At one stage in my life, I was talked into joining the Institute of Directors (IOD). After one year as a member, I resigned. I have never belonged to a more boring, dull, outfit than the IOD. I realise that this move precluded my being appointed to boards, but if that is the way you get to higher places, I’m happy where I ended up.
The IOD appeared to me to have a code of the way to think, the way to dress, and the way to behave. I failed all tests. The best directors I have worked with, and I have worked with many, were innovative, thought outside the box and weren’t always well behaved, or well-dressed when I think about it.
Recently I was sent an analysis by the IOD of the 3 Waters proposed reforms. It was mostly written from the perspective of Scottish Water, without considering whether there could have been any other model. It was a dull repeating of all the nonsense which has been fed to anybody interested by central government and their PR machine.
Here’s what the summary of the article said:
The IoD supports the use of governance best practice when developing a governance structure for the Three Waters . It will be important to ensure the right people with the right skills and experience are around the table; that directors’ skillsets and experience are sufficiently broad to allow for different perspectives and there are mechanisms in place that allow for clear policy to be set. Once we see more detail on the arrangements, we will be making a submission on the governance arrangements.
This was code for:
- “Right people with the right skills” which means conventional individuals who will comply with the narrow acceptable codes which make so many of our businesses and government decisions so predictable and unimaginative. This type is also not strong on accountability to democratic structures.
- “Sufficiently broad” but only within a narrow framework.
- “Mechanisms in place to allow clear policy to be set” which means policy which complies with whatever Standard and Poors considers acceptable. This outfit do not trust democratic decision making.
Dear Garry,
Re your article on the Institute of Directors.
As a past Chairman of the Canterbury Branch, I understand your frustration with the “boring, dull outfit “.
Governance, because of its legal and compliance requirements can be dull. I am sure that you sat through Council meetings that were so boring that they made you question the meaning of life!
But the strategy side of governance can be exciting and innovative. I found the IoD Director’s Dilemma Workshops some of the best meetings. Here, I worked with a mix of directors to solve business problems. It was a real eye opener for me to see the expertise of the experienced directors (supposedly pale, male and stale!). I know who I would want leading any business that I owned.
I understand your decision to leave and suspect that it was the right thing for you. I am no longer a member either as I am not actively involved with governance at present. However, if you did attend a meeting now, I believe that you would find that your perception of an IoD code of the way to think, dress and behave has changed, just as our society has changed.
I am puzzled though by your interpretation of the comments from the IoD on Three Waters. I would have thought that we would want :
– the right people with the right skills and experience (including those who were innovative and think outside the box),
– Directors with broad skill sets which were sufficiently broad to allow for different perspectives (not all thinking dressing and behaving the same.
– Mechanisms in place so that clear policy can be set. (Don’t we all want to know what they are planning and for them to be accountable?)
Be careful that you do not have unconscious bias in relation to the IoD report. If you were writing an initial comment from the IoD, what would you have written?
Thanks for the stimulating, thought-provoking Tuesday Club. I don’t always agree with you, but I enjoy the challenge to my ideas!
Best wishes from Helen McLeod