming leaders in a variety of business situations and give our Board exposure to them along the way. In terms of shareholder engagement, our major investors get exposed to many of our senior business leaders through investor conferences and meetings where they can talk in-depth about the businesses they are running. Over time, investors get familiar with a small cadre of J&J senior business leaders.
CSI: We have to mention Say on Pay. How did this issue affect you initially, and how do you address it when you’re writing a CD&A?
Doug: You cannot write the CD&A only thinking about the Say on Pay vote. This reminds me of what my teachers in school used to say: You shouldn’t “study to the test.” Instead, study the subject, master the subject, and then you will do fine on the test. So for us, writing the CD&A each year is about making sure we tell the story that reflects what’s taking place at the company, our compensation philosophy, the values we are trying to instill through our compensation plans, how our executives are paid, and what performance is being rewarded. We try to illustrate that we manage our business for the long-term and thus place a lot of focus on aligning executive compensation with our long-term investors. That being said, you do want to consider the vote outcome, keeping in mind the “advisory” nature of the vote. Suffice it to say that ours have not been where we want them to be, although we did gain support from over a majority of the votes cast in each of the last two years.
CSI: What have you done about this?
Doug: Over the past summer and fall, we had some of our Board members and senior management sit down with a diverse mix of investors, in one-on-one settings, specifically to talk about executive compensation. Through those discussions, we have been able to better understand the parts of our executive compensation program and our disclosure that could be enhanced. One point the investor discussions drove home that is important for all of us to remember when writing the CD&A is that for investors, the proxy statement is really all they have to rely on for information; they likely know very little else about the company’s pay programs.
So, we have to take a critical eye to what we’ve presented in the past and ask ourselves, “How can we tell our story better in order to make people understand the important context and rationale underlying these compensation decisions?” I think it’s fair to say that this process has helped us identify specific areas where we could have done a more effective job of telling our story. That’s something we’ll continue to work on this year and every year.
CSI: We’ve talked to major institutional investors such as TIAA-CREF and CalPERS, and also companies like BlackRock. They’ve stressed to us the importance of private engagement. In many cases, they think it’s more effective if they engage you privately. Is that your experience and what’s your view, how much do you welcome that sort of private engagement?
Doug: I think that’s right. One-on-one engagement is a very effective method of communication between companies and investors. The advantage of this direct engagement is the candid nature of the discussion that ensues when there is not an “audience” of outsiders. Over time, you can build strong relationships this way. In particular, “real-time” engagement, either by phone or in-person, provides the opportunity for the kind of constructive back-and-forth discussion that helps tease out critical issues. It helps both sides more precisely identify areas that need to be clarified. In the one-on-one meetings we had over the summer and fall, the investors we met with were able to get a real sense of just how much time and thought our Board members put into the decisions around executive compensation and how many factors come into play. Those are hard things to effectively illustrate to investors through a written document like a proxy statement.
CSI: Have these private dialogues increased in the last few years, in the era of Dodd-Frank?
Doug: Yes, I can say they have for us. We are more proactive than we had been in the past, and many of our investors have also become more proactive. Some who were not inclined to talk to us in the past are now more receptive to having a conversation.
CSI: How do you balance the tension between short-term results and a long-term commitment to spending money on R&D and creating long-term value?
Doug: It’s a tricky balance, but J&J has a long-term philosophy. It’s no secret to the investment community as we constantly emphasize that we manage the business for the long-term. So, to a certain extent, we’re expecting investors who have made significant investments in our company to have that same mindset. Most are investing in the company as a long-term play. However, when you have so many shareholders, they are not all going to agree with you on everything, so naturally there are going to be some shareholders who have a shorter-term outlook for a variety of reasons.
CSI: What sort of big picture advice would you give public companies, and in particular corporate secretaries, as they prepare for proxy season?
Doug: As far as corporate secretaries go, we exchange know-how quite a bit. One of the most rewarding parts of my job is establishing the kinds of relationships with my counterparts where we can help each other be better at what we do. On the subject of engagement, the basic message I like to convey to my peers is that they should be open to engagement with those investors who want to have real constructive dialogue. It’s a dynamic environment out there right now and you have to be thinking about how to make strategic adjustments.
Also, don’t be afraid to make a break with your past practices on what your disclosure looks like, or how much disclosure you want to give. We should all take a fresh look every year and ask ourselves, “What are people asking for and what makes sense to give to them?” These days, you can’t approach every disclosure requirement as something for which you’re only going to provide what a rule demands. If you do, your company will be missing a huge opportunity to tell its story.
Finally, for all of us, and corporate secretaries in particular, the key to the debate around executive compensation is creating an environment where your board members have everything they need to make well thought-out decisions. That’s what I think of when I hear people refer to “good governance.” We need to keep the focus on the integrity of the decisions, the underlying decision-making process, and the people who have the duty to make those decisions.
____________________________________
*Douglas K. Chia is Assistant General Counsel & Corporate Secretary at Johnson & Johnson, the world’s most comprehensive and broadly-based manufacturer of health care products, headquartered in New Brunswick, New Jersey. His responsibilities include providing legal counsel to the corporation on matters of corporate governance, securities regulation, public company disclosure, and Sarbanes-Oxley Act compliance. Prior to joining Johnson & Johnson, Mr. Chia was Assistant General Counsel, Corporate at Tyco International. In private practice, Mr. Chia was an associate at the law firms of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett and Clifford Chance, practicing in the New York and Hong Kong offices of each firm. While in private practice, Mr. Chia provided legal counsel to issuers and underwriters on securities offerings and cross-border transactions. Mr. Chia is a member of the Board of Directors, Executive Steering Committee, Corporate Practices Committee, and Policy Advisory Committee of the Society of Corporate Secretaries & Governance Professionals, and is Chairman of the Society’s Membership Committee. Mr. Chia is also a member of the Corporate & Securities Law Committee of the Association of Corporate Counsel, as well as a member of the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA).
« Sam is an experienced manager and has worked for over twenty years in his industry. He has also sat on two not-for-profit boards and enjoys the governance role. Now he has an opportunity to buy an equity stake in a small business that has a product and service for which market demand is growing.
The business has not been growing quickly due to flat market conditions and revenue has not increased substantially as a consequence. The current owners are a husband and wife team and are tired; they have run the business for many years and want to retire.
The proposal is that Sam should purchase 40% of the company and take a seat on the board. The existing owners would retain 30% equity each and a shareholder’s agreement would stipulate that board decisions would require a 70% majority to be agreed. The current board has three members consisting of the owners and an ‘independent’ chairman who is the lawyer and a long-standing friend of the owners. The proposal is that he should remain as “he adds a lot of value and sees things we would miss”.
Sam intends not to work in the company but to be merely a shareholder and director. He has ideas for improving the growth and increasing the value of the company but wants to retain his full time employment in a larger corporation as a security measure. His employer is happy for him to take on a board seat and there is no direct competition between the two companies so Sam would have no conflict of interest; however, Sam’s boss, who is a friend and mentor to Sam, is uneasy and has suggested that Sam could find himself outmanoeuvred in the boardroom and overcharged for his equity. Sam is appreciative of the counsel but believes the shareholder agreement protects his interests. He would like to discuss board dynamics with the current owners but they seem not to be interested as they say the Chairman handles all the compliance and they just run the business so there is nothing to worry about ».
Quels conseil donneriez-vous à Sam ? Esquissez une réponse avant de consulter les avis des experts sur le sujet ci-dessous !
Doug’s Answer
Owning part of an SME is much more than an equity purchase and a board position. High level strategic and governance oversight is not enough; it takes a more ‘hands-on’ involvement.
The owners have realised they have had enough. Under the current proposal there is little in the way of resolving the typical SME succession dilemma; specifically:
Who has the skill and energy to ultimately take control and drive the business?
How to extract full value for the business which substantially funds retirement?
The board risks stalemate and conflict in decisions with a Chair aligned with current owners. Not a good outcome for the business, Sam or the current owners.
For this to be a win / win for everyone, an agreed succession plan should be part of Sam’s due diligence process along the following lines:
Sam’s intentions, post current-owners succession, should be clarified and agreed
The appointment of an independent chair and an independent director experienced in the same industry should be agreed
Untapped management talent existing within the business and a skilling, education and promotion program outlined
Recruitment program for management where gaps are identified
Current owners agree to an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) where appropriate
Key client and supplier relationships transition to the wider management team.
Sam should further protect his minority interests by holding pre-emptive rights to purchase the remaining shares should they be on offer, notwithstanding the ESOP mentioned above.
By clarifying all the stakeholders’ intentions and aspirations, the business presents a unified front with management, the board and shareholders “singing from the same songbook”.
Doug Jardine provides consulting services to owner operated businesses and boards and is based in Sydney.
Julie’s Answer
There is more to a board than compliance. Managers accustomed to running things as they see fit whilst relying on a lawyer to put together a semblance of compliance at board level are not going to make good board colleagues. Sam has some good ideas but unless they are also in the shareholder agreement (with dates and budgets) they will likely never get implemented.
Already the board is set for deadlock whenever the existing directors disagree with Sam. The 70% required for decision-making is a nonsense as Sam will find he either has to conform to the wishes of a husband and wife team or try to split them. They might as well stipulate 100% consensus as that is all that will work in the circumstances. It is also a pretty good way to run a board.
I usually hate quasi-equity as it tends to complicate matters but Sam could look into having a preference share which is repayable as debt and converts to equity only when the strategy reaches certain milestones.
What he most needs to do is sit down with the current owners and talk, long, hard and deep, about what this company is really supposed to achieve. It looks as if it has always been supposed to provide a certain lifestyle and income for the owners. But what about the future? What do they now want the company to be?
If they can agree on a vision and set aside enough of Sam’s investment to fund the new actions that must be taken to achieve the vision, then they may be able to grow the company to a stage where a profitable exit is achievable. If they can’t agree on exactly what the vision is and how they will work to achieve it – Now – In detail – Sam should not invest.
Julie Garland McLellan is a practising non-executive director and board consultant based in Sydney, Australia.
Simon’s Answer
Sam takes an equity share to help grow the company (future nest egg). The owners (husband and wife) want to retire and secure as much money as possible from the asset sale (nest egg right now). Neither party wants any ongoing operational involvement – what is this deal really about? Are the owners serious in selling or grabbing equity dollars?
The 70% rule subjugates Sam’s rights and restricts the potential for business improvements but also terrifyingly entrenches the owners’ current policies, practices and procedures. A resolution to change anything requires the support of Sam, the Chairman (even if he/she places director duties ahead of friendship) and one of the owners – good luck with that.
There needs to be far more discussion by all parties about the fundamentals of this deal before it proceeds any further.
Sam is a minority shareholder with a Shareholders’ Agreement (SA) that lacks rigour, inclusion of, and agreement on, significant matters. The SA affords Sam no rights protection, no restriction on changes in each owner’s equity or share ownership, no restraint of trade restriction on the owners once retired and no provisions for breaking deadlocks e.g. mediation which will be inevitable given the 70% rule.
There is no guarantee that the owners will be unified on either the quantum or timeframe for retirement and the SA needs to reconcile that fact. The owners (or one of them) could just sell the remaining 60% (30%) to another party or give the shareholding to their beneficiaries. What is the agreed owner exit strategy and succession plan? There is no first right of refusal (including terms) for Sam to buyout one or both owners.
What happens if one or both owners prematurely die/separate or become incapacitated? What happens if Sam dies or is incapacitated or simply wants to get out? These all need to be included in the SA with trigger events established, agreed timeframes and pre-calculated quantum.
Now is the time to construct a rigorous SA, if any party baulks now, better to establish that at the outset before the dollars are committed. If Sam acts in haste, he/she can repent at leisure.
Simon Pinnock is a professional and practising non-executive director and Board consultant. He is based in Melbourne, Australia.
Plusieurs administrateurs et formateurs me demandent de leur proposer un document de vulgarisation sur le sujet de la gouvernance. J’ai déjà diffusé sur mon blogue un guide à l’intention des journalistes spécialisés dans le domaine de la gouvernance des sociétés à travers le monde. Il a été publié par le Global Corporate Governance Forum et International Finance Corporation (un organisme de la World Bank) en étroite coopération avec International Center for Journalists. Je n’ai encore rien vu de plus complet et de plus pertinent sur la meilleure manière d’appréhender les multiples problématiques reliées à la gouvernance des entreprises mondiales. La direction de Global Corporate Governance Forum m’a fait parvenir le document en français le 14 février.
Ce guide est un outil pédagogique indispensable pour acquérir une solide compréhension des diverses facettes de la gouvernance des sociétés. Les auteurs ont multiplié les exemples de problèmes d’éthiques et de conflits d’intérêts liés à la conduite des entreprises mondiales. On apprend aux journalistes économiques – et à toutes les personnes préoccupées par la saine gouvernance – à raffiner les investigations et à diffuser les résultats des analyses effectuées. Je vous recommande fortement de lire le document, mais aussi de le conserver en lieu sûr car il est fort probable que vous aurez l’occasion de vous en servir.
Vous trouverez ci-dessous quelques extraits de l’introduction à l’ouvrage.
« This Guide is designed for reporters and editors who already have some experience covering business and finance. The goal is to help journalists develop stories that examine how a company is governed, and spot events that may have serious consequences for the company’s survival, shareholders and stakeholders. Topics include the media’s role as a watchdog, how the board of directors functions, what constitutes good practice, what financial reports reveal, what role shareholders play and how to track down and use information shedding light on a company’s inner workings. Journalists will learn how to recognize “red flags,” or warning signs, that indicate whether a company may be violating laws and rules. Tips on reporting and writing guide reporters in developing clear, balanced, fair and convincing stories.
Three recurring features in the Guide help reporters apply “lessons learned” to their own “beats,” or coverage areas:
– Reporter’s Notebook: Advise from successful business journalists
– Story Toolbox: How and where to find the story ideas
– What Do You Know? Applying the Guide’s lessons
Each chapter helps journalists acquire the knowledge and skills needed to recognize potential stories in the companies they cover, dig out the essential facts, interpret their findings and write clear, compelling stories:
What corporate governance is, and how it can lead to stories. (Chapter 1, What’s good governance, and why should journalists care?)
How understanding the role that the board and its committees play can lead to stories that competitors miss. (Chapter 2, The all-important board of directors)
Shareholders are not only the ultimate stakeholders in public companies, but they often are an excellent source for story ideas. (Chapter 3, All about shareholders)
Understanding how companies are structured helps journalists figure out how the board and management interact and why family-owned and state-owned enterprises (SOEs), may not always operate in the best interests of shareholders and the public. (Chapter 4, Inside family-owned and state-owned enterprises)
Regulatory disclosures can be a rich source of exclusive stories for journalists who know where to look and how to interpret what they see. (Chapter 5, Toeing the line: regulations and disclosure)
Reading financial statements and annual reports — especially the fine print — often leads to journalistic scoops. (Chapter 6, Finding the story behind the numbers)
Developing sources is a key element for reporters covering companies. So is dealing with resistance and pressure from company executives and public relations directors. (Chapter 7, Writing and reporting tips)
Each chapter ends with a section on Sources, which lists background resources pertinent to that chapter’s topics. At the end of the Guide, a Selected Resources section provides useful websites and recommended reading on corporate governance. The Glossary defines terminology used in covering companies and corporate governance ».
Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, un articleparu dans la section Boards & Governance du site de Spencer Stuart portant sur un sujet très négligé dans le domaine de la gouvernance des entreprises : La planification de la relève du PCD (CEO).
Comme environ 80% des PCD du S&P 500 sont issus de l’interne, les organisations sont dans une bien meilleure position pour planifier la relève de la haute direction, notamment celle du PCD. L’article s’interroge sur la prédictibilité du succès du PCD et énumère plusieurs facteurs qui contribuent au manque de précision dans la définition des critères de réussite :
« The articulated strategy is too rooted in the present and often includes status quo assumptions, rather than taking a view of where the company needs to be in five to 10 years.
The criteria for the future CEO are not based on a deep, analytical review of the company’s financial performance versus industry peers; nor are they tied to the strategic, organizational and operational levers that the next CEO will need to employ.
Evaluations of succession candidates often are loose and relative to the roles executives are in today rather than mapped to the future. Complicating matters, predicting the likely success of internal succession candidates is even more challenging because the CEO role is vastly more complex than their current jobs ».
NYC: American Intl Building and Manhattan Company Building (Photo credit: wallyg)
Les entreprises doivent se doter d’un processus systématique de recherche et de préparation d’un successeur potentiel. L’article suggère les étapes suivantes. Veuillez lire l’article pour bieux comprendre chaque actions proposée.
■ Focuses on company performance
■ Defines criteria for the next CEO based on future performance drivers
■ Challenges traditional assumptions about succession candidates
■ Assesses succession candidates with a forward-looking lens
« Even as they adopt a more thoughtful succession planning process, boards should remember that no one individual can meet every requirement in equal measure; tradeoffs will be necessary. Boards will be in a better position to navigate these tradeoffs, and increase the odds of a successor coming from within, if they have defined success for the company — and the CEO — through a rigorous review of the performance of the company, its strategic imperatives and the necessary capabilities for the next CEO ».
Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, un excellent article publié par Thomas J. Saporito dans le Ivey Business Journal de Janvier-Février 2013 qui porte sur un sujet crucial pour le succès d’une organisation : la gestion du processus de préparation de la relève par leconseil d’administration. Bien sûr, c’est un processus ardu et laborieux car la coopération entière du PCD en place n’est pas toujours acquise ! Et, la volonté du C.A. de se lancer dans une telle opération n’est pas toujours au rendez-vous ! C’est ici que le rôle du président du conseil d’administration (PCA) dans l’animation de cette « pratique exemplaire » à long terme prend tout son sens.
L’article nous guide dans la mise en oeuvre d’un processus en dix phases qui couvrent l’ensemble des activités à accomplir. J’ai reproduit un court extrait de l’article ainsi que l’énumération des dix dimentions à considérer. Pour mieux comprendre et agir, il faut lire l’article au complet. Bonne lecture.
English: Board of Directors (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
« In a joint RHR International/Chief Executive magazine study of 236 corporate directors, 95 percent of respondents acknowledged that CEO succession is a critical business continuity issue. Nevertheless, more than half (53 percent) rated themselves as “ineffective” in executing their responsibilities in the CEO succession process.
In the course of our succession-planning practice, we have concluded that there are 10 key dimensions for effective CEO succession planning. These essential elements – what we consider the ingredients for success – will help any organization build and maintain a successful CEO succession program. Each of these dimensions must be maintained to ensure that the risks inherent in each leadership transition are minimized and the best outcomes are achieved. Having best practices in place to manage each of these 10 dimensions in a continuous process will ensure that a board of directors is operating at peak effectiveness and efficiency, and that its CEO succession-planning program is, without question, a best practice ».
FIRST STEPS
1. Establish Board Ownership, Involvement and Oversight
Plusieurs administrateurs et formateurs me demandent de leur proposer un document de vulgarisation sur le sujet de la gouvernance. J’ai déjà diffusé sur mon blogue un guide à l’intention des journalistes spécialisés dans le domaine de la gouvernance des sociétés à travers le monde. Il a été publié par le Global Corporate Governance Forum et International Finance Corporation (un organisme de la World Bank) en étroite coopération avec International Center for Journalists. Je n’ai encore rien vu de plus complet de plus et de plus pertinent sur la meilleure manière d’appréhender les multiples problématiques reliées à la gouvernance des entreprises mondiales. La direction de Global Corporate Governance Forum m’a fait parvenir le document en français le 14 février.
Ce guide est un outil pédagogique indispensable pour acquérir une solide compréhension des diverses facettes de la gouvernance des sociétés. Les auteurs ont multiplié les exemples de problèmes d’éthiques et de conflits d’intérêts liés à la conduite des entreprises mondiales. On apprend aux journalistes économiques – et à toutes les personnes préoccupées par la saine gouvernance – à raffiner les investigations et à diffuser les résultats des analyses effectuées. Je vous recommande fortement de lire le document, mais aussi de le conserver en lieu sûr car il est fort probable que vous aurez l’occasion de vous en servir.
Vous trouverez ci-dessous quelques extraits de l’introduction à l’ouvrage.
« This Guide is designed for reporters and editors who already have some experience covering business and finance. The goal is to help journalists develop stories that examine how a company is governed, and spot events that may have serious consequences for the company’s survival, shareholders and stakeholders. Topics include the media’s role as a watchdog, how the board of directors functions, what constitutes good practice, what financial reports reveal, what role shareholders play and how to track down and use information shedding light on a company’s inner workings. Journalists will learn how to recognize “red flags,” or warning signs, that indicate whether a company may be violating laws and rules. Tips on reporting and writing guide reporters in developing clear, balanced, fair and convincing stories.
Three recurring features in the Guide help reporters apply “lessons learned” to their own “beats,” or coverage areas:
– Reporter’s Notebook: Advise from successful business journalists
– Story Toolbox: How and where to find the story ideas
– What Do You Know? Applying the Guide’s lessons
Each chapter helps journalists acquire the knowledge and skills needed to recognize potential stories in the companies they cover, dig out the essential facts, interpret their findings and write clear, compelling stories:
What corporate governance is, and how it can lead to stories. (Chapter 1, What’s good governance, and why should journalists care?)
How understanding the role that the board and its committees play can lead to stories that competitors miss. (Chapter 2, The all-important board of directors)
Shareholders are not only the ultimate stakeholders in public companies, but they often are an excellent source for story ideas. (Chapter 3, All about shareholders)
Understanding how companies are structured helps journalists figure out how the board and management interact and why family-owned and state-owned enterprises (SOEs), may not always operate in the best interests of shareholders and the public. (Chapter 4, Inside family-owned and state-owned enterprises)
Regulatory disclosures can be a rich source of exclusive stories for journalists who know where to look and how to interpret what they see. (Chapter 5, Toeing the line: regulations and disclosure)
Reading financial statements and annual reports — especially the fine print — often leads to journalistic scoops. (Chapter 6, Finding the story behind the numbers)
Developing sources is a key element for reporters covering companies. So is dealing with resistance and pressure from company executives and public relations directors. (Chapter 7, Writing and reporting tips)
Each chapter ends with a section on Sources, which lists background resources pertinent to that chapter’s topics. At the end of the Guide, a Selected Resources section provides useful websites and recommended reading on corporate governance. The Glossary defines terminology used in covering companies and corporate governance ».
Le site Boardmember.com, plus particulièrement la section intitulée The Boardroom channel, présente une vaste sélection de vidéos sur la gouvernance des sociétés. Je vous invite à consulter les nombreux vidéos présentés par des experts reconnus dans le domaine de la gouvernance. En voici une liste non-exhaustive :
À titre d’exemple, j’ai choisi un vidéo très pertinent qui présente des entrevues avec des présidents et chefs de la direction (PCD – CEO) d’entreprises connues. Dans ce vidéo, les PCD expliquent les fondements d’une solide relation entre la haute direction et le conseil d’administration. Quelles sont les attentes des PCD envers leur C.A. ?
« A compilation of interviews with respected CEOs. Hear what respected CEOs have to say about characteristics that make for an effective CEO-board relationship and their biggest expectations of their boards ».
Ci-dessous, un article paru dans HBR sous la plume de Ron Ashkenas, associé de la firme Schaffer Consulting, qui explique clairement les effets des retraites des boomers au cours des 20 prochaines années. À quels changements du monde des affaires devons-nous nous attendre ?
« I recently heard a stunning statistic: For the next 19 years, 10,000 people per day will turn 65 years old, and (presumably) retire shortly thereafter. While this graying of the Boomer generation certainly has implications for health care and social policy (and for me personally, as one of those eventual retirees), it may have even more significance for the nature of the workforce and the job of the manager.
First, there will be a shortage of workers for key jobs. This may sound hard to believe at a time when U.S. unemployment hovers around 8% and parts of Europe have 25% of their people out of work. Yet as millions of boomers leave the workforce, there are far fewer younger people to replace them. In the trucking industry alone, for example, it’s estimated that there will be a shortage of over 100,000 drivers in just a few years. Moreover, the replacements will have far less experience and know-how, and will need considerable training to get up-to-speed. This will lead to significant gaps in areas such as engineering, petrol-chemicals, utilities, defense manufacturing, education, healthcare, and air traffic control ».
Voici un excellent aperçu de ce que l’année 2013 réserve aux administrateurs de sociétés, plus particulièrement à ceux qui suivent l’évolution de la règlementation américaine. Cet article, partagé par Louise Champoux-Paillé et publié sur le blogue du Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, est certainement un « must » pour tous les ASC (administrateurs de sociétés certifiés) du Collège des administrateurs de sociétés (CAS).
L’auteur a su cibler les sujets les plus chauds en gouvernance en 2013 et il présente les conséquences de ses choix en détail . L’article est basé sur l’alerte en gouvernance diffusée par la firme Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. Voici un bref extrait de l’article que je vous invite à lire au complet.
Harvard Law School Langdell Hall (Photo credit: ZaNiaC)
« A fog of uncertainty hangs over U.S. public companies as 2013 approaches. The looming fiscal cliff, increased regulatory burdens, the ongoing European debt crisis, growing Middle East unrest and slowing global growth are just a few of the uncertainties companies will have to navigate as they chart a course for the coming year. Here is our list of hot topics for the boardroom in 2013:
Oversee strategic planning amid fiscal and economic uncertainty as America approaches the fiscal cliff
Assess the impact of mobile technology and social media on the company’s business plans
Address cybersecurity
Oversee the management of reputational risk
Set appropriate executive compensation as shareholders increasingly voice dissatisfaction with pay practices
Assess the impact of health care reform on the company’s benefit plans and cost structure
Ensure appropriate board composition in light of changing marketplace dynamics and increasing calls for diversity
Monitor the company’s need for, and ability to retain, key talent
Le document ci-dessous présente la problématique, bien réelle, de l’asymétrie de l’information entre les membres du conseil (le Board) et la direction de l’entreprise (le management). Il y a un gap naturel entre ce qui est communiqué par le management et ce qui est requis par le Board pour bien faire son travail. Ce dernier a besoin d’une information de qualité, c’est-à-dire une information complète (quoique synthétique), représentative de la réalité, la plus objective possible et, à jour.
Le rapport, préparé par la NACD (représentant le point de vue des administrateurs) et la firme comptable McGladrey (représentant le point de vue du management), présente un excellent compte rendu des problématiques soulevées par le manque de communication entre les administrateurs et la direction et propose plusieurs pratiques susceptibles de combler le gap d’information. On y présente les résultats des « conversations » issus de quatre panels composés d’administrateurs et de membres de la haute direction. Le compte rendu fait ressortir les principaux problèmes de communication dans les domaines suivants : La stratégie et le risque, la rémunération des hauts dirigeants, la planification de la succession du PCD, et l’évaluation du Conseil.
Je crois que les personnes intéressées par cette question, c’est-à-dire les administrateurs de sociétés et les membres des directions d’entreprises, devraient prendre connaissance de ce document afin d’être mieux renseignés sur les moyens à prendre pour pallier l’assymétrie de l’information.
Voici un court extrait du document. Bonne lecture.
« Effective board oversight demands information that is as current and relevant as possible. There are, however, natural gaps between what management communicates and what the board needs to know. The information flow between management and the board may not always be perfect, and board committees may have similar troubles bringing the full board « up to speed » on certain issues. The purpose of this report is to address these issues, which we call the « effectiveness gap. »…
The goal of this report is to offer some tips and strategies to improve communications between the full board, C-suite, and committees. In particular, we focus on four areas of concern: strategy and risk, executive compensation, CEO succession planning, and board evaluations. These four areas are traditionally of high importance to board members yet have also presented challenges.
To help bridge the gaps in effectiveness, it was necessary to speak directly with individuals from both management and the board. While the National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD) is able to assess the director perspective, we needed the C-suite perspective as well. We partnered with McGladrey to host four small gatherings of executives and directors in an effort to find ways of improving communications and relationships. The conversations that occurred during these gatherings provided the material for this document ».
Voici le point de vue de Martin Lipton, Steven A. Rosenblum, Karessa L. Cain et Kendall Y. Fox, de la firme d’avocat Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, publié sur le blogue Governance Center Blog du ConferenceBoard. L’article fait un tour d’horizon très complet des préoccupations en gouvernance susceptibles « d’occuper » les membres de C.A.en 2013. Je reproduis, ci-dessous, un paragraphe introductif aux grandes tendances en gouvernance et je vous invite à lire cet article qui vous donnera sûrement un excellent aperçu de la gouvernance en 2013.
« The dynamics of the current environment continue to increase the amount of time and energy that board service requires, the volume and complexity of information that directors are expected to digest and the reputational risks that directors face. Although management is responsible for the day-to-day operation of the business, and the board’s role is primarily one of supervision and advice, many directors are finding that to be truly effective in today’s environment, they are required to take a more active role than in the past. Given this reality, directors should consider the commitment that is required in joining a board, and weigh the other demands on their time, before making the decision to accept a new board position ».
Le point d’ironie; el signo de la ironía (Photo credit: Wiliam Ajanel)
Liste des éléments-clés susceptibles d’influencer les C.A. en 2013
1. Short-Termism
2. Shareholder Activism
3. Balancing the Roles of Business Partner and Monitor
En reprise – Très bon billet de James Citrin, Senior Director | Spencer Stuart, sur un sujet qui intéressera sûrement plusieurs personnes désirant décrocher un poste sur un conseil d’administration. Les diplômés et les diplômées des programmes de formation en gouvernance de sociétés, tels que le Collèges des administrateurs de sociétés (CAS), le Directors College (DC) et l’Institute of Corporate Directors(ICD), sont particulièrement invités (es) à lire ce billet d’expert, mais aussi à suivre les discussions sur son Blogue. Voici, ci-dessous, un extrait de l’article :
2011 Board of Directors Retreat (Photo credit: sfbike)
« You’re a sitting chief executive officer who wants to see how another company’s board governs. Or you’re an aspiring CEO who wants to benefit from a valuable professional development opportunity and expand your marketability. Perhaps you are a newly retired executive who wants to stay active and connected. Or maybe you are a functional leader who wants to contribute your expertise in exchange for gaining a broader strategic perspective. You may even be a CEO or chief HR officer looking for ways to improve your own company’s succession planning by getting your CEO-ready executives boardroom experience. Whether it is one of these or any other number of reasons, many of today’s senior executives would like to join a corporate board of directors. The irony is that while much has been written about the legitimate difficulties of companies finding qualified and interested directors for their boards, there are a growing number of prospective directors who would be all too happy to serve. If you are one of these prospective directors, the question is how position yourself and navigate the nuances of the director selection process to get placed on a board ».
L’auteur propose six étapes à suivre. Lire l’article pour plus de détails.
Board Bio
Target List
Your Interests
Director Events
Search Firms
Not for Profits
« Board service is often a rewarding experience both professionally and personally. There is a growing demand for dedicated directors who can guide and govern our corporations. So if you want to be a board director and bring your expertise to bear, we offer these six steps to get you on your way. Good luck ».
Très bon billet de James Citrin, Senior Director | Spencer Stuart, sur un sujet qui intéressera sûrement plusieurs personnes désirant décrocher un poste sur un conseil d’administration. Les diplômés et les diplômées des programmes de formation en gouvernance de sociétés, tels que le Collèges des administrateurs de sociétés (CAS), le Directors College (DC) et l’Institute of Corporate Directors(ICD), sont particulièrement invités (es) à lire ce billet d’expert, mais aussi à suivre les discussions sur son Blogue. Voici, ci-dessous, un extrait de l’article :
« You’re a sitting chief executive officer who wants to see how another company’s board governs. Or you’re an aspiring CEO who wants to benefit from a valuable professional development opportunity and expand your marketability. Perhaps you are a newly retired executive who wants to stay active and connected. Or maybe you are a functional leader who wants to contribute your expertise in exchange for gaining a broader strategic perspective. You may even be a CEO or chief HR officer looking for ways to improve your own company’s succession planning by getting your CEO-ready executives boardroom experience. Whether it is one of these or any other number of reasons, many of today’s senior executives would like to join a corporate board of directors. The irony is that while much has been written about the legitimate difficulties of companies finding qualified and interested directors for their boards, there are a growing number of prospective directors who would be all too happy to serve. If you are one of these prospective directors, the question is how position yourself and navigate the nuances of the director selection process to get placed on a board ».
L’auteur propose six étapes à suivre. Lire l’article pour plus de détails.
Board Bio
Target List
Your Interests
Director Events
Search Firms
Not for Profits
« Board service is often a rewarding experience both professionally and personally. There is a growing demand for dedicated directors who can guide and govern our corporations. So if you want to be a board director and bring your expertise to bear, we offer these six steps to get you on your way. Good luck ».