The shells of the karaka berry and the crayfish shells should not be seen from the Marae

15/01/2018

I often get asked how to move a board from being good to being great.

In my experience, three things distinguish a mediocre board from a high performing one.

The first is peer accountability. The second is choreography in ‘the moment’. The third is how they address poor leadership and lack of discipline.

Peer accountability

With the weakest boards, there is no accountability. Mediocre boards use the Chair or loudest shareholder as the source of accountability. In contrast, high-performing boards manage the vast majority of performance with one another.

They do it immediately and respectfully. They do it because they are deeply connected to what they do and why and have meaningful measures, so everyone can challenge anyone if it is in the best interest of serving the mission.

Choreography

High-performing boards:

also understand and know from experience there will be a moment when they will be asked to walk through a firestorm. The storm will be private in the boardroom or played out in media or the market.
know what to do in these moments. And, they use these moments to signal to their shareholders, supply-chain partners, staff and competition, what matters, and what they will and will not tolerate.
call the elephant in the room quickly. They know it is their job to address the elephants, especially when management will not. Suppose an initiative is an utter but unmentionable cluster. In that case, everyone will be watching the Board to see whether it has the integrity to point out the emperor’s lack of clothes.
call out management teams who fail to keep their commitments to get the required results.

Addressing the performance of a chronically under-performing chief executive or board member.

How a board handles, this situation will let everyone know whether the Board’s highest value is keeping the peace or pursuing the mission and shareholder value. Weak and mediocre boards ignore these issues. High-performing boards do not shrink from this responsibility. They work with the person to improve, and if that does not work, they work with the person to find their next role.

Some will disagree with me about ‘finding their next role’. Every high-performing Board I have worked with goes this extra mile because it sends a message to everyone about the Board’s values and mission.

Te anga karaka, te anga koura, kei kitea te marae.

Te Rā Whakamana: Operational Capac …

Schick, then Ryan and Gill (2011), and Tenbensel et al (2026) This week, the series reads three pieces of local implementation scholarship alongside one another, written across the better part of three decades and from quite different vantage points. There is Allen Schick’s 1996 review of the reforms, and the warnings it carried. There is Bill Ryan and Derek Gill’s later account, written i...

Administrative Burden: The Woman …

When the State Designs for a Person Who Does Not Exist This is the fourth post in a series about what it actually costs to navigate the state. Last month, I examined how burdens fall hardest on the least resourced. I also introduced the research on “deservingness”. Today, I turn to gender. The hypothesis that the unpaid labour of navigating the state falls disproportionately on women, and ...

Loose Threads: The Other Allison

E te whānau. A longer Loose Thread this week, prompted by a moment in Beijing that has sent half the commentariat scrambling for their Thucydides. Graham Allison is having his moment in the foreign policy sun. But the Allison I want to talk about is the one almost nobody remembers. This post starts with his trap, notes who was already using it, and then turns to an argument about gover...