Blog

I have been obsessed with time as an intellectual matter (Proust and Einstein…), a cultural matter (orchestra conductors, Big Ben, the Great Wall building process), an organizational matter (school bells, oven timers, day light savings time, airport schedule boards, time zones…), and a social matter (fashionably but annoyingly late). Time is perhaps the biggest challenge of ethics oversight for all organizations, whether for-profit, non-profit, academic, or governmental. The ethics of time is indeed intellectual, cultural, organizational, and societal for most organizations. Above all time also underlies the challenge of managing unpredictability that underlies all of my ethics work. The key...

Introductory phrases such as “in our case….” or “given our board’s history…” or “in light of the expertise and dedication on our board…or “the culture of our organization prevents….” increasingly invade discussions of governance, accountability, transparency, and ethics (what I call “GATE”). For example, some boards consider that because they rarely have conflicts of interest, a meticulous conflicts procedure may not be necessary. Others believe that the board Chair is so competent that he or she should have a more extensive role in governance decisions (committee structure and assignments, succession planning, CEO evaluation and remuneration analysis….) than GATE suggests –...

Three scenarios: I recently had the great privilege of attending a dinner with a number of high level participants in the climate change issue. The attendees represented a diverse group from academia, government, business, philanthropy, non-profit advising, and international conferences – leaving only the multilateral organizations unrepresented. As is usual, and indeed interesting, every participant spoke from his or her experience. However, there was not a single comment during the evening that considered the most effective role for, or the most effective working relationship amongst, each of these actors in addressing the climate change issue. (more…)

I recently attended a board meeting where a formal conflicts of interest policy did not exist. Thanks to a long-standing senior board member reminding everyone that the financially conflicted board members should not vote, at least some semblance of propriety was maintained. Good governance depends on board members speaking up: about implementing policies; about issues that arise that do not seem right but are not covered by policies; about anything that seems relevant to good governance. Written policies are important, but they are useless if not actively applied. Good governance requires proactive participation at meetings, as well as communication in-between...

I believe in context. Organizations should situate themselves, whether in the external financial environment, governance/accountability best practices, or senior executive compensation benchmarking. Except when an organization faces a governance/accountability challenge. Then, whatever the context, all eyes belong on the organization. I also believe in expert communication. Except when an organization faces a governance/accountability challenge. Then, however necessary and outstanding the media expertise for a current challenge may be, all eyes belong on the organization’s first in class, previously-implemented governance/accountability policies and practices. (more…)