Archive for the ‘Director Education’ Category

NACD BLC 2014 Breakout Session – Going Beyond: Stories of Pushing Past Personal Limits

October 28th, 2014 | By

It should go without saying that governance in today’s complex business environment is no walk in the park. But are there lessons to be learned from a run in the Sahara? At the recent 2014 NACD Board Leadership Conference, documentary filmmaker Jennifer Steinman aimed to provide the answer to that question in a session titled “Going Beyond: Stories of Pushing Past Personal Limits.”

In the session, Steinman told the story of the creation of her latest film, “Desert Runners,” which follows people who take on the formidable challenge of competing in the 4 Deserts Race Series (4 Deserts). 4 Deserts includes a series of four ultra-marathons: races involving distances greater than the 26.2 miles that compose a typical marathon. The races take place in some of the most inhospitable environments on earth, including the Sahara, Gobi, and Atacama deserts, and Antarctica.

Steinman began the film project with a series of questions, including “what are these perceived limitations that we put on ourselves?” and “are these crazy people?” She arrived at the first race expecting to find a group of elite, superhuman athletes, and was surprised to find that, for the most part, the runners were what you might call “everyday” people; people with day jobs, mortgages, and families. Steinman’s film follows four people who decided to take on this challenge. In the course of the conference session, attendees were introduced—through video clips—to three of them: a student named Samantha, age 25; an American consultant named Ricky, age 33; and Dave, a 56-year-old marketing director and friend of Steinman’s who introduced her to the competition. Dave was one of 13 runners attempting to complete all four grueling races of 4 Deserts in one year, a feat known as the “Grand Slam.”

Steinman shared a series of her favorite clips from the documentary, and as might be imagined, Samantha, Ricky, and Dave confronted a wide variety of physical challenges, including dehydration, illness, exhaustion, and a great deal of pain.

So how did all of that tie into directorship? The challenges and struggles of the runners echoed many of the themes emphasized elsewhere at conference.

An injury suffered by Ricky provides an example. Given the long distances and extreme conditions involved in the races of 4 Deserts, some degree of pain is unavoidable. However, as Steinman pointed out, racers must constantly ask themselves, “is this real pain, pain I need to deal with, pain that can do real damage?” If the answer is “yes” to those questions, as it was in Ricky’s case, a runner needs to recognize this and give it the attention it requires. However, if the answer is “no,” any runner who intends to finish the race must recognize this, and avoid attaching more meaning to the pain than is merited.

As part of risk oversight, directors also receive an overwhelming amount of urgent information from a variety of sources, and must contextualize it on the basis of their own experience so they can ask the right questions of management. The board should ensure that the risk oversight processes in place have the capability to differentiate between a real threat and the intermittent challenges that occur in the normal course of business. When a real threat is detected, a director must not let pride get in the way of taking the appropriate actions, as the consequences could become progressively worse.

Another of Steinman’s film clips showed a series of gruesome injuries suffered by runners. Watching the clips quite naturally might cause one to wonder why anyone would willingly participate in such a competition. Steinman found that part of the answer to that stemmed from the camaraderie of being marooned in the desert with a common goal. While a small contingent of elite runners are in the race to win, the vast majority have the simple goal of finishing. Even a relatively competitive person would likely concede that running consecutive marathons across the Sahara or Antarctica is hardly your typical “participation medal,” and many runners rely on each other at times to accomplish this remarkable feat.

In a particularly poignant clip, a professional runner holds Samantha by the hand and they help each other to the next check point. Though they may be significantly different in kind, corporate directors certainly face their own challenges. The reasons directors take on the responsibilities and liabilities inherent in the role are many, but by concentrating on the reasons they are there, and augmenting their own expertise with the expertise of others around the table, each director, board, and company can reach their goals.

Complexity and the Boardroom

October 14th, 2014 | By

At the final plenary session of the 2014 NACD Board Leadership Conference, NACD President and CEO Ken Daly spoke with Steven Reinemund, director of Walmart, Exxon Mobil, Marriott, and American Express, and Gen. H. Hugh Shelton (Ret.), chairman of Red Hat and director of L-3 Communications on the issue of business complexity. The current environment is dynamic, fast-paced, and tumultuous, Daly observed. Not only must boards stay vigilant of disruptive forces—including those identified by NACD’s Directorship 2020®: economics, geopolitics, competition, technology, demographics, innovation, and environment—these forces rarely appear solo. Indeed, multiple forces can strike a company at once, creating a formidable force: complexity.

Drawing from his military background, Gen. Shelton suggested applying a process of “branches and sequels” in boardroom discussions to reduce unknown factors. This process requires that strategy development takes into account all possible actions of your adversaries or competitors—forcing directors to consider the “knowns and the unknowns.”

Reinemund used different terminology to address unknown and unanticipated factors. He said that boards may wish to view disruptors and risks through both offensive and defensive lenses. Most importantly, boards must also combine the two. Although defensive moves can be easier for boards to understand and address, by considering offensive actions the board can help move the business forward.

Turning to the topic of innovation, Daly noted that an unusually high number (95%) of the Standard and Poor’s 500 company earnings have been used to buy back stock or pay dividends. He posed the question: does returning earnings to shareholders reduce or limit the funds available for innovation or acquisitions?

Both panelists agreed that many companies have a large amount of cash available, but often the board can’t find a potential acquisition that fits the company strategy, or the target has such a high multiple that it is not a good purchase. Despite these potential issues, though, the panelists agreed that most large companies need to invest in innovation, through acquisitions or otherwise. Above all, the board has to think in terms of the amount of risk they are willing to take and—if necessary—encourage management to make innovation a priority.

The session ended with a discussion on board accountability. The panelists noted that directors must hold each other accountable for recruiting the right leaders, keeping their skills current, and maintaining the right mix of directors on the board.

Generational Dynamics in the Boardroom

October 13th, 2014 | By

During today’s keynote address at the 2014 NACD Board Leadership Conference, Chuck Underwood—founder and principal of The Generational Imperative, a consulting firm that provides training and research on generational demographics to businesses and governmental officials—shared some key takeaways on how generational demographics affect corporate governance. He began by sharing three key points about generational dynamics.

  1. “Between birth and the late teens or early 20s, individuals form core values molded by teachings and personal experiences, and those core values are by and large kept for life. People who are approximately the same age group and who have been shaped by similar teachings and experiences are considered to be a generation.
  1. American life in the last 100 years has changed frequently and sharply, and life expectancy has increased because of advances in medicine and improved overall wellness. Individuals now live an average of 30 years longer in 2014 than in 1914. The increased life expectancy, coupled with frequent cultural changes, means there are now five living generations in the United States.
  1. The core values held by each generation exert powerful influence over that generation’s core choices, career decisions, lifestyle preferences, and behaviors—including leadership behavior in companies and in the boardroom,” said Underwood, who hosts the PBS national television series “America’s Generations With Chuck Underwood.”

Boards and company management can benefit from learning the core values of the five living American generations and by understanding how to relate to each generation in the marketplace and in the boardroom. The five generations are:

  1. The G.I. Generation, born from 1901 to 1926, is shaped by the experiences of economic prosperity during the roaring 1920s followed by the setbacks of the Great Depression;
  2. The Silent Generation, born from 1927 to 1945, is more financially secure than any other generation that has reached their age;
  3. Baby Boomers, born from 1946 to 1964, currently account for 25 percent of the U.S. population and 50 percent of its wealth;
  4. Generation X, born from 1965 to 1981, is shaped by a materially comfortable childhood that was also emotionally difficult because of divorced and career-driven parents; and
  5. Millennials, born from 1982 to 1996—possibly longer, depending on whether individuals born after 1996 hold to the same core values of Millennials—and living an extended adolescence while also wanting to change the world for the better.

Underwood said that each generation has its own leadership style that is shaped by its unique experiences. He has found there are four general points about generational leadership:

  1. Each generation leads for about two decades.
  2. Each generation’s unique core values determine America’s direction.
  3. Some generations deliver good leadership, some deliver bad.
  4. A generation’s leadership era begins when the oldest are about 65 years old.

The United States is currently undergoing a transition, Underwood said, from one leadership era–that of the Silent Generation—to another: the Baby Boomers.

“Silent Generation white males (minorities and women were allowed the same opportunities) came into an environment in which the corporation was the highest priority, rather than employees. Team players were valued more highly than mavericks,” Underwood said. The value of conformity was stressed to this generation.

They enjoyed lifestyles their G.I. Generation parents never were able to receive because of the Great Depression, and they measured their value based on their material wealth.

The Silent Generation had the expectation that if they conformed and put the company’s needs above their own personal needs, they would be rewarded. Their strong desire for reward, however, led in some cases to corporate corruption.

“This,” Underwood said, “is why eyes are focused on the incoming generation of corporate directors and managers—Baby Boomers, who in their youth helped bring social change through the civil rights’ and women’s rights movements, for example—to help set corporate America back on a solid track.”