Avoid 'show & tell' in the boardroom

Today, too many board meetings feature a double failure. Board members give a meeting a failing grade because, they say, "we had no opportunity to give serious input." Managers give the meeting a failing grade because they didn't receive enough assistance on critical issues. "We got almost nothing out of that," they complain.

How can so much time, money and effort be expended on meetings that perennially fail to meet the needs of both directors and management?

Many board meetings amount to "show and tell" sessions, in which more than 90% of the meeting is spent listening to managers present PowerPoint slides. Usually only two or three of the slides were critical. If the directors are doing their jobs, they've already read the slides. Such tedious "show and tell" sessions fail to allow for serious debate and discussion on critical issues.

There must be a better way. We believe the answer lies in moving from a static "show and tell" objective to a dynamic "ask and learn" one. This can be achieved by stopping presentations altogether and dividing the meeting into two interactive working discussions -one designed to meet the needs of directors and the other designed to meet the needs of management.

Part one is for directors: a 90-minute period for directors to question, probe and challenge management around the board materials that were reviewed in advance. Materials are not presented. The session begins with directors asking questions and the chair facilitating a rigorous debate around critical issues as identified by the board. It is both highly unnecessary and a poor use of time to have executives present material that has already been read -especially considering valuable advisors only typically meet seven to nine times a year.

Steve Ballmer, the CEO of Microsoft, recently said that for years his executives would take him through slide after slide, explaining every nuance of the decision-making process. That practice has long been discontinued. "I don't think it's productive," Ballmer has said. "I don't think it's efficient. I get impatient. So most meetings nowadays, you send me the materials and I read them in advance. And I come in and say: 'I've got the following four questions.' "

When meetings start with director questions and comments, the critical issues are set on the table right away. The result? Directors' needs are met because they get immediate answers to the questions that matter to them.

Part two is for the executives who work for the board: a 90-minute period that allows management to seek input from directors on a single, well-thought-out question that has been posed to the board in advance in the board package. The idea is for management to pose questions that present dilemmas that require director guidance: "Do you agree with our proposed acquisition of this asset?" Or: "Is our proposed new organizational structure on track?" Or: "What is missing from our strategic plan" Or, finally: "Is it time to sell off a particular asset?"

This way, management gets immediate, substantive input from the board on the issues that matter the most. Ideally, the CEO and board chair work together to build a slate of questions that, over the course of a year, cover the company's most pressing issues. The result? Management gets the required board guidance and insight on the issues keeping everybody up at night.

In contrast to the "show and tell" meeting, our "workshop" method produces a clear result, moving from one-way communication that fails to meet the needs of both parties toward a two-way dialogue that produces real insight and learning -and satisfies directors and executives alike.

In our experience, many management teams and boards feel too insecure to engage each other in this way. Many directors privately prefer executives to present voluminous amounts of material for the whole meeting. The presentations leave little time for the real work, the asking of tough questions that might expose that some directors haven't even read the board materials.

Similarly, many managers privately prefer to cling to the security of their well-studied PowerPoint slides. A freeflowing question and answer session might prompt directors to probe around issues for which no canned response exists. Asking the board a substantive question might lead to an answer that managers may not like.

We know of no solution to these insecurities except for courageous leadership by the CEO, chair and other directors. This is yet another reason why every company's top priority must be stacking their boards with dynamic, confident leaders who have the courage to demand that substantive conversations are happening at every meeting. After all, the boardroom is no place for "show and tell."

- Shaun Francis is chairman of Medcan, North America's largest preventative health clinic and one of Canada's 50 bestmanaged companies. John Kelleher is president & CEO of RHB Group LP, Canada's leading student apparel group and a former consultant at McKinsey & Co.