GUVERNANTA CORPORATIVA SI CULTURA ORGANIZATIONALA

GUVERNANTA CORPORATIVA SI CULTURA ORGANIZATIONALA

DAN PASCARIU PRESEDINTELE CONSILIULUI DE SUPRAVEGHERE, UNICREDIT BANK, ROMANIA

INSTITUTUL. BANCAR ROMAN, 10 IUNIE 2016

Experienta personala in materie de guvernanta corporativa

INTREBARI PENTRU UN MEMBRU AL BOARD-ULUI.

Cat de mult imi pasa de organizatia pe care o servesc?

Actionez cu buna credinta si in interesul organizatiei ('duty of loyalty')?

Actionez si iau decizii la fel de prudent ca si cum as aborda propriile afaceri ('duty of care')?

Inteleg ca principala responsabilitate fiduciara o am fata de deponenti, inaintea actionarilor?

Stiu care sunt partile interesate ('stakeholders') si cum trebuie sa interactionez cu ele?

Cum se compara constintele mele cu cele ale unui administrator ideal?

Cunosc si urmaresc indeaproape activitatea si elementele care creaza valoare pe termen lung?

Sunt suficient de bine informat cu privire la trendurile din industrie, evolutiile reglementative si schimbarile tehnologice?

In ce fel adaug valoare in cadrul board-ului?

Sunt atent la prioritati?


Este agenda board-ului indreptata suficient catre viitor?

Inteleg cu adevarat toate riscurile asociate organizatiei?

Imi sunt clare apetitul de risc si cultura de risc ale organizatiei, precum si relatia lor cu capacitatea de risc?

Cum pendulam intre evitarea si asumarea de riscuri?

Este riscul suficient de diversificat?

Imi este clara distinctia intre decizii reversibile si decizii ireversibile?

Imi este clara distinctia intre riscuri si incertitudini?

Sofisticarea administrarii riscului si infrastructura controlului intern tin pasul cu schimbarile in profilul de risc al organizatiei, in mediului extern si in practicilor din industrie?

Imi pot imagina o lume economica diferita de cea de azi?


Insist sa primesc tipurile de informatii necesare pentru a intelege riscurile si vulnerabiliatile organizatiei?

Am informatii suficiente independente de management pentru a-mi formula opinii? Ce proces informal de informare am?

Cit de implicat am fost eu si ceilalti colegi ai mei in desenarea arhitecturii informationale?

Sunt atent la capcanele comfortului aparent dat de rapoarte, grafice si cifre in general?

Board-ul petrece mai mult timp analizind rezultatele sau validind ipotezele care stau la baza rapoartelor?

Ne concentram mai mult pe performantele relative (prin comparatie cu competitorii) sau pe performantele absolute?

Este organizatia echipata sa administreze complexitatile acestui gen de business? Sunt alert la schimbarile rapide in complexitate?


Avem CEO-ul potrivit si echipa manageriala potrivita?

Avem un CRO potrivit ca experienta si independenta?

Au acestia aptitudinile, valorile, atitudinile si energiile necesare?

Este CEO-ul suficient de colaborativ?

Cit de clare ne sunt responsabilitatile ca administratori pentru stabilirea directiei, supraveghere si control?

Respectam distinctia dintre responsabilitatile board-ului de stabilire a directiei, supraveghere si control si responsabilitatile managementului de a conduce activitatea organizatiei?

Discutam cu atentie si rigoare toate propunerile strategice, politicile legate de risc si aspectele operationale majore?

Sprijinim suficient managementul odata ce am cazut de acord asupra strategiei?

Este succesiunea membrilor echipei manageriale urmarita cu atentie?


Care este lista proceselor prioritare (strategie, risc, control, conformitate, succesiune etc.)? Am o viziune clara asupra fiecaruia dintre aceste procese?

Interactionam in mod regulat cu auditorii interni si externi?

Cit de mare este diversitatea administratorilor in ceea ce priveste abilitatile, competentele si personalitatea?

Toti administratorii impartasesc aceleasi valori?

Are board-ul constituite comitetele necesare? Sunt ele populate cu oamenii potriviti?

Cit de activ este board-ul din care fac parte?

Cum este dinamica in interiorul board-ului, functionala sau nu?

Cum este cultura board-ului in privinta participarii la discutii a membrilor?

Ce parere am cu privire la contributia celorlalti administratori?

INTREBARI PENTRU UN MEMBRU AL BOARD-ului.

Ascult cu atentie opinia celorlalti? Atunci cind nu sunt de acord o spun raspicat, dar cu respect, mentinind relatia corecta?

Sunt contributiile mele concise si la obiect? Le expun atunci cind am o opinie?

In cadrul discutiilor din board ne bazam pe 'professional judgement framework'?

Evitam in cursul discutiilor noastre capcane si prejudecati de gindire sau iluzii cognitive (anchoring, framing, confirmation, availability, overconfidence, groupthink etc)?

Evaluam cu regularitate eficacitatea board-ului?

Protejam autoritatea si independenta board-ului?

Are board-ul un rol activ in crearea culturii institutionale si a valorilor organizatiei?

Asigura board-ul leadership transformational organizatiei?

BOARD

REGLEMENTATOR/SUPRAVEGHETOR

AUTORITATI

CREDITORI

COMPETITORI

FOND GARANTARE DEPOZITE

MEDIA

COMUNITATI

ACTIONARI

MANAGEMENT

ANGAJATI

CLIENTI

ANPC

PARTI INTERESATE IN COMPANIE - “STAKEHOLDERS”

PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT FRAMEWORK

Step 1. Define the Problem and identify Fundamental Objectives ● Obtain a thorough understanding of fundamental aspects of the judgment or decision. ● Develop specific objectives and relevant measurable criteria. ● Consider different perspectives or frames; challenge the current frame and seek input from those who see the

matter differently. ● Ask what and why questions to get to the root of the issue and the fundamental objectives. ● Be aware of common threats to judgment that may affect this step, including accepting management’s frame,

as well as biases and traps, such as the overconfidence tendency, the rush to solve and judgment triggers.

Step 2. Consider alternatives ● Invest appropriate time and effort to consider different alternatives; ask how questions. ● Remember that a judgment can be no better than the best alternative considered. ● Seek input from others with different perspectives and apply alternative frames. ● Weigh the alternatives in terms of how well they meet the objectives. ● Be aware of common threats to judgment that may affect this step, including judgment biases and traps, such

as the availability tendency and judgment triggers.

PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT FRAMEWORK

Step 3. Gather and Evaluate information ● Gather the appropriate amount of relevant information. ● Consider the reliability, validity, certainty, and accuracy of the information. ● Identify and consider relevant technical literature and industry information. ● Assess the consequences associated with alternative approaches or options considered. ● Identify the alternative that best meets relevant objectives. ● Be aware of common threats to good judgment that may affect this step, including deadline pressure or a

biased information search introduced by the overconfidence, confirmation, anchoring, or availability tendencies.

Step 4. Reach a conclusion ● Before reaching a conclusion, ask whether a supportable process has been followed (that is, consider steps 1–

3), and if not, return to the appropriate previous step(s). ● Beawareofcommonthreatstojudgmentthatmayaffectthisstep,includingconflict avoidance tendencies

Step 5. Articulate and Document rationale ● Consider the judgment with the end in mind of articulating the rationale, reflect on the steps of good

judgment, and consider whether a sound process was followed and whether judgment traps and biases influenced the conclusion.

● Assess whether the conclusion makes sense and is supported by the underlying information.

COGNITIVE ILLUSIONS

Cognitive illusions or Judgment tendencies (traps) and biases (experience is not always the best teacher). To efficiently navigate complexity, we often unknowingly use mental shortcuts and simplifying strategies.

● Rush to solve: strive to quick compromise and early consensus. “A hasty judgment is a first step to recantation.” Publilius Syrus (Roman writer)

● Groupthink behaviors: narrow thinking, suppression of divergent views, partially considered judgment. "If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn’t thinking.” – General George S. Patton

● Status-quo trap: We instinctively stay with what seems familiar. Deep within our psyches, we are self-protective and risk-aversive. Thus we look for decisions that involve the least change and consider the status quo as our only alternative. In business, the sins of commission (doing something) tend to be punished much more severely than sins of omission (doing nothing).

● Complexity trap: Business success does not come from more work or more complexity, rather from keeping things simple and focusing relentlessly on the few critical issues that need to be resolved to drive the success of the business. To overcome the complexity trap, the watchwords need to be: simplify, eliminate, prioritize and focus. “Anyone can make the simple complicated. Creativity is making the complicated simple.” Charles Mingus (U.S. Jazz Bassist)

● Framing trap: The first step in making a decision is to frame the issue. It’s also one of the most dangerous: how you frame a problem can profoundly influence your choices. How you make a decision is often determined by how you view your choices or how you frame the questions around it. A frame can establish the "status quo" or introduce an "anchor." It can lead you to "justify past actions" or highlight confirming evidence. People also tend to adopt the framing of the situation as it is presented to them, rather than restating the problem in their own way.

JUDGEMENT TENDENCIES (TRAPS) THAT CAN LEAD TO BIASES● Overconfidence tendency: We believe we are better at making forecasts or estimates than we actually are. “ It ain’t what you don’t

know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” Mark Twain ● The Prudence tendency: When faced with high stakes, we tend to adjust our estimates or forecasts with prudence, “just to be on

the safe side.” Too much prudence can be as dangerous as too little. Memories of dramatic events leave strong impressions on our judgement.

● The Recallability tendency: Even if we are neither overly confident nor unduly prudent, we can still fall into a trap when making estimates or forecasts. Because we frequently base our predictions about future events on our memory of past events, we can be overly influenced by dramatic events—those that leave a strong impression on our memory.

● Confirmation tendency: This trap is the bias that leads us to seek out or favor information to support our existing point of view while avoiding information that contradicts it. Two fundamental psychological forces are at work here. The first is our tendency to subconsciously decide what we want to do before we figure out why we want to do it. The second is our inclination to be more engaged by things we like than by things we dislike. “The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.” Daniel Boorstin (U.S. historian)

● Anchoring tendency: to make assessments by relying heavily on one piece of information or by starting from an initial numerical value and then adjusting insufficiently away in forming a final judgement. Whoever most vividly characterizes the situation usually anchors the other’s perception of it. In business, one of the most frequent “anchors” is a past event or trend. “In all affairs, it’s a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on things you have long taken for granted.” Bertrand Russell

● Availability tendency: to consider information that is easily retrievable from memory as being more likely, more relevant and more important for a judgement. “It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.” Joseph Joubert (French essayist)

● The Sunk-Cost trap: We tend to make choices in ways that justify past decisions, even when the latter no longer seem valid. We know rationally that sunk costs are irrelevant to present decisions, but they nevertheless lead to inappropriate choices. This frequently occurs when we’re unwilling, consciously or not, to admit a mistake.

Documents

GUVERNANTA CORPORATIVA SI CULTURA ORGANIZATIONALA