Archive for the ‘Corporate Governance’ Category

Boards Beyond Borders: Global Panels at NACD’s Board Leadership Conference

November 6th, 2014 | By

It’s a mad, mad, mad, mad world—to echo a movie title from a half century ago—but it’s also a good one when nations cooperate. This is the big takeaway from the global track at NACD’s 2014 Board Leadership Conference, where representatives of nine nations convened to create a global village and to host a series of three staged programs.

GLOBAL-VILLAGE_MALAYSIA

The village itself featured colorful, information-rich booths where representatives from the embassies and consulates of Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, Ireland, Malaysia, Mexico, and the Russian Federation greeted trade-minded directors seeking to expand their knowledge.

In addition, the village featured a booth for the Global Network of Director Institutes (GNDI), a network of 12 director institutes (including NACD) and one confederation (ecoDA, in Europe). The GNDI booth offered an opportunity to meet incoming GNDI Chairman Stan Magidson, CEO of the Institute of Corporate Directors (ICD) from Canada; Paul Chan, the acting CEO of the Malaysian Alliance of Corporate Directors; and Simon Arcus, manager, Governance Leadership Center, Institute of Directors, New Zealand. Vicki Jordan, vice president of marketing, ICD, joined me in staffing the booth—a truly appropriate choice, as Canadians/les Canadiens are global by nature. For proof, see this new video produced at Laval University in Quebec (featuring yours truly) created for an exciting new ecoDa educational program also held in October.

The Global Village was home to a series of panels in the Global Track at the Conference. This blog offers takeaways for these dynamic panels.

Global Panel 1: Trade and Business in North America

Moderator: Dean A. Pinkert, vice chairman, U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Panelists: Gilles Gauthier, minister, Economic Affairs, Embassy of Canada; Francisco J. Sanchez, chairman, CNS Global; former under secretary at the Department of Commerce.

  1. To grow, consider going global. Eighty-five percent of world economic growth is occurring outside the U.S. The U.S. has bilateral or multilateral free trade agreements with 20 countries. Support for free trade is rising, according to Gallup polls.
  2. Know your trade agreement. A well-known example of a free trade agreement is the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), now 20 years old, which has been a success for all the economies This is why it is important to support the new and emerging free trade agreements of other regions namely: Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), and the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP).
  3. Give bipartisan support to good trade agreements. Although free trade is often associated with the pro-business Republican party and opposition is often associated with the pro-union Democratic party, good trade agreements such as NAFTA get bipartisan including union support—especially considering that one can always seek a trade remedy to cure imbalances.
  4. Think beyond tariffs. If trade unfairness arises, a variety of trade remedies are available. Tariffs—charging duties on imports—are only one way to correct imbalance. Even more constructive is regulatory cooperation and harmonization of standards.
  5. Tell your company’s story so stakeholders and the public will understand. Reatha Clark King, chair of the NACD board of directors, noted that boards need to do a better job of ensuring that companies are more forthright in disclosing information about their global nature: where they are headquartered, where they employ people, where they source their products, and where they sell their products, among other topics. By revealing their global nature, they will build more informed support for free trade.

Global Panel 2: Translating Corporate Culture Across Borders

Moderator: Dennis Whalen, partner-in-charge and executive director, KPMG’s Audit Committee Institute. Panelists: Orlando Ashford, director, ITT Corp., Executive Leadership Council, and Streetwise Partners; senior partner, Mercer; Michael Marquardt, director, Commonwealth Trust Co., Delaware Theatre Co., American Cancer Society (South Atlantic), and CEO, Global Compass Strategies Inc.

  1. Live “la vida local.” Many companies think locally and act globally, when they must do the opposite. As a company, value your local talent; as an individual, live your local life. Companies acquiring outside their borders used to send in executives from headquarters. Now, they are more likely to hire and promote locals—including expatriates who want to stay longer on an assignment.
  2. Check your culture and mark your calendar. One of the best examples of culture arrogance is when we are oblivious to non-U.S. national holidays. Not all are marked on global calendars. For example, don’t try to schedule a meeting in Berlin on November 9 – when the fall of the Berlin wall is commemorated.
  3. Focus on outcomes. When two companies get combined, focusing solely on process may result in getting buried in protocol. Instead, focus on desirable outcomes—for example an effective workplace. This was the case for Orlando Ashford when he learned that as a matter of policy, a particular non-U.S. division of a U.S. company had collected information on blood type, then run a blood drive for an employee’s relative, and published the results, causing some disharmony at work. He changed the policy.
  4. Insource HR. It may be tempting to ask a local company to hire your talent but it is worth your own time. While professional support can be valuable, human capital is too important to leave entirely to third parties.
  5. Know your agents. Enacted some four decades ago, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) does hold companies—and, by extension, boards—accountable for certain internal controls. Directors should ask for assurance from management that the people who are involved with selling the company’s products and services act within the boundaries of the law.

Global Panel 3:  The Global Start-Up Revolution

Moderator: Andrea Bonime-Blanc, chair, Epic Theatre Ensemble; audit chair, Counterpart International; CEO and founder, GEC Risk Advisory. Panelists: Andre Averbug, founding partner, Rankpad Consulting, Inc.; Mark Little, CEO and founder, Storyful; Bernard Moon, cofounder and partner, SparkLabs Global Ventures.

  1. Be “hyper-transparent.” In the new economy, “reputations can be lost or improved overnight.” Learn what the market wants to know about you and provide that information as soon as possible.
  2. Look around you. Any place and every place can fuel a start-up revolution. Berlin, Dublin, Nairobi, Seoul, and Tel Aviv are all current examples. Places with a long-established rule of law are ideal for startups, but no place is off limits. In these unexpected places, new ideas are finding the capital they need to become viable businesses—often in areas that do not require a large amount of funds to launch. (Cost of entry in technology-based businesses is generally lower than in traditional industries that require manufacturing plants, for example.)
  3. Respect Silicon Valleyand look beyond it. Silicon Valley is rightly known for the entrepreneurial ecosystem so important in the second phase of growth—a system that includes both financial capital (venture cap, angel investors, banks) and intellectual capital (fellow innovators, universities), not to mention savvy law firms. But such ecosystems are evolving elsewhere as well.
  4. Fail better. Don’t be afraid to start a business that may fail. Panelists noted that in the U.S., bankruptcy laws can be relatively forgiving. In locations where the bankruptcy laws are harsh, changes may be under way, and adaptations are possible. Also, remember that you need not go it alone. In a climate where the new form of research and development is mergers and acquisitions, a possible option may be to sell your start up to a larger company before a lack of funds brings the company to a halt.
  5. Give back. If you develop a successful startup, consider investing at least part of it in other new ventures, the way Google and Facebook founders have done. You can keep the global start-up movement going. Vive la revolution!

Recalibrating the Dialogue on Strategy Development

October 13th, 2014 | By

Rethink strategy. Briefly, that sums up the message in NACD’s new Blue Ribbon Commission Report on Strategy Development released today at the 2014 Board Leadership Conference. It is well known that the operating marketplace is fast-paced, volatile, and more dynamic than ever before. Companies must be able to react to disruptive forces quickly and correctly–the inability to do so is a real risk to an organization’s health and longevity. And yet, the role of the board in strategy has not evolved to meet the accelerated pace of business. Many boards still oversee strategy development with a “review and concur” approach: management creates a fully formed strategy that is presented to the board for approval with little discussion, and reviewed on an often annual basis.

How, then, can boards become more engaged in the strategy development process without crossing the line into management’s purview? To answer this question, earlier this year NACD convened a group of leading directors, strategy experts, and investors. At the second panel of the day, commission co-chair Raymond Gilmartin, former chairman, president, and CEO of Merck, commissioner Barbara Hackman Franklin, director of Aetna, and Bill McCracken, former chairman and CEO of CA, discussed with Wall Street Journal’s Management News Editor Joann Lublin the key recommendations from the report. These include:

Move to a higher level of engagement in the strategy formulation process. Gilmartin noted that moving past the “review and concur” model is important in light of unpredictability, uncertainty, and the unthinkable. “As directors, we are responsible for the creation of shareholder value, and also the long-term survival of the firm,” noted Gilmartin. “Failure in strategy is the reason why firms fail.”

Engage early with management, and continually. As strategy is formulated and reformulated, Franklin observed that boards need to engage on the underlying assumptions, strategic alternatives that are being considered, the risks involved, and how you manage success or not. And after there is concurrence with the board and management, at every board meeting there should be an update. “In effect, the strategy discussions are going on all year,” summarized Franklin.

Prepare for the future. In addition to becoming more engaged in strategy, McCracken stressed the importance of preparing for the future. Board agendas should be created to discuss the environment, competitors, and opportunities for innovation. “Often, activist investors are coming after [boards] for a lack of bold innovation on the behalf of directors.”

Putting It Into Practice

Panelists also discussed how they have incorporated the report’s recommendations at their respective boards. These areas include:

Director Knowledge and Education

Optimal engagement in strategy development necessitates that directors have the knowledge and context to understand the information presented by management, which requires continual education. From his experience on the board of General Mills, Gilmartin encouraged directors to visit plants and operations to gain context and the ability to interpret reports. Boards need to have a framework to interpret current events, and a common language so that they can discuss it with management.

Board Composition

Gilmartin stressed that boards “really must understand what the capabilities are and what skills are needed to effectively oversee this strategy.” While the board of General Mills does not use individual director evaluations to assess director effectiveness, Gilmartin believes that because of the interactiveness of the board “director evaluation occurs in every meeting with how they participate.”  

Director Time Commitment

Board agendas are packed with little time for discussion–how can directors be encouraged to make the time for more engagement in strategy development? “A board that makes strategy a priority will spend the time on it–this doesn’t require persuasion,” observed Franklin. From her experience, the shift to becoming more engaged in strategy didn’t happen overnight at Aetna. Now the process begins with several meetings on underlying assumptions to the strategy that leads to a full day session on the plan. Once we get to the [full day] meeting we all own it–not just management. After selecting a strategy, the Aetna board receives an update on the plan at every meeting and a deep dive on one element of the strategy.

Board/C-Suite Relations

Panelists noted that as the board moves to a more engaged role in strategy development, management may feel defensive or territorial. Having served as both the non-executive chair and then CEO of CA, McCracken has experienced this situation from both viewpoints. As non-executive chair, McCracken observed: “I set up things for the board to engage more in strategy once I became CEO.” To move CA from a mainframe company to the cloud, McCracken created a task force of directors who knew the industry best and experts from management–encouraging the board to become more engaged. “Then when I was CEO,” McCracken recalled, “the then-elected chair asked me ‘what do you think of this activist board’? I said: I created it–I’ll have to live with it.

The Report of the NACD Blue Ribbon Commission on Strategy Development can be found at the NACD Library.

NACD’s Second Small-Cap Forum Helps Directors Understand the Risks and Responsibilities of a Growing Business

August 6th, 2014 | By

The majority of companies in the United States are small cap, defined as companies below $500 million in market capitalization. While they are rich in ingenuity, small-cap companies have unique challenges that can be daunting for any board to manage. With smaller staffs and fewer resources than their large-cap counterparts, the time and talents of company executives are spread thin in the face of pressure for fast growth in an uncertain economic environment. This July, NACD, in partnership with Epsen Fuller Group, Fenwick & West, and Latham & Watkins held its second Small-Cap Forum. Over the course of a day, a collective of experts helmed six sessions at San Francisco’s Four Seasons Hotel to dissect the directors’ role in helping to build their companies. The following are three themes that emerged from the presentations:

Plan ahead. Many small-cap companies make the mistake of placing too much emphasis on budgeting. Innovation rarely, if ever, emerges from evaluating figures. Shift gears to take a close, hard look at your company and think about creating a strategic plan. A plan should ideally map out the next five years of the company—no fewer than three—and determine what resources are needed to meet those goals. Allot plenty of time outside of regular meetings to discuss various game plans, setting milestones to review the strategy.

Work with the founder. When assessing and building out the company’s long-term goals, the board also needs to pay attention to management. Small-cap companies often have a culture centered on the founder/CEO, and while that person’s innovative and entrepreneurial drive may have been enough to give legs to a nascent business, those skills may not be aligned with the firm’s needs and goals in subsequent stages of growth. That said, the board shouldn’t write off the leadership already in place. Building support around the C-suite can help enable the CEO to succeed in an increasingly expanding role, or to step down with dignity if required. By extension, start looking within the company for talent that can take the reins in the next three to five years. Broaching this topic can be highly sensitive; however, the longer a leadership gap exists at the CEO level in a small-cap environment, the greater the risk of a succession crisis.

Mind the gaps. The purpose of board-level committees is to share the workload so that board members can effectively “divide and conquer”; however, small-cap boards are traditionally half the size of a large-cap company—so small that the same directors frequently serve on multiple committees. Stretching resources this thin means that there is zero room for non-contributing directors, or else the board runs the risk of being unable to carry out its responsibilities effectively. Small-cap boards should create a skills matrix that charts each director’s areas of expertise—and reveals where the board’s collective knowledge base may be lacking.

A small-cap board should also put forth the effort to bridge the gap between the company and its shareholders. Any opportunity to engage with and better understand your shareholder base is a good idea, and is a particular imperative in the small-company environment where ownership may be more concentrated. Also realize that many small-cap boards become targets of activist investors. Prepare for those interactions not only by doing due diligence on activists’ investment styles and track records, but also by being willing to listen to the activists’ points of view.

Look for a full recap of the Small-Cap Forum in the September/October 2014 issue of NACD Directorship magazine.