I do wish I could continue your thread Joewolf - but this has to...

I do wish I could continue your thread Joewolf - but this has to suffice.

I do so agree with your comment about culture. Almost all my projects have involved creating, managing and changing culture as part of the underpinning thread. One of the challenges is always the mismatch that occurs between different levels of the organisation - and the board is part of that. Few organisations understand that to get a truly high performing culture one must align behaviours at every level, every system, all communication, every decision and every process and procedure. That is pretty hard to do but it is a little unnerving when there appears to be a massive disjoint. Alexium appears to be struggling with this right now.

I also agree that if the board appears to have forgotten that they are not in it for themselves but for the shareholders - and by law they must not over-emphasize one shareholder or group of shareholders over another - one starts doubting whether decisions are being made in the best interests of the business or individuals on the board. It is a shame that the value of the business has been diverted by this doubt.

While I think there is no doubt that the board owning shares, and particularly the board owning shares which they have bought on market, is beneficial it takes a person of honour to be able to act independently from their own self interest.

You may have noted that GR refers constantly to the fact that the board model with an Executive Chair follows a US approach. The fact is that yes there are plenty of businesses that have that model but it is by no means the only model there, or the most approved of model. In fact there is considerable debate about whether it leads to good governance - and in my view that debate is justified. One might ask why the Australian legislation does not follow the model, and why much of AICD training and education is focused on good governance practices. One might also ask why Alexium's own constitution indicates a preference for a non executive chairman - where practicable. Following the Executive chairman model is no longer a matter of being practical but of preference, no matter what he might say. The adopted model is also predicated on the idea that the Executive chairman is actually embedded in the business - active, daily or pretty nearly daily, identifying and dealing with the challenges, lobbying, etc.

Well maybe this fuss will give him a conscience and we will start seeing some real effort and time put into the business that adds the value equivalent to his remuneration, not just his belief that he adds value. Maybe he will even make sure that is highly visible so that we can all be in no doubt. And maybe that effort will start to yield more growth, better institutional support and a big love in on our part.

parsifal