3
After five years of The Globe and Mail's corporate governance rankings, being a director isn't like it used to be ...Read the full article
This conversation is closed
- Skip to the latest comment
-
Mel Gill from Ottawa, Canada writes: Congratulations to Janet and Elizabeth on this great series! Report cards are one of the most effective methods of guiding behavior in any organic system. A report card is analogous to a feedback loop in general systems theory. All systems need feedback from their environment (internal and external) if they are to adapt or self-correct.
As I say in my book, 'Governing for Results: A Director's Guide to Good Governance' Trafford, 2005, 'If you don't know where you're going, and you don't know where you're starting from, any road will get you there, but how will you know...if or when you've arrived...or made any progress at all?'
As a student and consultant in governance with a focus on the nonprofit and public sectors, I'm convinced that lessons are transferable between these sectors and the 'for-profit' sector.
The Ontario Hospitals Reports and the Maclean's survey of universities are good examples of report cards in the nonprofit sector. Perhaps it's time for a similar reporting format for other organizations in the 'voluntary' sector.
Is the Globe and Mail up to the challenge.
Mel Gill, Ottawa- Posted 24/10/06 at 10:57 AM EST | Link to Comment
-
Dan Lang from toronto, Canada writes: Speaking of feedback to the system, I would love to see feedback/measurement processes introduced on government departments and public management systems. The challenge with publically funded bureaucratic culture organizations is that being of meaningful service to the 'customer group' they are supposed to service is secondary to internal system stability as an organization and personal survival and political interests of the individuals in the system. I recently had exposure to the Niagara Escarpment Commission first hand as an example and I know understand why landowner groups are emerging in Ontario. In this instance this government agency is a quasi judical body and their process in arbitrating has little to do with fairness and evidence based decision making and everything to do 'not making a mistake' and imposing restrictions based on environmental possibilities that are remote in the extreme. Common sense has fled and no one in the current liberal government appears to be concerned. Many public systems of decisionmaking are way too centralized and hence in the particulars incompetent. If you want to make an organization effective and accountable first ask 'who is best suited to make this decision?' and then ask 'how will we measure that?' What will typically occurr is the devolution of amny responsibilities and accountabilities to people and groups on the front lines, not people in Queen's Park (using Ontario as an example). The challenge is that few want to give up power at 'head office' in search of greater competency of the system.
- Posted 24/10/06 at 4:55 PM EST | Link to Comment
-
F g from Burnaby, Canada writes: In all fairness - this board mania has gone a little bit overboard (pardon the pun).
Not all companies need a diverse board of outsiders - and many are being forced - either by investors or by virtue of window dressing - to follow suit at a ridiculous cost.
No where is this more clear than in the SoX set of rules, where you have to have a financially trained person on your board. This is just legislated wealth generation for partners in accounting firms. They provide no strategic or credible value to any business.
Last time I checked, bankers accountants and lawyers don't know how to start, operate, or grow a business - so why are we packing our boards full of them?- Posted 25/10/06 at 12:53 AM EST | Link to Comment
Comments are closed
Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.
Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff
close
Alert us about this comment
Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
