Good leaders and therefore boards think strategically, involve, and inspire their followers and measure their performance. Easily said but harder to define in behavioural terms.

What do we mean by ‘thinking strategically'? 

Fundamentally it is about making decisions. If we do it well, we will reach a good decision. The evidence suggests we are not good at it. A Mckinsey survey in 2010 of 2,207 executives, (dated I concede but I doubt much has changed since), revealed only 28 percent said that the quality of strategic decisions in their companies was generally good, 60 percent thought that bad decisions were about as frequent as good ones, and the remaining 12 percent thought good decisions were altogether infrequent. Not very comforting.

What underlies this? Is it about the pressures to move on, make a decision about the item under discussion and the consequent tendency to focus attention on the substance matter of any decision rather than spend any time examining the process by which we reach that decision? Do Boards focus too much on the ‘What’ to the detriment of thinking about the ‘How’?

If that is the case, what may be the consequences of an absence of process? 

Might it impact on the quality and breadth of information available to a Board and therefore on the quality of the decision upon which is based?  Rich and broadly based information is surely the foundation of any high quality debate and its outcome. 

To what extent does absence of process breed bias in all its various forms, bias surely undermining the prospects reaching a good decision? How then to remove the tarnish of bias?

A good process will allow the Board to exhibit the necessary behaviours to address the risks of bias.

So, when it comes to seeking information, is the Board sufficiently sensitised to the risks of being too selective or dismissive of information for reasons of bias.

Once equipped with the right information, does its decision-making process allow the Board the opportunity to digest that information and engage in forming the diagnostic concepts to help understand the situation and develop effective solutions. 

Finally, and perhaps most importantly for a Board, does it allow itself the space to demonstrate the conceptual agility to evaluate the strategic options and possibilities weighing up the pros and cons of different options, linking different concepts and synthesising alternatives. 

As observers, we will ask ourselves whether we are seeing an inquisitive and open-minded board exploring and analysing the possibilities? Are the members of the board both executive and non-executives allowing, facilitating, and encouraging these behaviours (highlighted)? 

But these behaviours must operate in tandem. A Board which analyses the issues and evaluates the options but does so through a narrow lens denies itself the opportunity of identifying the best solution and even worse choosing the wrong one. Similarly, a Board furnished with all relevant information does not allow itself the opportunity, perhaps and typically because of time constraints, to explore and evaluate options will lack creativity and miss opportunities. 

How does your Board score here?

Check in next month for Part 2 of the Series.

Introducing our Behavioural capabilities and traits of high performing boards series.