Paul Walsh, the Irish Opportunist

I read a post by Nic Brisbourne entitled ‘Small boards are usually better’ and it reminded me of numerous, frustrated conversations I had with a few Founding CEOs over the past couple of years. I’ve often heard them say “I think it’s a brilliant idea and I really want to do it, but my board isn’t sure because they don’t get it”.

I tend to hire people who are much smarter than me, mainly because it makes my job much easier, the team much stronger and the company more likely to be the best in its field. And naturally, they’re much more motivated. So, I get the importance of listening to the team and going with the majority. Most of the time anyway.

But, when you feel very strongly about something, I personally believe that as CEO, you should go with your gut feeling and ‘just fucking do it’. I make no apology for swearing by the way - I recently heard that it’s the same motto held by one of the few people I look up to, Richard Brandson. So if he can say it, I can say it.

Meanwhile, back at the Brisbourne ranch and his thoughts about the size of an ideal board…

I was on a call yesterday with a subset of one of the boards I am on and one of the directors was talking about how difficult it is to add value on boards.

I agree with that. It is definitely difficult. Also definitely possible, but it usually requires a lot of care and forethought.

I should add at this stage that the director in question has been brilliant for us, and that he has an awesome track record of entrepreneurial success behind him.

One of the reasons I favour small boards is exactly because it is hard for NEDs to add value. Despite their best intentions many fail, and it is also common to see people destroying value by chewing up management time precisely because they are trying to help.

Read his full post here

I totally agree with Nic. ‘Decision by Committee’ for everything just doesn’t work. You either get very little done or you’re too late to deliver. That’s why we created working groups in BIMA. By creating working groups, appointing a Chair of each one and importantly, giving them the responsibility to make decisions without reverting back to the 12 Executives, it means the ship is much more productive. There are lots of other benefits but I don’t want to go too far off topic.

Instead of having 12 Executives making decisions about everything, it now has 9 working group Chairs with teams of no more than 5, making the decisions. Moreover, each team is focused primarily on areas in which they truly specialise. Not only does this mean they’re likely to deliver based on their expertise and experience, they’re less likely to cause delays where they’ve got less experience than others.

What are your thoughts?