01 April 2011
Re-Engineering the Boardroom
In the late 1980s David Sainsbury (now Lord Sainsbury of
Turville) became concerned that in comparison with the UK, overseas
businesses had more senior executives with professional engineering
and science qualifications in the boardroom. Over the years, and
particularly in light of the economic folly of recent years, he has
become increasingly convinced that in order to increase the UK's
international competitiveness there should be more directors in UK
boardrooms who understand how things are innovated, manufactured
and sold. He is not alone in his views.
Indeed, Akio Morita, Chairman of Sony Corporation, while
delivering the inaugural Innovation Lecture to the Department of
Trade and Industry in 1992, famously expressed his confusion at why
British companies persist in appointing accountants to run their
companies. He remarked pointedly, "For an accountant the central
concern is the analysis of statistics and figures, of past
performance. How can an accountant reach out and grab the future if
he is always looking at last quarter's results?" In other words, if
you're driving down the road, wouldn't you look through the
windscreen at the road ahead rather than staring into the rear-view
mirror? Don't get me wrong, some of my best friends are accountants
and I'm certainly not on a financial-professional-bashing crusade,
but there are some convincing arguments for ensuring that the
skills often found in engineers and scientists are better
represented in the boardroom.
Before we get into that, I should admit to being a product
of Lord Sainsbury's vision. I am one of the 270 British engineers
who have been awarded a scholarship by the Sainsbury Management
Fellowship (SMF) scheme to complete an internationally recognized
MBA course. Lord Sainsbury has certainly put his money where his
mouth is, paying out seven million pounds in bursaries since the
scheme began. His protégés have been educated at the cream of
international business schools in Europe and the USA. In 1999, I
subjected my wife and young family to INSEAD's intensive so-called
"divorce course" (I'm still trying to make it up to them). The
result has been a diverse cadre of British Professional Engineers
with the relevant skills for contributing to UK plc. Have these
professionals, returning from their intensive re-branding
experience, educated in the dulcet tones of strategic marketing,
profit and loss accounts and discounted cash flows, been embraced
with open arms by British corporates? Well, the answer appears to
be "not really".
The SMF has just published an interesting document summarizing
the findings of a survey they have carried out with 100 HR
directors. The findings make sobering reading for engineers. The
backgrounds HR directors value most in the boardroom are
accountancy (still number one after all these years!), sales,
marketing, HR and legal, with professional engineering still firmly
"off the back". However, 80 % of the same HR directors agreed that
professional engineers with MBA's are most definitely qualified for
board positions. So, qualified but not valued; it brings a tear to
the eye. The report then sets out in a pretty comprehensive matrix
all those sterling qualities one can expect to find in a
professional engineer. A few of the skills struck a chord with
me.
The first skill is one that even the most hard-nosed HR director
must surely concede. Engineers understand how stuff works and are
generally interested in staying abreast of the latest technology.
They are typically early adopters of technology and as a result are
useful at being able to predict potential alternative future
outcomes. Our world is changing at an unprecedented rate, much of
it driven by new technology, globalization and environmentalism.
Most professional engineers I know have a strong opinion on these
issues which can help UK boards future-proof their businesses and
exploit new opportunities for growth.
The second skill that is often strong in engineers is that of
being able to quantify risk. From an early stage in their careers
engineers are taught to make an estimate. It starts at a young age
with judging how thick the legs on a Lego bridge have to be and
develops into an interest in financial models that work out a
balanced investment portfolio to provide for a comfortable
retirement. It strikes me that a few of the things that have gone
off the rails in our economy in recent years could have benefitted
from a few judicious estimates on likely outcomes.
The third skill-set that engineers bring to the boardroom
is an insight into effective project management. This is the bread
and butter of a career in engineering, combining the short and long
term viewpoints in order to bring a complex project successfully
over the finishing line. While engineers can be creative, it's
their ability to see something through to a working reality that
brings profitable results faster.
So, what is it that I'm advocating? Positive discrimination in
favour of engineers and scientists at board level? Hopefully not
even engineers are naive enough to join that particular queue. We
live in an increasingly competitive world where people need to put
their best foot forward and be prepared to be judged on their
merits. If Professional Engineers want to be appointed to the board
of a company, they had better be prepared to deploy their
freshly-honed sales skills because it certainly won't be presented
on a plate. What I am asking on behalf of Lord Sainsbury and the
SMF is that when the interview shortlists are drawn up, HR
directors take a leaf out of the book of their overseas
counterparts and think twice before relegating applications from
engineers and scientists to the bottom of the pile.