“The primary reason to undertake any governance assessment
is to improve and develop, not to judge or evaluate…”
To improve overall governance, everyday practices and the dynamics in the boardroom, it is necessary to invest in an assessment process of the board of directors deeper than compliance requirements. Evaluation processes have become common in the boardroom; it appears that 94% of S&P 500 companies regularly conduct an evaluation as found in the PwC’s 2011 Annual Corporate Directors Study.
An evaluation can turn a good board into a great board!
Leading an assessment gives an opportunity to think about the boards’s strengths to enhance and its weaknesses to confront. It will allow to identify what is successful and what needs to be changed to improve the board’s performance as a collegial body. The evaluation is also the time for each director to give his/her opinion on the organisation of the board and to review their own performance.
An article published on the blog “The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance” explains the process of board assessment. Below, is an extract of the post:
Board Evaluation – A Window into the Boardroom
Written by Maria Cristina Ungureanu, a consultant at Crisci & Partners.
“Board behavior and effectiveness are becoming increasingly visible to investors and other stakeholders. In the past few years, the European Commission has reinforced its focus on the corporate governance matters, issuing several rules and guidelines in this regard. Most of these raise, among other aspects, the issue of increased board responsibility in the corporate governance framework through better functioning and more appropriate structures.
In accordance with most best practice requirements laid out in corporate governance codes, the majority of European listed companies are now conducting board performance evaluations. Board evaluation is increasingly acknowledged as a vital process for improving board performance and dynamics, whatever the size, status or type of organization. If thoroughly conducted, a board evaluation (also called “board assessment”, “board review”) has the potential to significantly enhance board effectiveness, maximize strengths and tackle weaknesses.
Companies have various approaches to board evaluation, in terms of methodology and objectives. In setting up the framework, a company should ask itself whether the exercise is the result of regulation or a commitment to good governance thus merely a compliance exercise, or rather one aimed at sustaining the performance of the board. While meeting regulatory requirements may be part of the motivation behind this exercise, the primary driver should be a desire to build a high-performing board, well-suited to anticipate, meet and overcome the challenges ahead. Increasingly, boards are moving away from the “check-the-box” mentality towards utilizing evaluations as a tool to ensure they are aligned with the company’s long-term strategy. […]
Aside from the need for compliance with standard regulation, a firm’s approach should be subject to its board’s strategy, past or upcoming circumstances and the objectives of the assessment process. In-house processes may have the advantage of causing less concerns to boards that are reluctant to conduct a board evaluation. However, adopting only an internal mechanism throughout a board lifecycle may refrain board members from revealing some aspects that could be problematic, thus eroding the real picture. In line with general best practice an external evaluation should take place at least every three years within the board cycle. Several companies engage an external consultant more often, either annually or once every two years. Companies do not generally maintain a standard rule for such a schedule, which would not even be compelling as boards may experience interesting dynamics from one year to the next.
Specialization and independence of the external evaluator are key. Regular use of an external specialized consultant can improve board performance assessments by bringing an objective view and by providing a ‘best practice’ perspective. Given the potential conflicts, the external facilitator should neither have an ongoing nor recent relationship with the company, i.e. not engaging in other consulting services for the company or management […]
A thorough and accurate board evaluation process can identify issues and enact reforms to improve performance.
The board should agree in advance to the following:
• Scope and purpose of the evaluation: Board directors should have a shared commitment to the scope and purpose of the evaluation.
• Designated party : If done internally, the board should agree on a board member or committee to oversee the evaluation; alternatively, boards must appoint an independent, specialized external consultant to conduct the evaluation.
• Methodology and subjects included in the process: This should include how the evaluation is conducted (e.g. questionnaire, individual interviews or both) and whether the evaluation extends from board to committees and to individual directors.
• Areas of valuation : The board should agree in advance on the main areas to be examined. These include board agendas, information flow, the effectiveness of board meetings, the performance of individual committees, the relationship between the board and senior management, board’s approach to strategy, board’s approach to governance.
• A post-evaluation review should identify issues or threats, should embrace opportunities and adopt reforms which may be required.Particularly if conducted by an external consultant, the evaluation process includes a review of board documentation, governance documents, charters, minutes, agendas and observations of board meetings. This part of the assessment is very important both as a preparation ahead of the discussions with the board members, and for enabling a complete assessment of the board functioning. Major facts happen during the year at the level of the board. These are to be acknowledged by the external advisor and brought back to board members’ analysis during the interviews.
The methodologies used to determine the evaluation output vary. The primary tool used in both jurisdictions is the questionnaire, although a tendency towards increasing use of interviews has emerged. Whether combined with questionnaires or not, confidential interviews have been recently emphasized as the most effective technique in drawing out board performance issues. While questionnaires address questions related to past performance, interviews allow for more space to approach the future plans and strategy of the board. Interviews also enable open discussions and diversity of interpretations, expanding the more closed questions that questionnaires are based upon.
The evaluation covers a wide range of issues, including competency of board members, information flow, board meeting dynamics, relationship with senior management, quality of board supervision and decision-making. While in the past boards used to be primarily internally focused, today they have to proactively scan the external environment for things that might impact the company…”
Image source : Independent Audit - Board effectiveness. To download a cartoon please right click on the image and choose ‘save image as’ to save it to your computer. If you have any enquires about our cartoons please contact: remneek.sangar@independentaudit.com
