The “war for talent” may be a trite phrase to some, but battles to find and keep the right people rage on nonetheless. In a study of the top risks for 2016, more than 500 participating C-level executives and directors rated succession challenges and the inability to attract and retain top talent as the fourth-highest risk—holding its position as a top five issue in surveys Protiviti have conducted in prior years. Simply stated, talented people with the requisite knowledge, skills, and core values are needed to execute challenging growth strategies in a rapidly changing world.
An organization’s talent is an aspect of the overall corporate strategy that management cannot afford to fumble. Below are questions to spark productive boardroom conversations about effective oversight of talent strategy that draw from our experience (including roundtables conducted with more than 65 active directors last year).
How does our overall business strategy shape our talent strategy? Does our business strategy articulate the performance expectations and core competencies required to execute it successfully? Is the business strategy used to drive how we define the leadership capabilities, functional and operational expertise, and specialized knowledge targeted by the talent strategy? Are the significant human capital risks reduced to an acceptable level by the talent strategy?
Does our company have a comprehensive, longer-term talent strategy for sustaining our leadership and talent pipeline? As anticipated changes in the workforce will impact the available talent pool outside of our company in the foreseeable future, what’s the long-term plan for growing the company? Do we have an effective plan for accessing talent—internally and externally—when we need it? Are our retention policies and practices sufficient to achieve our established attrition targets? How well are we developing and mentoring our talent internally?
How strong is our executive team two to three levels below the C-suite? What is the health of our bench of top performers and rising stars? How has it changed in recent years, and why? Is our bench strength strong enough to engender the board’s confidence in our succession plan?
How will global market forces impact the talent pools available to us and the steps we must take to secure the best talent? What are the largest demographic risks to executing our talent strategy, and how are we managing these risks—particularly with respect to attracting and retaining millennials? What reports should be made to the board over time regarding the organization’s response to talent challenges?
How effective is our retention of “A-players?” Do we know who our top performers and rising stars are? Are we capturing their “hearts and minds?” If so, how? Why do they leave, and do we use the lessons learned from their departure to improve our retention processes?
What are the critical capabilities among senior leaders that will drive our organization’s growth? Is the company systematically supporting the development of those capabilities?Does the CEO provide a candid assessment to the board of each senior leader’s contributions to the company and demonstration of our core values? Do we conduct high-quality assessments of our current leadership linked back to performance expectations underlying our strategy? Do we assign responsibility to close any gaps that are identified?
How effective is our onboarding process at integrating external hires and preparing them to contribute? How do we ensure a smooth transition? Do we measure the success of our onboarding strategy for experienced hires? For example, what is our 90-day experienced hire failure rate for key positions and first-year voluntary termination rate for experienced hires?
Is our organization agile and resilient in the face of significant change? How effectively do we adapt to changing markets? How ready are our employees to help us transform our organization in the face of innovative and disruptive change? How well do we handle unexpected changes? How well do we realize the promised value of mergers and acquisitions, given the integration challenges and cultural differences among the acquiring and acquired entities? Are we paying attention to the generational imperative as millennials fill out key roles in the workplace? Are we sensitive to cultural diversity across the global marketplace and its potential influence on organizational behavior and decision-making? Conversely, as a multinational organization, do we “think globally, act locally” regardless of the geography to ensure sensitivity to our core values and build a global brand?
Is our compensation structure competitive and effective in delivering appropriate rewards?Is our reward system (base pay, incentive compensation, and benefits) fair when performance goals are achieved and adjusted for the risks undertaken to achieve them? How do we assess compensation across the enterprise?
By attending to the answers to these questions, directors can ensure management is focused on developing a comprehensive talent strategy that can be acted upon, measured, and adjusted to fulfill the organization’s talent requirements.
Last week in Washington, D.C., directors convened at the National Association of Corporate Directors’ Spring Forum to hear experts discuss how boards can prepare for the future of American business. Panel topics ranged from oversight of emerging risks to talent development and even advertising. The common thread was clear: directors will continue to be confronted with nontraditional challenges.
Case in point: The aftermath of the cyber attack at Target has made the challenge of effectively overseeing cybersecurity risk a priority. ISS recently recommended voting against seven of Target’s ten board members, alleging that those directors inadequately prepared for data risks. Many are looking to the retailer’s tribulations as a sign of things to come: Directors may face additional scrutiny when efforts to oversee quickly evolving, highly technical risks fall short.
Instead of leaving directors anxious, panel discussions throughout the forum honed in on the following actions directors can take to prepare their companies to capitalize rather than capitulate to disruptors:
Leverage Big Data. With massive data collection becoming common practice, former White House CIO Theresa Payton and other speakers suggested using data from your company’s regular web traffic in order to cull anomalous and potentially malicious network activity from baseline data traffic.
Find a Cyber Risk Tolerance. Futurist Edie Weiner said that we can only exist in a state of “cyber insecurity.” Pragmatically speaking, companies cannot fend off every attack, but they can identify their most important assets and ensure they are safeguarded. Insecurity, to some degree, has to be accepted.
Look for Long-Term Trends. Focusing on quarter-to-quarter changes might obscure the large sea-change entire industries may be facing. Erwann Michel-Kerjan, executive director at the Wharton Risk Management and Decision Processes Center, challenged attendees to do their homework before pursuing a strategy, saying that the term “black swan” is too frequently used to describe predictable catastrophes. When given appropriate thought, he said risks can be teased out, analyzed, and planned for.
Secure the Necessary Talent. A powerhouse panel — Tucker Baily, partner at McKinsey & Co.; Earl Crane, former White House director for Federal Cybersecurity Policy; Linda Medler, former director for the capabilities and resource integration at the U.S. Cyber Command; and Krishnan Rajagopalan, managing partner at the global technology and services practice at Heidrick & Struggles—agreed on at least one point: the gravity of having not only those talented in understanding the cyber and IT worlds within the company, but also that those employees are able to discuss these topics with the board in simple and actionable terms.
Transparency is Here to Stay. Jeff Rosenblum, co-founder of Questus, looked through the lens of advertising to show how the connectivity of the social media age is making the machinations of every company more visible. For him, companies in the future ought to be more transparent, disclosing their thinking, actions, and the effects of those actions.
Undoubtedly, the best responses to these rising changes are evolving, becoming more efficient and effective. NACD, through its Directorship 2020 initiative and other programs, remains committed to sharing insights from thought leaders while providing a framework in which directors can better understand a world permeated with risk.
This year, NACD began a series of programs designed to address the changing nature of directorship. Intended to identify the board composition, processes, and resources necessary for the future board, the time frame lends a twist to this launch—no defined outcome has been chosen at this initial stage. Instead, with the awareness that the economy, and the boardroom, is in a state of unprecedented change, NACD Directorship 2020™is a multi-year initiative designed to help provide clarity to an uncertain picture regarding the future of directorship.
This initiative started with three exploratory meetings in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles, the last of which concluded this week on the West Coast. In each city, feedback has allowed NACD to continually refine the program design, as well as re-think the questions posed to attendees. Perhaps mirroring the movement of the meeting’s locations from east to west, the conversations have become more focused on the processes directors can implement to meet the coming challenges.
At the SLS Hotel in Los Angeles, more than 100 directors attended the afternoon session to discuss two topics: the future state of information flow between the board and C-suite, and how to select performance metrics that will generate sustainable organizational profit. Sessions were led by NACD Managing Director and CFO Peter Gleason; Akamai Technologies Lead Director and Audit Committee Chairman Martin Coyne; Investor Responsibility Research Center Director and current NACD Director Richard Koppes; and former Bell and Howell CEO, current NACD Director, ContextMedia Non-Executive Chairman, and Northwestern University Professor Bill White. During the highly interactive sessions, each table was given a specific set of questions to discuss and provide thoughts among their peers. Takeaways from the event include:
Asymmetric information risk is inherent in directorship. If the board had the same level of operational knowledge as management, directors would be running the company.
An imbalance in information can occur within the boardroom as well. Boards are at a higher risk if one director is viewed as an expert in a technical area. In these situations, the rest of the directors may defer to his or her proficiency and not exercise the necessary skepticism. Further, board structure, with committees that delve deeper into technical areas, adds to the potential for information imbalance.
The risk of information asymmetry is not an issue, but a catalyst. Discussing the balance of information flow between the board and C-suite can expand into many interconnected topics, including board composition, culture, metrics, and leadership.
Board portals may be “greener,” but they encourage information dump. Attendees agreed that their board books have largely grown in length, due to the ease of transferring files rather than creating physical board books. Today, it is more important than ever for the board to communicate what information it needs from management.
By bringing more viewpoints to the boardroom, directors that are diverse in skill set and experience are more likely to explore all sides of an issue. Diversity of directors will change the dialogue in the boardroom going forward.
Boardroom culture should welcome constructive challenges from directors.It is necessary for directors to ask probing questions on issues without fearing negative repercussions. A culture that welcomes constructive criticism will enable more effective individual director evaluations that address problems head on.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution to addressing the current and future challenges posed by legislators, regulators, and stakeholders. While the underlying principles are consistent, application of new processes will be tailored to each company.
As a result of the rapid pace of marketplace change, directors need to adopt a mindset that their business is going to be disrupted. This adjusted mindset will allow for continuity planning to be built into the strategy to help offset future disruptions. As Bill White observed: ”If you have the mindset, the metrics will follow.”
In the year 2020, metrics will increasingly focus on speed and agility. Attendees largely agreed that there is no such thing as a competitive sustainable advantage, as a result of disruptive technologies. Speed and agility not only apply to the operations (speed of execution, acceptance of new products), but also to talent (willingness to change, ability to adapt).
In the era of big data, you can “metric yourself to death.” Directors should not look at metrics and dashboards blindly, but instead they should view them in a broader context, including what implications they may hold. It is also important to counter internal metrics with data that shows how the company is viewed externally.
NACD Directorship 2020 will officially kick off next month at the 2013 NACD Board Leadership Conference. Until then, NACD’s blog will feature viewpoints and research from our NACD Directorship 2020 partners—Broadridge, KPMG, Marsh & McLennan Cos., and PwC—that will take a deeper look into the emerging issues and trends that will redefine directorship in the years to come.