Board Paper -
Deciding on Conformance vs Performance Assessments ...

Complete the Form below.

Where you are able to gather multiple Board Directors, have them complete the Form as well.

Simply advise us of the names through our email contact at info@grcconsultingltd.com.

Also, advise us in this email whether you wish to have both the combined average together with individual Directors’ submissions, or simply the combined average, or any other request.

We will return the completed “BoardPaper” on this basis.

Please complete the following “Board Paper Request” Form and its respective Fields and click on the “Submit” button (at the bottom of the Form) when all “Required” Fields are complete to send this information to GRC Consulting to progress your Request.

Name *

Email Address *

Phone *

Board Reviewer Independence and Integrity – Organisation Name *Please detail the legal name of your organisation, so that we may research and understand if we have any potential or actual Conflicts of Interest to discuss with you with repect to your potential Services Request.

Board Reviewer Independence and Integrity – Organisation Website *Please enter the legal website name of your organisation, so that we may research and understand if we have any potential or actual Conflicts of Interest to discuss with you with repect to your potential Services Request.

GRC Consulting's Corporate Governance Maturity Ladder … *Simple Decision Criteria … Please select the appropriate Option1. No Board Performance Assessment yet undertaken, and or NOT yet mastered the Local Corporate Governance Code = Undertake a “Conformance” Board Performance Assessment.2. Mastery of the Local Corporate Governance Code = Undertake a “Performance” Board Performance Assessment.

No 1 – Additional Simple Decision Criteria – Corporate Governance Framework … *1. Ensuring Independence … – Have you, as a Board, completed an Annual Directors’ Independence Assessment of all Directors, formulated and implemented an appropriate remedial plan and related actions for all Director submissions?Option 1 – NoOption 2 – Yes

No 2 – Additional Simple Decision Criteria – Corporate Governance Framework … *2. Ensuring Independence … – Have you, as a Board, undertaken a Directors’ Independence Assessment of all Directors, before any material consideration before the Board, and formulated and taken appropriate managed remedial plan and related action concerning all Director submissions?Option 1 – NoOption 2 – Yes

No 3 – Additional Simple Decision Criteria – Corporate Governance Framework … *3. Reducing Liability … – Have you, as a Board, undertaken an Annual Directors’ Liability Assessment of all Directors of the Corporate Governance Risks arising from your Regulatory and Mandatory Corporate Governance framework, and formulated and taken appropriate managed remedial plan and related action concerning all Director submissions?Option 1 – NoOption 2 – Yes

No 4 – Additional Simple Decision Criteria – Corporate Governance Framework … *4. Corporate Governance Compliance … – Have you, as a Board, undertaken an Annual Assessment of the Board’s Regulatory and Mandatory Corporate Governance Compliance, and where appropriate, conducted an independently led assessment by a professional Service Provider, and formulated and taken an appropriate managed remedial plan and related action concerning all Board and respective Director shortfalls arising?Option 1 – NoOption 2 – Yes

No 1 – Additional Simple Decision Criteria – Board Maturity – Ram Charan (2005) … *1. Ceremonial … – Where the Boards primarily performed a compliance role; Director appointments were prestigious with little communication between them or with the CEO and executive team, let alone wider; Fulfilled their explicit obligations, attending required meetings and “rubber stamping” management’s resolutions; largely anonymous to the public, rarely publicly reported, and little risk or personal threat.Option 1 – NoOption 2 – Yes

No 2 – Additional Simple Decision Criteria – Board Maturity – Ram Charan (2005) … *2. Liberated … – Mid-1990s and Post Sarbanes-Oxley; Boards expected to actively contribute; Directorship mandate expects active participation, contribution, and mindset; Positions including that of the Chair under pressure and voting for replacement; wide Board and governance reforms, with significant corporate scandals; Governance practices impacting share and corporate pricing; Activist calls being heard and Directors and CEOs pushing change, sometimes in an uncoordinated way destroying value, being ineffective, lacking focus; tenures become limited, particularly CEO’s.Option 1 – NoOption 2 – Yes

No 3 – Additional Simple Decision Criteria – Board Maturity – Ram Charan (2005) … *3. Progressive … – Meticulous legal compliance and in spirit; Team player uniformity, adding value whilst being unique and independent; Active contribution, dialogue, and focus on key issues to reach consensus and closure, eliminating the irrelevant; Individual challenge whilst maintaining Board harmony and without the CEO which energises Directors and provides stimulus and growth, individually and as a Board; Constructive working relationship between Board and CEO, with a confrontation of the thorny issues; Effective leadership at Board level, through working groups’ appointment of SID’s/Corporate Secretary, collating opinions to consensus of Board views constructively communicated with follow-up, collaboration and sincere implementation; adding value paramount and on many levels; Diversity of perspective and thinking, free flowing contributions with added value through their judgements on and suggestions for the CEO and his direct reports; Boards becoming a competitive advantage in and of themselves.Option 1 – NoOption 2 – Yes

No 1 – Additional Simple Decision Criteria – Board Maturity – Geoffrey Kiel (2018) … *1. Formative … – Where development generally, in particular, governance is not formed or poorly evident and functioning.Option 1 – NoOption 2 – Yes

No 2 – Additional Simple Decision Criteria – Board Maturity – Geoffrey Kiel (2018) … *2. Developing … – Initial governance is evident, including measurement and improvement processes.Option 1 – NoOption 2 – Yes

No 3 – Additional Simple Decision Criteria – Board Maturity – Geoffrey Kiel (2018) … *3. Acceptable … – Minimum level of adequate governance is evident and functioning.Option 1 – NoOption 2 – Yes

No 4 – Additional Simple Decision Criteria – Board Maturity – Geoffrey Kiel (2018) … *4. Advanced … – Governance practices are evident that exceed minimum acceptable levels.Option 1 – NoOption 2 – Yes

No 5 – Additional Simple Decision Criteria – Board Maturity – Geoffrey Kiel (2018) … *5. Leading Practice … – Independent consensus of governance frameworks performing at best practice levels.Option 1 – NoOption 2 – Yes

No 1 – Additional Simple Decision Criteria – Board Maturity – GRC Consulting (Current) … | “The Effectiveness of the Board’s Performance, seen by an independent Observer and adjudged as”: … *1. Poorly … – Being “Poorly effective/supportive” – as a consequence, not effective and does not deliver the desired results.Option 1 – NoOption 2 – Yes

No 2 – Additional Simple Decision Criteria – Board Maturity – GRC Consulting (Current) … | “The Effectiveness of the Board’s Performance, seen by an independent Observer and adjudged as”: … *2. Haphazardly … – Being “Haphazardly effective/supportive” – as a consequence, giving rise to unpredictable effectiveness and delivery of desired results.Option 1 – NoOption 2 – Yes

No 3 – Additional Simple Decision Criteria – Board Maturity – GRC Consulting (Current) … | “The Effectiveness of the Board’s Performance, seen by an independent Observer and adjudged as”: … *3. Somewhat … – Being “Somewhat effective/supportive” – as a consequence, somewhat effective or marginal in delivering desired results.Option 1 – NoOption 2 – Yes

No 4 – Additional Simple Decision Criteria – Board Maturity – GRC Consulting (Current) … | “The Effectiveness of the Board’s Performance, seen by an independent Observer and adjudged as”: … *4. Averagely … – Being “Averagely effective/supportive” – as a consequence, averagely effective in delivering desired results.Option 1 – NoOption 2 – Yes

No 5 – Additional Simple Decision Criteria – Board Maturity – GRC Consulting (Current) … | “The Effectiveness of the Board’s Performance, seen by an independent Observer and adjudged as”: … *5. Structured … – Being “Structured effective/supportive” – as a consequence, demonstrating acknowledged effectiveness in the delivery of desired results.Option 1 – NoOption 2 – Yes

No 6 – Additional Simple Decision Criteria – Board Maturity – GRC Consulting (Current) … | “The Effectiveness of the Board’s Performance, seen by an independent Observer and adjudged as”: … *6. Well Structured … – Being “Well Structured effective/supporting” – as a consequence, activities are embedded with proactive effectiveness in delivering desired results.Option 1 – NoOption 2 – Yes

Board Paper -
Deciding on Conformance vs Performance Assessments ...

Powered by GRC

Governance, Risk and Compliance

Board Paper - Deciding on Conformance vs Performance Assessments ...

Powered by GRC

Governance, Risk and Compliance

Board Paper -
Deciding on Conformance vs Performance Assessments ...