Chairmen always ask me for my recommendations for potential
candidates for their board vacancies. Inevitably they’re after the best – a
person with the skills that meet the organisation’s needs, who may already have
board experience and has overall "fit" with the other directors.
But never has a chairman asked me "is the board is ready for
a director of calibre to join us?".
To use American real-estate parlance, I’m never asked if I
think the board has “curb appeal”? To continue the metaphor, and much like the
first impression made at an open house, I’m never asked whether I think the
board looks good on the inside, too.
There’s a popular saying in governance circles that the most
difficult thing to do on a board is to “get rid of” a “bad” director – someone who
is no longer making a contribution at board meetings, is being difficult, or
who doesn’t always attend meetings, and when they do, it’s clear they haven’t
prepared.
But no-one ever asks what it’s like for a newly-appointed
director who suddenly realises the board they agreed to join doesn't resemble the board they're now a member of.
A professional director will always do proper due diligence before
accepting a board seat. The investigation includes reviewing past board papers
and agenda, meeting with the chairman and some, if not all, of the directors,
as well as the CEO and maybe senior members of management. This process can
take months, as the board and the candidate size one another up.
Once the appointment is formalised, the director will attend
the first of many years of board meetings and sub-committee meetings, (in
Australia it’s common for non-executive directors to serve three terms of three
years).
But what if at that first meeting the new appointee wonders
what kind of board they’ve joined? It’s a bit like the couple who transition from
dating to living together. Each has to adjust to the unromantic conversations
about housework and supermarket shopping that they didn’t bother with in the
first flush of romance.
A new director and the board have likewise been on their
best behaviour and while both parties can get a reasonable impression of what
each person is like, it’s not until the first, second and third board meeting that the new
director is exposed to the unique group dynamic and the
communication styles of that particular board.
A new director has fresh eyes and ears and he or she sees
and hears differently to people who have been on a board for longer time. Obvious problems include whether the agenda
is followed as expected, if the chairman runs the meeting well or badly, if
some directors dominate the conversation, if the board papers are sent to directors in a
timely manner.
Then there are the impressions that are difficult for the
incumbents to acknowledge because they’ve been living with them for so long –
those pesky personality traits and behaviours of the other directors that the
board accommodates for no apparent reason other than tradition. Meanwhile the new
director must deal with their frustration in silence, hoping things will
change.
It’s often said, too, that the new director is the person
who asks “why do we do it this way”? Most directors think this question is
typical of the naïve newbie who will learn the board’s ways in due course.
Another way is to consider such a question as a moment of reflection – how do the
board members relate to one another, and what, if anything, does the board “put
up with” because it’s easier than addressing it in an otherwise busy calendar?
A typical example is the board papers. In my experience of
running workshops for CEOs and their senior executive teams on how to communicate
better with their boards - http://boardroomcg.com/page/consulting_services.html
- the board pack is often a festering sore.
Boards “put up with” badly-composed, poorly-argued and
over-written board papers that come with thick appendices; there might be
requests for change made to the CEO but these are not always addressed in the
way the board wants. The managers of the business don’t see such things as a
priority (or as a KPI) in an otherwise busy schedule. Likewise the board hasn’t
given a clear enough directive other than “make the papers shorter” or “the
board pack is too big”.
But the new director is more likely to say something, and this
is a perfect time for the board to revisit the content and style of the board
papers and to ask, more broadly, what standard of communication it wants from
management.
A new director is new for only a short time. It’s a wise
chairman who takes advantage of this fresh perspective and asks for first
impressions, without fear or favour. In fact, it would be better if the
chairman alerted the new director before their first board meeting that
in a few months’ time, he or she would appreciate their observations on the way
the board operates.
The last thing a professional director needs is to feel they’ve
made the wrong choice in joining the board; the last thing a board wants is to
make the wrong choice in filling a vacancy.
Just as in the real estate game where rented designer
furniture can turn an average house into a “lifestyle choice” so, too, do
boards need to be sure their own house is in order before an advertising and sales period.