Key insights identified from the survey:
1. Boards have adapted their work plans to make space for
crisis response while trying to maintain as much focus on BAU as
practicable. Good practice emerges when boards take a forward view in the face of
significant strategic challenge, reprioritising to establish what
can be deferred or dropped and for how long.
2. What organisations deprioritised is of as much interest as what they prioritised.
This warrants further investigation to understand the degree of consistency in
terms of what is deemed ‘essential’ and to ascertain whether values-driven policies
such as patient and public involvement and quality related items may be viewed as
‘desirable’ when agendas are under pressure.
3. The study identified the potential for instability and for power to shift
during times of crisis. The majority of boards were perceived to be relatively balanced
in terms of Executive and Non-Executive participation, however, tensions and shifts
in dominance were witnessed in some organisations. There is a challenge for boards
to ensure they operate as expected of the unitary board model where all members
are required to contribute equally to adhere to good governance principles.
4. Non-Executive directors (NEDs), in some organisations, were said to be
disconnected due to their physical remoteness. This potentially diminishes the
purpose and impact of the unitary board, and particularly its role as the conscience of
the organisation.
5. In terms of guidance available during the emergency response,
governance professionals placed strong reliance and value on informal networks and peer support,
and the study found that centralised guidance could have been better.
6. Boards have continued to use existing assurance frameworks and reporting
mechanisms, adapting them to incorporate COVID-specific risks. Consideration of
the pandemic as a cross-cutting challenge across all strategic objectives offers a
robust means of assessing the altered risk environment and determining what
additional assurances the board should seek.
7. Boards have adapted quickly and adopted virtual platforms in order to hold board
meetings. Consideration should be given to mitigating some of the disbenefits
reported with regard to potential erosion of debate and scrutiny.
8. Changes prompted by the pandemic facilitated a more agile and efficient way of
working that is highly desirable to be continued. There was a sense that this is an
opportune time to exploit the wave of change to explore different options for future
governance arrangements and system-wide governance models.
Download the full report.
>> An exploratory empirical study of changes in corporate governance practices in localNHS organisations during the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.