Keep Up To Date
Subscribe to our newsletter,
Case Study - Challenging the Chairman
London Market firm asked us to undertake a Board Effectiveness Review. The
purpose was part of their triennial cycle of good governance.They were also due
a regulatory visit and knew the regulators had some concerns about the
rigorousness of the Board.
The Board comprised:
- 3 Non-Executive Directors, 2 who represented an overseas part-owner parent
company and one of which was Chairman and
a major shareholder himself
- 3 Independent Non-Executives
- 5 Executive Directors including the CEO, FD, CRO, Head of Legal and
proposed a four stage review:-
1: Desk based research to check the governance structure in place, the reality
of what was happening and how this was recorded
Stage 2: A questionnaire to highlight any areas of concern and open up thinking in preparation for
Stage 3: Individual interviews to explore any concerns and dive deeper into
Stage 4: Board and Committees’ Observation to see the Board and Committees in
desk based research showed that the chairman was very involved.
The agenda was very
high level and there were always many ‘tabled’ items, or AOB discussions
instigated by the Chairman.
minutes conveyed a very high level of input from the Chairman.
questionnaire showed that there was satisfaction with how collegiate the Board
was, but conversely frustration at the leadership by the Chairman.
the interviews with the Board members expressed their frustration at the lack
of challenge and seriousness, with much being discussed ‘on a whim’.Papers were
always late and of poor quality. They also felt that the lines separating
governance and oversight/delegation were often overstepped, especially by the
Chairman and the CEO was therefore disempowered. These points were borne out by
the Board and committee observations.
The Chairman was enjoying his retirement
and coming to see his firm and friends, without consideration for regulatory
requirements or what the company needed in order to grow and be sustainable,
with a fully functioning Board.
recommended that the agenda be reviewed with an annual cycle of agenda items,
both strategic, risk, regulatory and operational, and deep dives on a cycle. We
also recommended that there were strict guidelines on Board papers in terms of
content, layout and timeliness to reduce the amount of tabled items. We
recommended that the INEDs were rotated off the Board as two had served over 9
years and one was a personal friend of the Chairman.
From a Board composition
perspective we questioned whether they were still the right fit for what the
Board needed going forward. We also spoke privately to the Chairman about
empowering the CEO and entrusting him with the business allowing him to run the
Board agreed to our recommendations and we worked with the firm to design
appropriate Board paper in house style for them, with a rolling agenda. We
worked with the firm to identify the best Board composition for them and the
INEDs were gradually changed and the new INEDs carefully chosen to fit culture
and what the business needed going forward. The Chairman also saw how he was
not helping his own firm and had not considered the impact of his
year on, the Board has timely papers, which are well structured set within a
robust agenda that is followed appropriately.
One INED was changed six months ago and another is shortly to change, with the
new one selected. The third will change in a year’s time. The Chairman has
instigated more pre-Board and post-Board dinners and lunches so that he still
gets the social interaction and the feeling of a level of involvement he enjoys, but has fully empowered the CEO who has really grown in
If you think we can help you with your Board reporting please email email@example.com or call +44 (0) 20 7764 0721
BP&E Global – Board Performance and Effectiveness