Board Effectiveness Reviews are now commonplace. Their outputs are included in annual and other board reports.
But are they designed to assess underlying behaviour – good and bad? Will they flush out a tyrannical board member or a culture in which it’s difficult if not impossible to “call out” unacceptable behaviour? I doubt it.
There are three reasons why #Boards should consider an informal behaviour review alongside or after their standard effectiveness review.
First, a behaviour review will deliver a higher return on the investment in the Effectiveness Review process because it will address underlying behavioural cause, not just symptoms. Even a small change in behaviour is likely to lead to better commercial and sustainability outcomes.
Second, on a divided board – which is more common than often acknowledged – the effectiveness review is a good excuse to sort out damaging board conflict without further fuelling discord.
Third, behaviour reviews are not just about dealing with the bad behaviour but replicating the good. Since effective reviews are strongest in their highlighting of er, effectiveness, then a process which captures, replicates and enhances that behaviour must be good for the business.
Many boards carry out formal Effectiveness Reviews because they feel they must. A bit like CSR. Of course many do so for the right reasons but they are likely to be the least in need of remedial action.
So, hard-as-nails CEOs are unlikely to welcome any scrutiny of their behaviour which might suggest that they should change it. Unless of course – psychopath CEOs aside – they might welcome an excuse to do so, especially if they can see a link between their behavioural change and improved commercial and personal outcomes.
In my experience even those CEOs and NEDs who exhibit low EQ often secretly harbour a desire to improve it but don’t know how.
The process for an informal board behaviour review – note lower case and the importance of informality – is straightforward:
Step 1: one to one interviews by an external party with each board member. They would be invited to comment on the best and worst behaviour of each of their colleagues using real examples.
Step 2: a facilitated plenary session or sessions addressing organisational purpose, strategy and behaviour and how it fits, or not, with the personal purpose, strategy and behaviour of each of the members of the board.
Step 3: the facilitation, mediation and supported implementation of behavioural change agreements between board members as well as, gently, legislating for their breach.
For some readers the likelihood of their CEO agreeing to such a process might seem laughably remote. In which case the weakness of their formal Board Effectiveness Review is already exposed.
Want to talk leadership? Contact me through my website or call me on +44 (0) 207 754 0335