Boards are our business

News and Views

Announcing our 2018 Academy Courses. View the Calendar

In the Shadow of Weinstein Woes: How Boards Should Be Thinking About Sexual Harassment

November 8, 2017

Posted in: WATSON Views

“How should directors respond to the recent high profile cases of sexual harassment cases in the workplace?”

The spectre of bullying and sexual harassment in the workplace has been raised by high profile cases, including that of Jian Ghomeshi at the CBC in Canada, and more recently by the case of Harvey Weinstein at Miramax Films/the Weinstein Company, in the US. And it’s clear the issue is wide spread and crosses all sectors, as evidence by the breadth of response to the #MeToo social media campaign.

Many directors are unaware of the culture within their organizations, and whether employees are truly free from harassment of any kind. In today’s environment, directors who neither understand this issue nor take reasonable steps to ensure their organization’s workplace is safe, could expose the organization and themselves to potential claims.

A recent survey of over 400 directors and venture capitalists conducted in the United States, suggests that Boards are not actively discussing the risks of sexual harassment and gender discrimination in the workplace. The survey was conducted by Boardlist, which manages a directory of female board members. While relatively narrow in scope and conducted before the Weinstein allegations arose, both the survey and a commentary piece in the Washington Post provide some insight as to why directors had not yet addressed sexual harassment at the Board level. The Washington Post notes that the most common reason given by directors is that they “felt it was not a problem” or that for some, the view that the smaller size of their organization lessens the risk and impact.

From a governance perspective, the current groundswell of sexual harassment cases that are being raised puts into sharp focus the risks of sexual harassment in a workplace and the potential negative impact on the overall organization. Boards should consider whether the risk warrants discussion at the Board level and how well-positioned the organization is with respect to harassment prevention policies. For example:

  • Do directors understand how implementation and compliance with human resource policies is accomplished at the organization?
  • Do directors understand what obligations and liabilities the organization has with regards to providing a safe and harassment free workplace?
  • Do directors generally understand how the harassment policies work (i.e, their application, content and any associated complaint procedures)?
  • Do directors understand their own responsibility to contribute to a safe and respectful environment through their own conduct and actions?
  • Have directors been provided with harassment and discrimination prevention education and training, in addition to staff?
  • Are there mechanisms in place to assess overall workplace health and organizational culture and on which the Board receives regular reports?
  • Are there mechanisms in place for individuals to raise issues of concern (including breaches of harassment policies and other ethical breaches) and how is the Board is made aware of key issues arising?

If Boards have not yet turned their minds to the risks of sexual harassment, the recent groundswell should prompt Board action. In fact, as noted in the Washington Post some organizations are moving from simply asking “what do we need to do” to “what else can be done” to prevent sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace.

The list of areas where directors are expected to be involved is complex and growing, and workplace health safety is one more that should clearly be on every Board’s radar screen.

BoardSource 2017 Report

October 4, 2017

Posted in: WATSON Views

BoardSource has released Leading with Intent 2017, a report on nonprofit board composition, practices, performance and culture. The report surveyed nearly 1,800 chief executives and chairs from a broad cross-section of the nonprofit sector. The organizations surveyed are primarily registered charities, most of which are based in the United States.

The BoardSource report has several key findings:

  • Boards are not happy with their own level of diversity, but are not changing their recruitment priorities to address this
  • While boards are starting to embrace their role as advocates for the organization’s mission, most boards lack a formal policy around advocacy
  • When boards understand their organization’s programming better, they are more engaged, more strategic, and more involved in fundraising
  • Boards that regularly evaluate their own performance reported better performance scores than those that have not assessed themselves within the past two years
  • When a board understands its role, and when it can work as a cohesive team toward shared goals, it can have a significant positive impact on organizational performance.

These results align with the views and experience of the WATSON team in our advisory work to nonprofit organizations. WATSON believes that:

  • Boards that understand their purpose, and that stay focussed on it during board meetings and when making key decisions, leave the most marked impact on organizational performance
  • A more formalized governance framework – written policies that document the processes and procedures for how the board gets things done – provides directors with clarity on what their job is and how to do it
  • Regular and mindful feedback – from both formal evaluations and as a part of regular meeting practices – are critical board exercises. (Yet when asked, directors commonly report that evaluations are rarely done well, if at all.)

We would be pleased to share more of our governance insights with your board. Learn more about our evaluation process or feel free to get in touch or pay us a visit. Let’s talk about how we can help your board take a more intentional approach to governance.

An Intentional Approach to Governance – WATSON’s W Model

August 22, 2017

Posted in: WATSON Views

When governance is not working well, directors usually know there is an issue, but unless they are steeped in governance practice, they often aren’t quite sure where to start or how to fix the problem. It can also be difficult to assess the root of a problem when you are in the middle of dealing with the symptoms.

When people come to us, they often describe a symptom (e.g., tension between the board and management, meetings that don’t accomplish much, lack of alignment on strategy) but are hard-pressed to identify the root cause. As with many complex structures such as governance, the basic rules are easy to prescribe, but how it works in practice is nuanced based on the organization, its context, and the people involved. This is further complicated by evolving standards of good governance, which inform what is expected of directors to exercise their duty of care.

In thinking about how to help our clients navigate the complexities of governance we decided to peel back the onion and set out, in a comprehensive way, the many elements that go into good governance and how they interrelate. The result is the WATSON Governance Model, or as we like to call it, the W, a straight-forward framework that visually depicts governance in a way that resonates with both boards and management teams across sectors from not-for-profit and government agencies to public companies and family businesses.

The Foundation of the WATSON Governance Model

Individuals involved in governance bring a variety of views on what is important, where the board should focus, and how decisions should be made. Without a common language and approach, boards often find themselves muddling through meetings, frustrated by lack of alignment, while eking out slow progress. While shared language and processes are important, the single most important factor differentiating a great board from a good board, is a collective intention to achieve results.

The W (and for that matter, all of WATSON’s work) is founded on our Governing with Intention™ approach to governance. It’s a new way of thinking about governance and is built on three simple tenets:

  • Governance is directly connected to Purpose
  • There is a shared Belief in the value of governance
  • Mindful Design

Governing with Intention™ Approach

The very nature of traditional governance models challenges even the best boards. Infrequent meetings with directors with day jobs (and possibly multiple board roles) makes it tough for boards to do their best. But from this time-poor model, can come value-rich outcomes. Great boards recognize the limitations and challenges that come with limited interaction and intentionally design their approach to every aspect of their board governance. Coming from a centrally held belief that a board can make a difference, they alter their board’s practices – from the simple re-ordering of their meeting agenda to the development of a forward looking calendar to the complex but hugely important willingness to challenge the quality of board engagement. What transforms good boards to great boards is the degree of intention they apply to all aspects of their board work.

WATSON’s Governing with Intention™ approach is guided by three tenets:

Governance is directly connected to Purpose.

  • Governance is not an end in itself. Governance is the means to an end.
  • The end goal is a successful organization, however you define it.
  • To govern with intention, you and your board must first understand that the board’s most important goal is to ensure the organization is successful.

There is a shared Belief in the value of governance.

  • In order to be good at governance, every person involved must have an underlying belief that effective governance will have a direct effect on the success of the organization.
  • While the board acts as a collective, each member is responsible and recognizes their personal accountability.
  • To govern with intention, each person must value governance and be committed to doing it well.

Mindful Design

  • There is no absolute right or wrong when it comes to what the board does, how it does it, or how management is involved.
  • The dialogue needs to shift from the ‘best practice’ to the ‘right practice at the right time’ for the organization.
  • To govern with intention, the governance structure, process and priorities should be consciously designed with the organization in mind.

So, what does intentional governance look like? And what role does governance play in an organization’s commitment to having a greater impact? Quite simply, it all starts with the board acting with intention. Great boards have a common deeply shared belief in their organization’s purpose. Early on in an organization’s life they create the central idea of the organization, and throughout the company’s life stages and in every board meeting, they look through their purpose-driven lens to (co)create strategy, manage risk, and foster strong leadership. This focus is not always easy to maintain, but great boards remain vigilant and foster a culture of intention.

The 5 Elements of the W

WATSON's W Model


Boards that govern with intention™ start by understanding that a board’s singular purpose is to ensure the organization achieves its goals, however, they are defined. In designing what they do and how they do it, directors consider the evolving external context (Context), what is required to carry out their responsibilities (Stewardship), the most suitable structure and processes to do their work (Framework), and how to foster healthy and productive relationships (Dynamics).

WATSON’s W unpacks the world of governance and presents a holistic view of what it takes to govern an organization. The five governance elements include:

  • Context: directors must constantly be aware of the context in which the organization is operating – including legal requirements, the evolving external environment, regulatory requirements, and changes within the sector. In addition, with an increased focus on director accountability and board performance, expectations of directors and emerging standards of leading practices are evolving. Boards that govern with intention™ are alert to their continually changing context and standards for good governance.
  • Framework: the governance framework refers to the structure, practices, and processes the board puts in place, or has in place, to carry out its responsibilities. A sound framework provides clarity around two areas: process (forward calendar, agendas, meetings, information, and decision-making processes) and structure (board size, composition, term limits, board leadership and committees).
  • Dynamics: governance is ultimately about people – people who must work together as functioning teams to achieve results. The human dynamics in the boardroom, and the relationship between the board and management are critical elements of board effectiveness and are often underestimated.
  • Organizational stewardship: to fulfill their responsibility to supervise the management of the business and affairs of the association, and to exercise their duty of care, directors choose where and how to focus their efforts. Over time, a strong consensus has evolved as to the types of activities directors should be involved in including establishing purpose, direction, strategies, safeguarding, and making efficient use of the organization’s resources, ensuring strong leadership, monitoring corporate performance, and ensuring the organization is compliant with all legal requirements.
  • Board stewardship: part of every board’s responsibility is to make sure the board itself has the structure and capacity to carry out its responsibilities and appropriately steward the organization. The duty of care requires that directors ensure a competent and high-functioning board by focusing their efforts on renewal, recruitment, orientation, education, evaluation, and succession planning.

Intentionality Behind the Design

The five elements that form WATSON’s W are intrinsically linked together and rarely can be addressed in isolation. For example, if your board renewal processes are challenging and you’re constantly bringing directors up to speed, it may be a function of director terms or the legal structure of your board, as well as recruitment and orientation practices. If your board struggles to wrap its head around risk and strategy, it may be a factor of either having the right people around the table to do the work, the dynamics among board members or between the board and management. If your board-management relationship is fraught with tension, these dynamics may stem from meeting design and the quality of meeting materials rather than the individuals themselves.

Understanding the interrelated nature of the governance elements helps to identify and mitigate unapparent causes with far reaching consequences.

All five elements are equally important. There is, however, intentionality to our design that reflects how we think about governance.

Above and Below the Line

Nine times out of 10, when boards come to WATSON for assistance, they start by describing an issue above the line. We want a stronger board that adds value to the leadership team; how do we recruit better directors? Can you help us enhance director performance through a board evaluation? We need a more strategic board – can you facilitate an off-site strategy session? Our CEO just announced she is retiring; can you help us find our next great leader? Although each of these are important components of organizational and board stewardship and must be addressed by the board, when we start to dig deep, we often uncover contributing factors below the line.

Most boards focus on what they know they have to do. When WATSON thinks about a board’s responsibilities, we look at the elements above the line as the what – the board’s work – and those below the line as the how – how the board carries out its work. Stewardship activities – the things above the line – tend to fill board forward calendars and meeting agendas – what it has to do, year by year, to be successful and fulfill its role governing the organization. But boards need to look beneath the surface and be prepared to dig down to uncover the underlying contextual, cultural and structural issues impacting board and organizational stewardship. We find that the issues that trip boards up and impede their ability to be successful in fulfilling their stewardship responsibilities often stem from their governance framework or dynamics. The reality is boards get so caught up in what work they are doing that they often forget that they have the power to control how they do the work.

Renewal – So Important it Gets its Own Spot on the W

At the end of the day, governance is all about people. Frameworks and processes be damned; without the right people around the table, your board can never achieve its full potential. By giving renewal its own spot on the W, we want to highlight the need to focus on people – from how you recruit, orientation that is more than a 2-inch board manual, tailored education, on-going evaluation, to a long-term view to succession planning.

The Central Framework

The focus needs to shift from simply putting a structure in place to understanding how the right governance system works for your board and how to structure your board for maximum effectiveness. The governance processes and composition that work for a national real estate association won’t meet the needs of a publicly traded mining company.

If you have seen one board, you have seen one board.

Boards need to take this deliberate approach to all aspects of their governance framework – from designing value-adding board committees (versus operating committees and short-term task forces)  being thoughtful about how they plan the content of their meetings over an annual cycle and build each agenda to focusing on the most important issues. And, where intentionality is most critical yet perhaps the most challenging to execute is in board leadership and succession (remember, governance is all about people).

The Cornerstones of Governance

It is no coincidence that dynamics and culture sit as the cornerstones of our governance model. Sitting outside the W, these two elements have high impact yet do not always garner adequate board attention.

  • Dynamics is an area that has been historically undervalued and understudied in boardrooms. Outside of the boardroom there is a collective acknowledgement of the importance of culture on organizational performance. Somehow, directors fail to transfer this wisdom into the boardroom. Intentionally designed culture and attention to director dynamics can make the difference between a value adding board and a dysfunctional board.
  • Context is the other cornerstone that has a dramatic influence on board processes, structure, and strategic agility. In governance, no one size fits all and this is no more apparent than in the legal construct and sector norms influencing board structure. Consider the different make up and requirements of a university board from those of a foundation. Boards who pay attention to context are better prepared to navigate successfully through the external changes happening around them.

And as for the actual W, with a name like WATSON, well, we just couldn’t help ourselves!

Put the W to Work

Tired of the director who feels the need to comment on every mundane thing that comes before the board? Frustrated by board meetings that never accomplish anything? Dreading the off-site session that is more social that strategic? You are not alone; however, these challenges beg the question: where to begin. Take the case of the overly participatory director. Is it the result of a bad recruitment choice? Ineffective orientation? Burdensome meeting rules? When was the last time you provided directors with feedback? Or is your chair playing ostrich, sticking his head in the sand and avoiding the situation?

It’s easy to point the finger at the symptoms of poor governance – unproductive meetings, weak culture, lame-duck committees. It is much harder to connect the dots to identify the causes of the underlying issues. There are a lot of pieces to governance and to the board’s work yet it can be challenging to see their interdependencies, especially when you’re in the thick of it.

Boards can take a proactive approach to their governance by putting the W to good use. WATSON’s W Governance Model was designed to help organizations and boards perform better. Over the years we have watched clients incorporate the W into their governance to help:

  • Orient and educate new directors – by bringing a universal model to the table, directors develop a shared understanding of governance and are able to identify how to mindfully design governance practices, processes, and policies
  • Evaluate board and director performance – the comprehensive model helps boards see how the various governance components are interrelated and think about their board functioning in a more holistic way. Over time, boards are better equipped to identify, discuss, and solve governance problems.
  • Rise above the fray – boards are most comfortable working in their governance, not on their governance. The W helps them see the forest through the trees and get up above the specifics of governance that they may be wrapped up in. The W lets them look down at all components of governance to pinpoint where the root of the problem may be.
  • Elevate individual director contribution – when the right framework is in place, information is timely and trusted, and all directors understand their legal duties then boards can shift the dialogue to the issues that matter most
  • Recruit better directors – boards that have a well-defined purpose (and supporting strategy), coupled with an appreciation of their culture, are better equipped to identify the character, competency, and commitment they need from incoming directors and can be more thoughtful in their recruitment

A great board’s work happens around the table, but its impact extends beyond the boardroom walls. Board decisions shape organizational culture and strategy. Boards guide the management team’s work and focus. They influence shareholder confidence and stakeholder engagement. A great board that governs with intention™ pays attention to all five governance elements, their interdependence, and mindfully designs their approach to governance ensures that the focus will be on dialogue and decisions that matter most to their organization’s success.

5 Quick Wins with WATSON’s W

  1. Deliberately work ON your governance – task the Governance Committee to evaluate and bring forward ideas on emerging governance practices applicable to your sector (Context)
  2. Dedicate time – annually set aside time on your forward calendar to discuss how to apply the W to your current governance practices (Framework)
  3. Define accountability – create clarity around who is responsible for recruiting, supporting, and evaluating individual directors (Board Stewardship)
  4. Dialogue – shift the conversation to board culture. Establish mutual expectations of the board and management. (Dynamics)
  5. Determine your role – consider how the board can best add value and what role it should play in the development of strategy, risk, talent, and financial oversight  (Organizational Stewardship)

Westview Executive Search Merges with WATSON Advisors Inc.

May 23, 2017

Posted in: WATSON Views


Abbotsford BCBarb Schimnowsky is pleased to announce the merger of Westview Executive Search Ltd. and WATSON Advisors Inc. As part of WATSON, Barb will lead the Executive Search practice, and focus on expanding and strengthening WATSON’s search presence in the market place.

WATSON has an excellent reputation and we share the same values and philosophy toward client satisfaction.  I’m excited to be leading a high performing team and bringing my clients into the fold.      

Schimnowsky is a Certified Management Consultant and Family Enterprise Advisor with almost 30 years of experience in executive search and recruitment. Joining WATSON brings a new level of service and expertise to both Westview and WATSON clients, who will benefit from the experience of the larger WATSON search team, while also having access to WATSON’s national network and deep governance expertise.

WATSON is the leading governance consulting and director recruitment firm based in BC. Based on the foundational belief that high caliber leaders and sound approach to governance helps organizations perform better, WATSON provides governance and recruitment advice to organizations across all industry sectors. Since founding the firm in 2005, the WATSON team has helped hundreds of organizations establish and improve their approach to governance and connect value-added directors.

WATSON has a solid track record of successfully recruiting CEOs, Directors, and Advisory Board members for its client base that include public companies, private companies, public sector entities and large non-profits. Other lines of business offered by WATSON include governance consulting, corporate secretary services, board and director evaluation, CEO Performance and governance education. For more information please visit

Merging Westview with WATSON will increase capacity to meet the needs of its diverse client base.

Barb will maintain a presence in the Fraser Valley and Vancouver and current WestView Executive Search Ltd. clients can expect continuity as the transition moves forward.

1 2 3 8