The study of boards is strong on opinion; weak on data and fact. There are no generally accepted standards of board effectiveness; approaches to the analysis and development of boards vary substantially; no particular approach appears to have weathered the recent economic storm better than another. It is hard for Chairs, their boards and investors to be confident in board performance. We want to change this.

Just as Arthur Andersen offered concerned investors an independent audit of an organisation’s financial health in the context of the Crash of 1929, so we want to provide the standards for an independent audit of ‘leadership health’ for investors and for boards themselves. We plan to make these standards available to both clients and other suppliers to improve them towards a set of generally accepted standards. We are developing our approach in a coalition with other consulting firms and academia using senior insight and judgement and experience in the field with clients.

The approach focuses on board engagement and how to improve it sustainably. We focus on board engagement as an input because we believe it drives effectiveness as an output. We gather standardised data systematically. We make benchmark comparisons with other boards. We use this benchmark analysis to make recommendations for a board to improve its engagement and deliver sustained effectiveness.

A common thread in the analysis of board effectiveness is engagement. Boards that

• Know enough about the organisation’s activities
• Care enough about the organisation and its objectives
• Take time to question and challenge
• Work effectively with others

Challenge is to analyse and measure engagement

• Role of Panthea and FEBE: Five elements of board engagement