Posts Tagged ‘term limits’

Identifying Obstacles to Board Diversity

September 29th, 2015 | By

The final session of the Diversity Symposium at NACD’s 2015 Global Board Leaders’ Summit focused on the Report of the NACD Blue Ribbon Commission on the Diverse Board and how directors can implement recommendations from that report in their own boardrooms. Kapila Kapur Anand, a partner at KPMG LLP and the firm’s national partner-in-charge of Public Policy Business Initiatives, led the discussion with panelists that included Anthony K. Anderson, retired Ernst & Young LLP vice chair, executive board member, and Midwest and Pacific Southwest managing partner; The Hon. Cari M. Dominguez, a director at ManpowerGroup, Triple-S Management, Calvert SAGE Fund, and NACD; and Karen B. Greenbaum, president and CEO of the Association of Executive Search Consultants.

The Diverse Board: Moving from Interest to Action

As the Blue Ribbon Commission that produced this groundbreaking 2012 report observed:

[A] company’s ability to remain competitive will rely on its understanding of global markets, changing demographics, and customer expectations. Diversity is a business imperative, not just a social issue. The new business landscape will require boards to cast a wider net to find the very best talent available. As a natural corollary, the board’s mix of gender, ethnicity, and experiences will likely increase.

Dominguez noted that structural, social, and habitual barriers may prevent boards from becoming more diverse, and she offered this key advice: Don’t rely solely on the company’s CEO to lead this conversation. It’s the responsibility of every director to move the discussion forward.

So why aren’t boards as diverse as they could be? Greenbaum addressed this question by referring to data she collected via a survey of both boards and search firms. Her findings surfaced five issues:

  1. Candidate pool. Boards contended that it was difficult to find diverse candidates. Horn countered this claim by asserting that a failure to find qualified candidates is more a function of boards not searching correctly. Boards should demand that search firms provide a diverse list of candidates. Conversely, search firms take their cue from boards and expect them to be vocal about the importance of having a diverse candidate pool.
  2. Term limits. A lack of term limits results in a situation in which boards cannot be routinely refreshed with new directors. If term limits are restricting opportunities to bring on new talent, consider expanding the board.
  3. Experience: Boards resist adding members who are not current CEOs or CFOs. Boards need to be open to first-timers and should develop strong mentoring programs to bring newly minted directors into the fold.
  4. Succession planning: Build a pipeline of diverse talent in your own company so that these leaders can serve not only in your boardroom but also in those of other organizations.
  5. Status quo. Boards can become complacent about how they operate, especially when they feel no pressure from shareholders or other stakeholders to change.

“All of us must be conscious that this is a leadership issue,” Anderson said. “If the leadership of a company doesn’t believe in diversity initiatives, the ability to make much happen is grossly inhibited.” Companies with a diversity strategy that touches on leadership, employment, and procurement are reinforcing the importance of diversity as part of company culture, Anderson added..

Creating change takes time, effort, and formal processes. Putting diversity on the agenda may require a shift in thinking and habits, but, as all of the panelists agreed, diversity is a business imperative that will only grow in importance over the coming years.

Going Private?

January 3rd, 2013 | By

In 2012, initial public offerings (IPOs) did not quite make the rebound analysts had predicted. In the year of the botched Facebook offering, just 128 IPOs were made. Although quadruple that of 2008, this marks a decrease from 154 IPOs in 2011. Last May, the Economist observed that this decline was part of a larger trend: the decline in popularity of the public company.

Since 1997, the number of U.S. public companies has fallen by 38 percent. Additionally, the average number of IPOs has declined from 311 per year between 1980 and 2000, to 99 per year between 2001 and 2011. In addition to companies actively not going public, in the last year several well-known businesses “went private,” such as Quest Software, CKE Restaurants, Burger King, and J. Crew.

In addition to the obvious distinctions of private companies—a lack of shareholders and adherence to regulation—NACD’s recently released 2012—2013 Private Company Governance Survey found many lesser-known differences. This survey features responses from over 550 individuals who serve private company boards. Some of the contrasts include:

Private company boards are smaller. On average, private company boards have 7.3 members—a decrease from 8.9 members in 2011. For the past several years, public company boards have consistently maintained an average of 8.8 members.

Public company directors are more likely to receive continuing boardroom education. In 2012, 82 percent of public company directors received continuing education in the last 12 months, compared to 57 percent of private company directors. This may be connected to company policy, however: 83.1 percent of public directors were reimbursed for education expenses, while only 54.5 percent of private company peers were.

Trend in the private company boardroom: D&O Insurance. Additional directors and officers liability insurance was obtained by just 15 percent of private company directors in 2008. In 2012, this figure jumped to 50.4 percent. In comparison, 42.8 percent of public company directors purchased additional D&O insurance in 2012.

Nominating and governance committees are much less prevalent at private companies. Similar to public company counterparts, audit and compensation committees are nearly ubiquitous at private companies. However, just 49.2 percent of private company survey respondents indicated that their board had a committee dedicated to nominating and governance.

Private companies employ different mechanisms to ensure director turnover. The most commonly used method of director turnover at private companies is director evaluation. Age limits and term limits are both used by nearly one-fifth of respondents. At public companies, the most prevalent mechanism to renew and replace directors is age limits, closely followed by evaluations. Term limits are used by just 6.5 percent.

Generally, private company boards maintain less diverse composition. Compared to 27.4 percent of public companies, 38.5 percent of private companies do not have any female directors. With respect to minority directors—based on race and ethnicity—70.3 percent of private companies have no such representation, compared to 51.8 percent of public boards.