One Minute Governance

119. Making good decisions: Overconfidence

Overconfidence is my "favourite" of the Heath Brothers' four villains of decision making. It's simultaneously super obnoxious and super universal. And boardrooms provide the perfect environment for overconfidence to thrive and get in the way of your decisions.

Background music is Of the Stars by KC Roberts & the Live Revolution

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

Freakonomics Radio Season 9, Episode 46

Gender Differences in Overconfidence and Decision-Making in High-Stakes Competitions

Gender Differences in Performance Predictions: Evidence from the Cognitive Reflection Test

The Power of Precise Predictions

 

SCRIPT

Maybe “favourite” isn’t the perfect word here, but I’ll say it anyway: overconfidence is my favourite of the Heath Brothers’ four villains of decision-making. It’s so complex, insidious, unconscious, and nearly ubiquitous. Overconfidence even FEELS good, so…well, it’s pretty hard to steer completely around it in group decision environments like boardrooms. Take some time to scan the academic literature on overconfidence, including awesome recent stuff by Philip Tetlock from University of Pennsylvania, and the amazing book “Range” by David Epstein. Basically, it turns out that the more expertise you have in a specific field, the worse you get at making predictions about that field…and the more confident are at making those bad predictions. Another messed up thing about overconfidence? It’s deeply gendered. Men, unsurprisingly, fall victim to overconfidence far more readily than women – hence the tendency to “mansplain.” Women, on the other hand, are more likely to be victims of UNDERconfidence, which as you can imagine also impedes effective decision-making. I’ve put some interesting links in the episode description for you to check out if you want to see more of the research in this area. People usually become corporate directors specifically because they have deep expertise in some area or another. So, as experts, how can we be useful in the boardroom without inviting the villains into the mix? My best advice is to lean on your expertise to ask big questions, tell cool stories, start interesting conversations…instead of just telling people what you think the future holds. No matter how confident you feel.

118. Making good decisions: Short-term emotion

Boardrooms might seem like emotionless environments, but they *really* aren't. Even though we can't stop ourselves from feeling emotions, we can definitely acknowledge and manage the influence our emotions have on our decisions.

In this episode, I refer to a recent episode of the No Stupid Questions podcast. Listen to it here: 

Background music is Of the Stars by KC Roberts & the Live Revolution

 

SCRIPT

Another of the Heath Brothers’ villains of decision-making is short-term emotion. Many of us think of corporate decisions, especially those that happen in boardrooms, as being predictable, regulated, structured, even somber. In my experience, that tends to be a pretty accurate description, but that absolutely does not mean that the process is devoid of emotion. Is embarrassment an emotion? According to the recent episode 109 of the awesome podcast “No Stupid Questions,” it definitely is. I talk to *a lot* of corporate directors…like a lot a lot…and there are as many as not who’ve confided in me that they’ve found themselves at one point or another unwilling to ask a question or raise a concern because they were for all intents and purposes EMBARRASSED. To admit they don’t know, to disagree with a respected colleague, to push against the status quo, or whatever. And if someone – likely several someones – in your boardroom are too embarrassed to express themselves, then that somber boardroom vibe is clearly working at cross purposes to good governance. And that’s not even addressing the times that directors might spontaneously feel anger, frustration, pride, elation…all in ways that could negatively impact their ability to be impartial participants in making decisions. In your homework, the Heath Brothers offer some good advice here. I think I would boil my own advice down to something pretty simple: sllllooowwww doowwwwnnn. Good decisions take time. Most decisions aren’t emergencies, and if they are, you’re even more likely to get tripped up by short-term emotion!

117. Making good decisions: Narrow framing

Next up on the list of the "villains" of decision-making is narrow framing. It's basically what we do to make decisions look and feel simpler than they are. And it's a major problem!

Background music is Of the Stars by KC Roberts & the Live Revolution

 

SCRIPT:

Another one of the Heath Brothers’ villains of decision making is what they call “narrow framing.” Here’s my take. I always felt like the expression “don’t bring me problems; bring me solutions” was just about the stupidest thing a leader could say. First off, isn’t it a leader’s job to help to, y’know…lead people through solutions to difficult problems? Maybe more importantly, it feels like an attempt to force people to expedite a decision. What’s the easiest and most defensible way to expedite a decision? Probably to artificially frame it as a go/no-go scenario. “Are we gonna do X or not do X?” Or maybe if we’re lucky it’s a slightly more creative “are we gonna do X, or are we gonna do Y?” And in my experience, the conditions for decision-making in boardrooms are so bad that to a senior manager the idea of bringing multiple options to the board – as opposed to a done-deal ready for approval – is like a living nightmare. But what’s the point of a board? For my take, listen back to episodes 3 and 51. I don’t think any of us would answer that the point of a board is just to be an approving machine. In fact, even when managers bring go/no-go decisions to the board, they’re usually only doing it because it’s really hard to figure out how to engage the board in an efficient AND useful discussion about multiple paths or options. But the fact is that virtually every decision truly does have multiple paths or options beyond “yes” and “no”. The best way to start building better habits is to just rip off the band-aid and TRY bringing a decision to the board earlier, before management has digested it into a go/no-go binary. Give them a chance to help you narrow it down and provide varied perspectives. Whatever part of the discussion goes well, say out loud that it was good, and try to recreate those conditions again in the future. Whatever goes poorly, say THAT out loud and try to avoid those conditions in the future. Whatever you do, don’t just relapse back into your old, narrow framing habits.

116. Making good decisions: Confirmation bias

By now, we've all heard about confirmation bias, and if you did your homework from the last episode, it'll be really clear to you how it gets in the way of effective decision-making. So, what are we supposed to do about it?

Background music is Of the Stars by KC Roberts & the Live Revolution

 

SCRIPT:

Now that you’ve read chapter 1 of Decisive by the Heath Brothers, let’s take some time to talk through what they call the four villains of decision making, starting with confirmation bias. Since you’re interested in corporate governance, chances are this isn’t the first time you’ve heard or read about confirmation bias. The unconscious compulsion to embrace information that supports what you already believe to be true, and to reject information that contradicts what you already believe to be true. Let’s be super, extra, ultra clear here: YOU, no matter who you are or what your perception of yourself might be, DO THOSE THINGS! *YOU* embrace information that supports what you already believe – regardless of whether you are correct – while rejecting information that contradicts what you believe. You aren’t broken. It’s just how people work. And you can already picture how this messes things up when groups – like boards of directors, for example – are trying to make decisions on short timelines and with incomplete information. Add on the fact that even that incomplete information sometimes gets delivered to boards in vast quantities – maybe hundreds and hundreds of pages. How else can we expect directors to synthesize all of it in the process of preparing for a meeting or decision? Confirmation bias gives us a shortcut – pay attention only to the stuff that tells us we’re probably right. If you want advice on managing confirmation bias beyond what you learned in Decisive, a google rabbit hole awaits you. For now, try just re-framing board meetings as an opportunity to try to prove yourself WRONG. It’s way more fun than loudly trying to convince people you’re right, and you’re WAY more likely to learn something from your peers.

115. Making good decisions: Intro

Since we've established good governance as actively creating conditions to maximize the likelihood that effective decisions will get made, let's start exploring what it means to make good decisions. Over the next five episodes, we'll use the first chapter of Decisive by the Heath Brothers as our textbook. Download a free copy here: https://heathbrothers.com/member-content/decisive-chapter-1/

As always, the background music is Of the Stars by KC Roberts & the Live Revolution.

 

SCRIPT:

I’ve spent the last 114 episodes talking about corporate governance as the way decisions get made in a corporation, and the first chunk of this season talking about good governance as creating the conditions for effective decisions to get made, but what does that even mean? Well, this is one question where we – meaning YOU – have access a rich trove of scientific research and real-world evidence, so you won’t have to just trust me and OMG to get you there. And lots of organizations apply what we’ve learned from all those insights to empower MANAGERS to make good decisions. Think of all the cool ways that meetings have changed over the years, or workspaces, or onboarding, or offsites. The thing is, no matter how well these new approaches work, they basically never find their way into boardrooms. Board processes, structures, rules of order, agendas, boardroom layouts…they all just basically stay the same, or close enough to the same that the impact on decisions is essentially nothing. And you know what? The moment you start paying attention, I bet you’ll basically see and feel boardroom decisions suffering as a result. Over the next few episodes, we’ll go over a few important elements of good – and bad – decision conditions. Our textbook, so to speak, will be the first chapter of the book Decisive by Chip and Dan Heath. Your homework is to read it before the next episode comes out in a few days. You can download a free copy by following the link in the episode description. I’ll also put some links to some other cool articles on decision making in case you’re interested. Have fun!

114. Who’s responsible for good governance?

Now that we've established some definitions and busted some myths, who's actually responsible for "doing" good governance?

Background music is Of the Stars by KC Roberts & the Live Revolution

 

SCRIPT:

At this point, I think we’ve done enough mythbusting and detective work that we’ve got a reasonably good idea of what good corporate governance is and isn’t. And even if you’re not convinced by my perspectives, you at least have a good sense of where I stand. So, if we stick with the conditions we’ve set so far in this season it leaves us with the important question of who is responsible for good governance. For establishing it. For measuring and monitoring it. For redefining it when needed. For being curious about new ways to achieve it. I believe the questions and answers apply at two different scales. First, inside an organization – your organization, maybe. The way your board and your managers create the conditions to integrate and synthesize the interests of your stakeholders, your owners, your employees, and more, so you can generate decisions that generate value and minimize harm, all guided by a clarity of purpose. But there is also a system-wide responsibility influenced, for sure, by organizations, and also by governments, regulators, academics, consultants, customers, communities, and more. An easy example would be that regulators can – and sometimes do – create conditions for listed companies that make it more difficult for them to have good governance – requiring them to spend time on box-ticking that could be spent on value-added decision-making. All in the name of systemic risk management. Not that that’s an inherently bad thing. It’s just a clear example of the impact – positive or negative – that outsiders can have on the governance effectiveness of corporations. My hope is that the system and the organizations within it can establish greater clarity and alignment around what good governance is in the first place, so that we’re all pushing in the same general direction.

113. Is ED&I the same as good governance? (Equity, Diversity & Inclusion)

This episode was originally called "ED&I is not the same as good governance," but now I'm not so sure...

Background music is Of the Stars by KC Roberts & the Live Revolution

 

SCRIPT:

I’ve talked a lot about Equity, Diversity & Inclusion on OMG before – have a listen to episodes 19 through 21 and 59 through 62 if you want a refresher. I believe *super* strongly that diversity of perspectives, lived experience, personalities, cultures, expertise, etc. etc. is a critical factor for making good decisions. Without it, we fail to challenge each other, we miss important information, we fail to consider essential risks and opportunities. And inclusion is the superpower that activates diversity. I like to think of inclusion as the act of creating conditions for everyone in the room to engage, participate, and thrive. It’s super difficult, and it’s probably impossible to optimize inclusion for everyone at the same time all the time, but the journey itself is central to activating diversity. Equity can be a bit more abstract, but I think of it as the result of doing D and I really well, where everyone has equal access to authority, power, resources, and influence. Well, it’s time for me to confess something: I started writing this episode’s script with the title “ED&I is not the same as good governance” and I think I may be kinda sorta proving myself wrong. If good corporate governance is the act of creating conditions in an organization for effective decisions to happen. And if ED&I is getting a broad range of perspectives to the table, making sure everyone participating has the opportunity to engage, participate, and thrive, and ensuring equal influence in the process…I dunno. Maybe it’s not a *perfect* description of ideal decision-making conditions, but it’s pretty frickin close!

112. Board effectiveness is not the same as good governance

Boards are an important part of corporate governance in most organizations, but an effective board is not the same as good governance.

Background music is Of the Stars by KC Roberts & the Live Revolution

 

SCRIPT:

I said earlier this season that board effectiveness and good governance aren’t the same. When I say “board effectiveness” what does it mean to you? I even struggle with this one, which is troubling given that my company is called “Fullbrook Board Effectiveness.” My URL is even boardeffectiveness.ca. If anyone would have a pithy, inspiring definition of board effectiveness it would be me, right? Let’s put that aside for a second and ask another question: “If your board is effective, whatever that means, do you automatically have good governance?” Thinking through the previous episodes from this season, we already know that good governance isn’t box ticking compliance, it’s not good operational performance, it’s not succession planning, etc. I don’t even think it's all of those things mushed together. On top of that, I think we’ll all instinctively feel like having a great board is somehow also not enough to have good governance. Even amazing boards are still reliant on great managers to help them to access the right information at the right time, facilitate great meetings, generate exciting strategic options, and so on. So already we know that great boards are only POTENTIALLY great unless they have great management. But a great board would always hire great managers, right? That one gets a “lol” from me. Anyone who’s ever had responsibility for hiring and promoting people knows that no matter how perfect your processes, you can never guarantee you’ll get it right. There are other ways we could explore this question, but I think I’m already convinced that board effectiveness and good governance aren’t the same thing. But what is board effectiveness? I’m open to suggestions, but for now let’s steal from our definition of good governance a few episodes back. Board effectiveness is when a board is working to create conditions  in the organization that maximize the likelihood that effective decisions will get made.

111. Survival is not the same as good governance

Organizations that survive for a long time - generations, even - are really impressive, but it doesn't mean they have good governance.

Background music is Of the Stars by KC Roberts & the Live Revolution

 

SCRIPT:

I contributed to a paper a few years back that found over a 50 year period that family-controlled listed companies were significantly more likely to survive for the entire stretch than non-family firms. Cool finding, right! The problem is that it’s not all that clear to me that survival is always a good thing. I can imagine myself being a founder or business owner who, for example, resists an offer to buy my company – one that might be in the best interests of my organization and its stakeholders – just because I want to stay in control or keep my name on the door. There’s nothing wrong with that – as the owner, it’s my prerogative. I can kinda do what I want. But in this case surviving – aka not getting absorbed by another company – is clearly not the same as good governance. Of course there may be cases where survival *is* indicative of good governance. A company that survives and thrives over a long time probably didn’t succeed in spite of bad decisions. I think the point here is similar to a couple of episodes back where I argued that good financial performance isn’t the same as good governance. It can be pretty tempting to look at a company that has survived for a long time – generations, even – and think that just because it continues to exist it must have great leaders and effective governance. But if we take a moment, we can all imagine how an organization might survive despite awful governance, maybe on the fumes of what was once a great idea. Sure, it’s surviving, but is it “living”? Is it “thriving”?

110. Good shareholder value is not the same as good governance

I don't care how good your return to shareholders is...it doesn't mean you have good governance.

Background music is Of the Stars by KC Roberts & the Live Revolution

 

SCRIPT:

I’ve already talked about stakeholder capitalism vs shareholder capitalism a bunch of times on OMG – have a listen to episodes 5, 31, 48, 52, 56, etc. So I’ve already established pretty clearly that I believe organizations can and should make decisions that take into consideration the interests of a broad range of stakeholders – not just shareholders. So in the assessment of whether shareholder value and good governance are the same thing, that’s my stance. If you make decisions that generate value for shareholders without taking the interests of other stakeholders into account, I believe that’s BAD governance. What makes this a bit tricky is that there are jurisdictions – the United States, for example, where boards are *required* to prioritize the interests of shareholders. In other words, if the board makes a decision that benefits some other stakeholder at the deliberate expense of shareholder value, then they have failed to discharge their legal duty. I encourage organizations in the U.S. to remember two things. Even when the interests of shareholders seem at odds with those of other stakeholders, they probably aren’t. If you take time to generate multiple options and examine them through different lenses and different time horizons, there is almost always a path that benefits shareholders and, say, the environment. The other thing to consider is this: what if the rules are bad – and I’m not saying they are…? What if a change in the rules would be good for your organization, for your customers, for your employees, for your country, your society? There are lots of loud voices in the U.S. speaking up in favour of stakeholder capitalism. Maybe you could add your voice to the chorus.

109. Good financial performance is not the same as good governance

I don't care how good your financial performance is...it doesn't mean you have good governance.

Background music is Of the Stars by KC Roberts & the Live Revolution

 

SCRIPT:

Corporate governance evolves *slowly*. Even in a single boardroom, real governance change tends to happen at a glacial pace, but on a system level…man. Seriously, every single little change to regulation – however, toothless or insignificant – gets treated like some kind of revolution, and then the real-world impact is basically nothing more than symbolic, or maybe a tiny addition to public disclosure. Perhaps the most frustrating example of things that take forever to change is the insistence among many corporate leaders that as long as an organization is performing well, it must have “good governance.” I agree to a tiiiny extent, in the sense that if you observe performance over a long enough period, say 20 years, then a corporation with great performance is unlikely to have awful governance. Right? A failure to make effective decisions for 20 years would only lead to amazing long-term performance with extraordinary luck? As for short- and medium-term performance, anyone who insists that they are useful indicators of good governance can go fly a kite, if you know what I mean. Let’s think of some governance disasters – oh right, we listed some a few episodes ago: Enron, Theranos, etc. and others we didn’t mention like Wells Fargo or Boeing – you know what most governance catastrophes have in common? The catastrophe is revealed in the wake of AMAZING financial performance. Think of the Financial Crisis – basically the culmination of a thousand awful decisions by a thousand corporations, all performing EXTREMELY well! Nah, financial performance is not the same as good governance.

108. Hiring a CEO is not the same as good governance

I often hear people say that hiring the CEO is the most important thing that a board can do. Still, even doing a great job at hiring a CEO isn't the same thing as good governance.

Background music is Of the Stars by KC Roberts & the Live Revolution

 

SCRIPT:

I had originally planned to do an episode later this season called “Is hiring and/or firing the CEO really the most important thing a board does?” and maybe I still will, but I feel like this topic fits nicely in the sequence we’ve got going on right now. The idea that a board’s most important job is always to choose the right CEO kinda bothers me. I think the problem is that it seems like such a lazy, unambitious concept of what makes boards valuable. And also puts too much emphasis on one element of good governance – an important one, at that – but still just one piece. If I were trying to describe my ideal board of directors, it wouldn’t sound anything like “you better hire the perfect CEO, and if you don’t…you better fire them quickly and make sure the next one is perfect.” As far as I know, most CEOs are just people. Some people are exceptional leaders of people OR projects. Very few people are exceptional at both. Regardless of what your CEO is great or awful at, don’t you think that what differentiates an average board from a great board might be its ability to help to activate the CEO’s superpowers, and provide a bit of air cover around the CEO’s weak spots – however tiny they might be? Sure, every board needs to take the selection of the CEO REEEAAALLLY seriously, and to be courageous enough to fire the CEO when it’s time to go in a different direction. But the *most important part of a board’s job*? I’m not so sure about that.

107. Purpose is not the same as good governance

Increasing emphasis on corporate purpose is a *really* good thing, but it's not the same as good governance.

Background music is Of the Stars by KC Roberts & the Live Revolution

 

SCRIPT:

This is probably the most obvious of all the titles in this sequence. Of course purpose is not the same as good governance. Take any incorporated entity, from a one-man-shop like my company, Fullbrook Board Effectiveness, to let’s say Amazon, it’s really helpful to be able to answer the question “why does this organization exist?” if you want good governance to  happen. Does Fullbrook Board Effectiveness Inc exist just as a tax shelter for my work, leaving me free to just kinda do whatever I want for a living? Does it exist to make the world a better place by helping organizations to make better decisions? Is it something else? Without some clarity, it’s hard to figure out if you’re making good decisions. Imagine being a director on the Amazon board and starting to come to terms with the organization’s countless operational activities and hundreds of thousands of employees. Without a clear understanding of Amazon’s purpose, it would be impossible to sit at the table and assess the potential value of a new opportunity, or even to know what kind of questions to ask or what conversations to have. Purpose, mission, vision…they’re all so important to sorting through the paths in front of you that it’s hard to imagine good governance without them. But even when you get them right, there are still a lot of factors that affect decisions, like culture, people, processes, physical space, legal constraints, and, well…you get the picture.

106. Strategic oversight is not the same as good governance

LOTS of experts will tell you that corporate governance is all about strategic oversight. I'm here to argue that there's a lot more to good governance than that.

Background music is Of the Stars by KC Roberts & the Live Revolution

 

SCRIPT:

Let’s get something important out of the way right off the bat: good corporate governance and board effectiveness aren’t the same thing. In fact, there are plenty of incorporated entities out there that don’t even have functional boards of directors, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have good governance if we stick with the definition of good governance from a few episodes back. Either way, if there is one challenge that’s generic to just about every BOARDroom I’ve been in, it’s the struggle to find the right balance between the board’s focus on operational matters vs it’s focus on strategy – or, how much do we reflect on the past vs. how much do we dream about the future? It’s *very* common for people who talk about corporate governance to emphasize that the board has little to no role in operations, and should spend as much time and energy as possible on future-oriented strategic matters. We’ve talked about this a bunch of times before on OMG so I won’t belabor it. Suffice it to say that I believe boards can and should focus on whatever they think is going to result in the best decisions for the organization and its stakeholders. But even in a case where a board chooses to focus on day to day minutiae, or even to run the organization entirely, that doesn’t relieve them of their obligation to make sure that the organization has a well-articulated purpose, strategy, strategic plan, and objectives. Either way, it’s pretty clear that strategic oversight is not the same as good governance.

105. ESG is not the same as good governance

Sure, the "G" in ESG stands for "governance," but ESG and good governance aren't the same.

Background music is Of the Stars by KC Roberts & the Live Revolution

 

SCRIPT:

ESG is an initialism referring to Environmental, Social & Governance. I remember when I first heard the term ten, eleven, twelve years ago, I assumed that what it was trying to get at was an organization’s governance when it comes to environmental or social factors, and it’s secretly how I continue to think of the term. But that’s not what ESG means out in the real world. ESG is really just a catch-all for non-financial factors that people might want to take into consideration when running an organization or measuring an organization’s performance. Whether you like my definition of ESG or the real-world definition, or some other interpretation, I bet it has started to impact your idea of what good corporate governance looks like. Here’s a generic example: if an organization fails to take environmental or social factors into consideration when making an important decision – say, opening a new mine, or cutting down old-growth forest – I ma, they completely fail to take any interest at all in the potential environmental or social impact of their decision…is that good governance? OF COURSE NOT! Not just because it seems somehow immoral or evil, but because it’s important to consider as many factors as possible or else we’ve failed to create the conditions for an effective decision. But let’s say we DO take E and S into account when doing G. Is that sufficient on its own to say we have good governance. Um…no.