Project case study:
Breaking the 'meetings culture' by streamlining forums

The challenge

We were asked by a large corporate client to conduct a review of its executive-level committees. The client had a strong sense that a ‘meetings culture’ had developed, with too many forums having too many participants and covering overlapping topics, with meetings being somewhat disorganised, inefficient and with unclear decision-making. Executives felt that they were spending all their time preparing for and attending meetings, saying the same things to multiple forums, at the expense of running their teams and making more progress on their areas of the business.

Our approach

We began with mapping the existing landscape of forums and meetings. We did this through discussions with members of the client’s executive team to understand what internal forums they each attended and how frequently. We then obtained as much information as possible about each of these forums, through further discussions, review of meeting materials and attending some meetings. This enabled us to build up our database showing each forum’s key features.

From this data, we were able to build a schematic representation of the forums structure and its reporting hierarchy.  We categorised the forums, principally into: (a) those of a more permanent nature undertaking a governance/oversight role; (b) forums established on a temporary basis e.g. to oversee a particular time-limited project; and (c) routine management meetings e.g. for one Executive to oversee their own business or functional areas with members of their team. We agreed with the client, after presenting the current picture, that our focus for the next steps would be on the category (a) forums.

Our findings confirmed the client’s initial views. An unusually large number of Executive-level forums were operating, which we perceived was partly because there was no formal Executive Committee in place, only infrequent and informal ad-hoc meetings of the full Executive team. There were also several factors identified that were leading to inefficiencies, inconsistency and unclear responsibilities and decisions.

We produced a detailed report of our findings and recommendations, going back to base principles as to the reasons for establishing a committee at all, versus reviewing matters with the full Executive team or via one-to-one sessions with the CEO.  As well as commenting on the existing structures, we also highlighted gaps in coverage where it was not obvious where certain important topic areas were getting overseen by any Executive forum.

The outcome

We then worked with the client to implement the recommended improvements as part of its wider transformation programme. This involved:

• Establishing a formal Executive Committee comprised of the CEO and first line reports, with terms of reference adopted setting out the key matters for review by the full Executive, with an agreed meeting cadence, agenda structure and planned cycle of business
• Streamlining the forums structure by:
  • removing from committees those topics that would instead be reviewed at the full (new) Executive Committee
  • consolidating/merging some forums, removing overlaps in responsibilities to provide clear separation responsibilities between forums, and allocating ‘missing’ key topic areas to forums
  • disbanding some forums with no clear purpose or value, where information could easily be shared without holding meetings
  • strengthening the alignment and reporting on the work of Executive Committees at the relevant Board Committees
  • distinguishing the forum members from other participants and presenters, releasing those who did not need to participate often
  • re-testing and adjusting the required frequency and duration of meetings
  • introducing a naming convention to clearly distinguish between different types of forum based on their purpose, composition and features e.g. a board, committee, sub-committee, steering group, stakeholder panel, team meeting etc.
  • adding a process and decision rights for the creation of any new forum
• Introducing standardised, clear and concise written terms of reference setting out all pertinent details about each forum including its purpose, responsibilities and decision-making authorities
• Supporting each Committee to determine the appropriate breadth, depth and format of information it needed, without imposing a disproportionate management burden and while enabling efficient ‘roll-up’ of reports to the Board/ Board Committee.
• Providing a package of training and a supporting toolkit of materials and templates:
  • For the chairs of Executive Committees: key chairmanship skills
  • For all Committee members: adopting a ‘Non-Executive Director mindset’ of constructive challenge and seeking assurance
  • For authors and presenters of information: how to write effective reports for their Executive forums, based on the forum’s needs
  • For those performing the Committee secretary and administrative support role to each forum: agenda planning, minute-taking, noting actions and facilitating an effective meeting

A secondary, but highly valuable, benefit of introducing more structure, discipline and governance training across the Executive team in this way, was giving the Executives a better understanding of how the Board and Board Committees operated. They had more appreciation of what the Directors expected from them, and how to prepare to get the most from their interactions.

This case was an example of how building Executive awareness of good governance principles, supported by effective structures, processes and training, is an important factor in a cohesive top-to-bottom governance framework. Demonstrating a thoughtful and organised approach to ‘below-Board’ forums enables strong enterprise-level oversight, constructive challenge on business topics at Executive level, and good reporting. This gives the Board more confidence in the management team, which in turn facilitates good Board governance focused on the key strategic issues.