After poor business decision-making in the financial sector was a primary cause of the Great Recession, and after years of board and management mistakes leading to the bankruptcies of industrial icons GM and Chrysler, the business community today faces a crisis of confidence in its own ranks and in broader society. Regard for corporations is at a historic lows
Many are asking: how can corporations govern themselves more effectively---and truly be held accountable?
I found this Times story of special moment because the Committee for Economic Development just a few days ago published a Policy Brief in which I tried to suggest a way forward. It was entitled: "Restoring Trust in Corporate Governance: The Six Essential Tasks of Boards of Directors and Business Leaders."
Necessary public policy debates are taking place all across the globe on new regulations to ensure the safety and soundness of the financial sector and to improve the governance of all publicly-held corporations (with focus on an enhanced shareholder role and mandated disclosure about compensation and risk processes).
But, regardless of regulatory outcomes, the destiny of public corporations will still turn on the complex decisions made by business leaders and boards of directors.
In my view, to meet the legitimate criticisms of business decision-making, corporations must first redefine their mission---and the role of the board and CEO.
To summarize a much longer discussion, they must clearly and explicitly redefine the purpose of the corporation as creation of long term economic value through sustained economic performance, sound risk management and high integrity.
In particular, business leaders must forge a sound balance between necessary risk-taking (creativity and innovation) and required risk-management (financial and operational discipline). They must fuse this high performance with high integrity. High integrity means a commitment to law, ethics and values in order to attain affirmative benefits in the company, the marketplace and global society but also to reduce legal, ethical, reputational, public policy and country risk.
The past emphasis on short-term maximization of shareholder value must be significantly reduced.
The Policy Brief then argues for five other essential tasks built on the imperatives of sustained performance, sound risk management and high integrity: revamped leadership training; a refocused CEO selection process; a restatement of operational goals across performance, risk and integrity dimensions; a revision of compensation that holds back or pays out a significant portion of pay as objectives are met, exceeded or missed; and a re-alignment of board oversight to focus on critical operational and compensation goals.
In my view, only if these six, closely connected tasks are carried out with focused intensity is it possible for trust to be restored. But there are many obstacles to prevent this from happening such as the short-termism of many institutional investors; a "money happy" labor market for business talent which will frustrate compensation regimes paying out over time and for performance, and problems in meaningful board oversight of management.
There is, thus, certainly reason for substantial doubts whether the "practical ideal" I suggest can be realized. For example, with the separation of ownership (shareholders) and control (managers), the theory was that the boards would represent the shareholders and control the management. Unfortunately, too often the practice has been that management controls the board (and, today, there is no one "shareholder" as various types of "shareholders" have myriad conflicting objectives and strategies).
Nonetheless, although other accountability mechanisms such as regulation may, limit private discretion in order to accomplish public goals, private decision-making by boards and business leaders still must drive corporations. This is where ultimate accountability will always lie, however uncertain and problematic.
And, for those skeptical about corporate governance, there is the answer of self-interest. With business facing a crisis in confidence about governance and accountability, it is, I believe, in the demonstrable interest of corporate leaders (and capitalism itself) truly to address legitimate criticisms, to provide a clear, credible and powerful private sector response and, as one alternative, to consider using the "actionable framework" of the six essential tasks.
* * * * *
For those interested in reading more, go to the website of the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation to find both a longer summary of the argument and the Policy Brief itself.
Ben Heineman Jr. is is a senior fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, in Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, and at the Harvard Law School's Program on Corporate Governance. He is the author of High Performance With High Integrity.
Freddie Gray's death on April 19 leaves many unanswered questions. But it is clear that when Gray was arrested in West Baltimore on the morning of April 12, he was struggling to walk. By the time he arrived at the police station a half hour later, he was unable to breathe or talk, suffering from wounds that would kill him.*
Gray died Sunday from spinal injuries. Baltimore authorities say they're investigating how the 25-year-old was hurt—a somewhat perverse notion, given that it was while he was in police custody, and hidden from public view, that he apparently suffered injury. How it happened remains unknown. It's even difficult to understand why officers arrested Gray in the first place. But with protestors taking to the streets of Baltimore since Gray's death on Sunday, the incident falls into a line of highly publicized, fatal encounters between black men and the police. Meanwhile, on Tuesday, a reserve sheriff's deputy in Tulsa, Oklahoma, pleaded not guilty to a second-degree manslaughter charge in the death of a man he shot. The deputy says the shooting happened while he was trying to tase the man. Black men dying at the hands of the police is of course nothing new, but the nation is now paying attention and getting outraged.
Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.
In her new book No One Understands You and What To Do About It, Heidi Grant Halvorson tells readers a story about her friend, Tim. When Tim started a new job as a manager, one of his top priorities was communicating to his team that he valued each member’s input. So at team meetings, as each member spoke up about whatever project they were working on, Tim made sure he put on his “active-listening face” to signal that he cared about what each person was saying.
But after meeting with him a few times, Tim’s team got a very different message from the one he intended to send. “After a few weeks of meetings,” Halvorson explains, “one team member finally summoned up the courage to ask him the question that had been on everyone’s mind.” That question was: “Tim, are you angry with us right now?” When Tim explained that he wasn’t at all angry—that he was just putting on his “active-listening face”—his colleague gently explained that his active-listening face looked a lot like his angry face.
Four hours after learning about Saturday's devastating earthquake in Nepal, I received a Facebook notification I had never seen before: Sonia, a journalist friend based in northern India, was "marked safe." An hour later, the same notification about a different friend popped up. Then another. Soon, several of my friends wrote that they, too, had learned via this strange new notification that their friends in Nepal were okay.
A few hours later, the mystery was solved. On Saturday afternoon, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced on his timeline that the notifications came from Safety Check, a service the company launched last fall. "When disasters happen, people need to know their loved ones are safe," he wrote, "It's moments like this that being able to connect really matters."
A magnitude 7.8 earthquake struck Nepal early on Saturday, centered 10 miles below the surface, less than 50 miles from the capital of Kathmandu. At least 1,100 are already reported to have been killed by the quake and subsequent avalanches triggered in the Himalayas. Historic buildings and temples were destroyed, leaving massive piles of debris in streets as rescue workers and neighbors work to find and help those still trapped beneath rubble. Below are images from the region of the immediate aftermath of one of the most powerful earthquakes to strike Nepal in decades. (Editor's note, some of the images are graphic in nature.)
“People skills” are almost always assumed to be a good thing. Search employment ads and you will find them listed as a qualification for a startling array of jobs, including Applebee’s host, weight-loss specialist, CEO, shoe salesperson, and (no joke) animal-care coordinator. The notion that people smarts might help you succeed got a boost a quarter century ago, when the phrase emotional intelligence, or EI, entered the mainstream. Coined in a 1990 study, the term was popularized by Daniel Goleman’s 1995 book . Since then, scores of researchers have shown how being in touch with feelings—both your own and other people’s—gives you an edge: compared with people who have average EI, those with high EI do better at work, have fewer health problems,and report greater life satisfaction.
Today was the latest installment of the never-ending Clinton scandal saga, but it won’t be the last. Yet in some ways, the specifics are a distraction. The sale of access was designed into the post-2001 Clinton family finances from the start. Probably nobody will ever prove that this quid led to that quo … but there’s about a quarter-billion-dollar of quid heaped in plain sight and an equally impressive pile of quo, and it’s all been visible for years to anyone who cared to notice. As Jonathan Chait, who is no right-wing noise-machine operator, complained: “The Clintons have been disorganized and greedy.”
“All of this amounts to diddly-squat,” pronounced long-time Clinton associate James Carville when news broke that Hillary Clinton had erased huge numbers of emails. That may not be true: If any of the conduct in question proves illegal, destroying relevant records may also have run afoul of the law.
There is a tendency, when examining police shootings, to focus on tactics at the expense of strategy. One interrogates the actions of the officer in the moment trying to discern their mind-state. We ask ourselves, "Were they justified in shooting?" But, in this time of heightened concern around the policing, a more essential question might be, "Were we justified in sending them?" At some point, Americans decided that the best answer to every social ill lay in the power of the criminal-justice system. Vexing social problems—homelessness, drug use, the inability to support one's children, mental illness—are presently solved by sending in men and women who specialize in inspiring fear and ensuring compliance. Fear and compliance have their place, but it can't be every place.
After more than a year of rumors and speculation, Bruce Jenner publicly came out as transgender with four simple words: “I am a woman.”
“My brain is much more female than male,” he explained to Diane Sawyer, who conducted a prime-time interview with Jenner on ABC Friday night. (Jenner indicated he prefers to be addressed with male pronouns at this time.) During the two-hour program, Jenner discussed his personal struggle with gender dysphoria and personal identity, how they shaped his past and current relationships and marriages, and how he finally told his family about his gender identity.
During the interview, Sawyer made a conspicuous point of discussing broadly unfamiliar ideas about gender and sexuality to its audience. It didn't always go smoothly; her questions occasionally came off as awkward and tone-deaf. But she showed no lack of empathy.