Earlier this week there was a debate at the Said Business School in Oxford exploring the notion, supported by Bill Knight, that more City lawyers should sit on the boards of private companies and public sector organisations. This is an interesting notion, because as much as I admire the intellectual capacity of many of my legal acquaintance, I am not convinced that they would make the best of directors.
Some of the issues that were explored in what I think was an unreported debate included:
- Is the shortage of boardroom lawyers due to lack of demand?
- Do chairs prefer to avoid them as board members?
- If so, what do lawyers do wrong?
- And how can lawyers change their reputation?
- Or is it a lack of supply?
- Do lawyers think they are just too busy, or are the problems of conflicts of interest insurmountable?
- How can we demonstrate the value of broadening lawyers’ outlook to encompass these roles?
- Where are the roles that do not cause conflicts of interest?
These are all important questions both for lawyers and the businesses and organisations they serve.
I don't really know how non-executives are recruited although I suspect it's through informal networking, like so many other things. What I would suggest is the killer issue is the lawyers' natural scepticism best expressed by David Maister in this article. As he says:
In a room full of lawyers, any idea, no matter how brilliant, will be instantly attacked. Lawyers are expert loophole finders, trained to find counterexamples of or exceptions to any proposition. Accordingly, within a short time, most ideas, no matter who initiates them, will be destroyed, dismissed, or postponed for future examination.
My personal view is that lawyers acting in lawyer "mode" will only act as a brake on any board deliberations and that won't always be in the best interests of the organisation. Indeed this point is picked up on by Bill Knight in his FT article when he recognises that:
The first thing is for lawyers to take a step away from the law - to change their minds and broaden their horizons.
I mentioned that the debate had gone unreported, but I am not sure that's the case. It was held under the Chatham House Rule which I thought meant that the whole debate was off the record. In fact, it appears that is not the case. The Rule - and it is singular - is:
"When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed".
I have to confess that I have absolutely no idea why the Rule is required in such a debate which I would think requires a high degree of transparency and openness and in the absence of an explanation I can only assume that it was suggested by a lawyer.
Comments