Striving for Good Governance Should be Universal

There is a wide array of organizations that exist in the market place:

  • for-profit/not-for-profit
  • privately-owned/publicly traded
  • public sector/private sector

And unfortunately, with this variety, there tends to be a false assumption that there shouldn’t be a similar array of board governance standards.

The truth is that ALL Boards of Directors operate under the same three fiduciary duties:

  1. Loyalty;
  2. Prudence; and
  3. Impartiality.

Whether you sit on the Board of Alphabet, a charity, or your local condo board, ALL Boards must do their best to adhere to these same duties. Quite often, Board members suspect that because they are “only” on a board for a not-for-profit, start-up, small privately-owned company, etc. they don’t need to adhere to the same expectations/obligations of a larger, more complex organization.

Prudence is defined by Merriam-Webster as “the ability to govern and discipline oneself by the use of reason” which is why the “reasonable person” test is often applied to Board member actions whenever legal action is taken against them.

In any type of organization, Board members often know that there is, or should be, a better way to conduct their Board activities and complete their annual workplans, and it is fair to argue that in such cases, reasonable people should investigate what that improvement should be. Regardless of our level of skill or experience, all Board members experience a time when something doesn’t seem right or does not pass our personal “smell test.” What we often miss is that, if we feel that things could improve, there is a very high probability that there are others on our Board that feel the same way.

However, the identification of problems or shortcomings is a thing that we, as Board members, often shy away from because it requires us to either admit our own failings, the failings of our Board colleagues, or the failings of our entire Board. Whatever the issue, the duty of Prudence should compel us to act. But what is the best way for us to proceed without potentially embarrassing ourselves or our colleagues?

Board Effectiveness Assessments are a current governance best practice and an easy tool that Boards use to identify shortcomings, establish improvement plans, and track their progress. Board Effectiveness Assessments are annual board surveys that help Board members improve their collective ability to oversee their organization and ensure that they are prudently looking for ways to improve. Specifically, there are several benefits that Effectiveness Assessments provide:

  1. Understanding that most problems are often identified by more than one Board member. Collectively completing an effectiveness questionnaire enables members to collect views and opinions on Board practices and mutually identify areas where there are or could be problems.
  2. The surveys safeguard reputations and relationships because individual responses are often kept anonymous and aggregated with the other responses.
  3. Boards easily use the findings to establish proactive development plans that help them become more effective by improve shortcomings.
  4. Year over year results clearly show if a Board is making progress toward improving problematic areas.

If, for any reason, your Board has shied away from conducting such an assessment, or has not conducted one for a long while, the duty of prudence should compel us to ask “Why?” Regardless of the type of organization you oversee, the same fiduciary duties apply to ALL Boards, and ALL Boards should reasonably strive to be the most effective they can possibly be while fulfilling their Board duties.

Five Critical Human Capital Management Questions

Questions Every Board Must Address

“Given the pace of business change today, companies increasingly need agile boards with the expertise to guide the company amid emerging threats and opportunities. And investors increasingly expect that boards will embrace rigorous practices to ensure they have the right expertise in the boardroom to respond to evolving market and competitive demands. The highest-performing boards will adopt a continuous improvement mindset, ensuring that their composition evolves in light of new strategic imperatives.” AESC.org

Global Governance Advisors (GGA) works with its clients to address the challenge of meeting these threats head on and taking advantage of the opportunities to gain a competitive edge by addressing five human capital management questions for boards of directors.

Five HCM Questions for Boards of Directors

How does your organization approach these five questions?

  • How can our board better impact the success of the organization?
  • Have we fostered an environment that encourages individual directors to think critically about their contributions and the relevance of their skills to the company strategy?
  • Are we using our annual board assessment and regular executive sessions to assess the culture and dynamics in the boardroom and identify ways to operate more effectively?
  • Does our board have a platform to analyze and scorecard senior management compensation plans?
  • Does our board have access to an oversight vehicle for shareholder engagement activity that makes valuable information readily available to the board – in real time?

GGA’s offers a unique approach of weaving together a blend of services that address board productivity, governance and develop Senior Management compensation (incentive) plans to deliver outcomes that align with company goals.

GGA’s Seventh Annual CEO Pay for Performance Survey with Globe and Mail

GGA and the Globe and Mail partnered once again to present our seventh annual ranking of CEO Compensation for the top 100 largest public companies in Canada’s S&P/TSX composite index.

Full results here.

There’s more behind the final tally. The compensation of CEOs is made up of various components. GGA and the Globe and Mail analysed the compensation for the top 100 CEOs in Canada and broke it down by pay, share ownership, untapped wealth, cash bonus and equity grants.

You can view our findings here.

Our top 100 CEO Compensation ranking shows that equity grants have become a major reason why CEO pay is climbing in Canada. The Globe and Mail’s Janet Mcfarland examines the reaction from major shareholders, who are increasingly growing frustrated with the way companies are offering share units as a major part of CEO pay.

Full analysis here.

And there is more. Paul Gryglewicz in a recent BNN interview, discussed our top 100 CEO Compensation study, including key insights for shareholders, and what boards should consider when developing a CEO compensation package in today’s business environment.

Full interview here.

Paul Gryglewicz Talks About Valeant’s Governance and More on BNN

Former Valeant CEO Michael Pearson is suing the drug-maker for three million shares and US$180,000 in consulting fees he says he’s owed.

In an interview, yesterday, on BNN, Paul Gryglewicz, Senior Partner, Global Governance Advisors expressed his views on the issue. Mr. Gryglewicz alluded to the fact that the compensation package for Pearson was high-risk high-reward, and deviated from typical market practices by front-loading multiple years worth of long-term incentive grants into one large grant at the start of the employment contract. This practice appears to have continued with Valent’s current CEO, Joseph Papa.

Full interview

Paul Gryglewicz’s Take on Outgoing Rogers CEO Compensation: Globe and Mail

Toronto-based Rogers Communications Inc. paid outgoing CEO, Guy Laurence, a total of $42.6-million over three years.

In an interaction with The Globe and Mail, Paul Gryglewicz, Senior Partner, Global Governance Advisors, explained, “What we see highlighted here is the cost of turning over your Chief Executive is substantial to the shareholder.” However, he added that at just shy of three years, Mr. Laurence’s tenure with the company is in line with the median range of about three or four years for many Canadian CEOs.

One somewhat unique feature of Mr. Laurence’s separation package, is the structure for his remaining stock options yet to vest. Mr. Gryglewicz noted that it is a shareholder-friendly move to provide for a continuation period – rather than accelerating the vesting period and allowing him to exercise the options immediately – because it means that whatever value Mr. Laurence receives for his options will be tied to the performance of the company’s shares, which is in part attributable to decisions he made when he was still at the company.

Read Full Story Here