The main reason why well-reasoned and written plans (e.g. Strategic Plan) fail – or the stated objectives within are not realised – is because their author (e.g. a CEO/ GM/ Board of Directors) fails to communicate the plan to those people who are expected to implement the plan. In the end, the full value of a plan is only realised when relevant stakeholders are given the opportunity to share in the sense of direction that the given plan articulates.
Where a Board of Directors is concerned, a Board has the ultimate responsibility to set and steer the direction of the company that they are appointed to lead. A common mistake made by Boards is in choosing not to make themselves more visible to those who they are charged with the responsibility of leading. If directors want to “earn” the respect and trust of those who have voted them into their position of governance then they simply must demonstrate their willingness to be open and upfront in their dealings with their stakeholders.
Where I see some Boards fail to establish respect and trust with their constituents is in respect of keeping constituents up-to-date with Board-level proceedings/ decisions. When people can’t “see” what’s going on in an organisation they tend to speculate the worst…and start to become disenfranchised from the organisation. Communication binds people together – it allows us to understand the perspectives of other people and therefore build and nurture relationships. We cannot hope to establish connections and relationships with other people if we choose not to communicate.
In a CEO role that I fulfilled during the 1990’s, working with the various Boards of that era, I managed to evolve the trust culture of that company to such an extent that directors became comfortable with me publishing a synopsis of Board meeting proceedings and decisions in the company intranet for all shareholders to read and understand. This is a practice that you rarely see performed.
What did this achieve ? It achieved these highly favourable outcomes:
i. Close connections were maintained among all shareholders, so when national conferences took place, shareholders were forthcoming with their opinions due to being familiar with agenda topics in advance.
ii. Shareholders didn’t feel isolated – rather, they had a real sense of “belonging”.
…and most importantly of all shareholders became more receptive to change recommendations and faster at making decisions that revolved around change, because information (e.g. proposal) was being made available to them on a regular basis and hence there weren’t any “unpleasant surprises”.
Why did this improvement in the speed of shareholder decision-making occur and why was successively less shareholder change resistance being encountered by myself and the Board of Directors ? Because shareholders had a deep sense of being included in the journey (strategic direction) of the company. Change was happening “with” and “because” of them; rather than being imposed upon them.
So I suggest that if Boards want to elicit greater support and display of trust shown by those who they are leading, that they improve their visibility by improving their communication to shareholders. This should not be done by “hiding behind” the communications produced by the CEO/ GM, but by the Chairperson’s own hand preparing and distributing specifically a Board update on what decisions/ actions the Board has made/ taken. And on this note, if Boards want to elevate their credibility in the eyes of shareholders, then at least the Board Chairperson will accompany the CEO on the stage during conferences when the CEO is delivering their address to shareholders. Why ? Because this will demonstrate unity between the senior manager of the company and the Board – i.e. that all senior leaders of the organisation are indeed on the same page and working in the same direction. A display of such unity at this level of leadership invokes confidence in shareholders that the messages being communicated by both governance and senior management come from the same “song sheet” (i.e. a shared/ agreed vision).