News & Press: Media Statements

Questions around a director’s qualifications: why due diligence is so important prior to appointment

Wednesday, 17 January 2024   (4 Comments)

Recent news reports that a high-profile individual was removed from a Board, allegedly because one of her qualifications had been misstated, is the latest in a line of similar incidents.  However, the director in question has reportedly indicated that her qualification is legitimate, and that the confusion arises from the fact that she changed her name at some point. Whatever the case, questions around the validity of directors’ qualifications should not come up after appointment.

According to Professor Parmi Natesan, CEO of the Institute of Directors in South Africa, “Performing due diligence on any appointment in any organisation, and especially senior appointments, is basic good governance. Given the huge responsibility that directors carry, and their importance to the organisation, they of all people need to be thoroughly vetted before appointment,” she says.

Research by the IoDSA shows that board composition probably has a greater impact on the future success of an organisation than any other aspect of governance. It therefore follows that ensuring the board members have the right skills for the organisation’s needs is vital, in line with Principle 7 of King IV: The governing body should comprise the appropriate balance of knowledge, skills, experience, diversity and independence for it to discharge its governance role and responsibilities objectively and effectively.

Equally important is ensuring that the board members have the highest ethical standards.

Recommended Practice 19 specifically advises that “candidates’ backgrounds should be independently investigated, and their qualifications should be independently verified”. Despite this, recent news reports indicate that a number of organisations on whose boards the director served have never vetted her qualifications as this was either not felt necessary or was not a requirement.

Professor Natesan says that failure to perform this item of governance housekeeping makes an organisation vulnerable to reputational damage, while longer-term harm could be caused by the unqualified director’s inability to provide the quality input needed.

The due diligence process should be formal, transparent and rigorous, the IoDSA says. It must begin with ensuring that the potential director meets the criteria for serving on the board as determined by applicable legislation and the organisation’s founding documents. This typically includes identification, qualification, reference and even credit checks.

In addition, the board needs to interrogate the candidate’s knowledge of, and experience in, directorship. It’s no longer enough to be a subject-matter expert—modern-day directorship requires a range of professional directorial skills. It’s also important to assess whether the potential director has the right personal qualities, which would include integrity, honesty, curiosity, courage, teamwork, communication skills and so on. In addition, care should be taken to ensure that any potential director would fit with the board’s culture and dynamic, and has a genuine interest in the organisation and what it does.

“An organisation that does not perform this routine vetting of directors prior to appointment risks eroding the trust that shareholders, potential investors and other stakeholders have in its wider governance, and thus in its potential to succeed,” she argues.

Comments...

Christelle F. Marais says...
Posted Thursday, 15 February 2024
Without doubt all of the vetting boxes must be ticked before appointing governing body members. On the "culture" aspect, although this is more subjective, I have served with a board member who held the concept of "collegiality" (i.e. companionship and cooperation between colleagues who share responsibility) in high regard. I believe this is linked to personal maturity and understanding that once we act in our professional capacities, we are compelled to trust in each other's integrity, competence, responsibility, accountability, fairness, and transparency (ICRAFT); and be able to learn from each other in a mutually respectful manner. Holding oneself to account in this manner is often difficult when the same level of collegiality is not displayed by peers on a board. However, we owe it to ourselves and our country to continue to live the value of "collegiality".
Luthando Saunders says...
Posted Thursday, 25 January 2024
I agree with the write up. Performing due diligence on any board appointment is essential and is basic good governance. Same as vetting process when hiring an employee. However, the additional care to ensure that the potential director fit with the current board's culture is very subjective and may even be discriminatory. Imagine a situation where a potential director tick all the boxes/ meets all the qualifying criteria but fails the board's culture fitness test. In fact, I did come across this dilemma. I was appointed to the board and asked many pertinent questions. I thereafter felt like I am a misfit as other board member were quiet. Regards Don
Simbarashe Nkosinomusa Nharara says...
Posted Thursday, 18 January 2024
1. Legal and Regulatory Compliance: Ensuring that a director possesses the requisite qualifications and experience aligns with legal and regulatory standards, safeguarding the company against potential liability or governance-related issues. 2. Competency and Expertise: Thorough due diligence helps verify that the director possesses the necessary expertise to contribute effectively to the company's strategic decision-making and governance processes. 3. Reputation and Integrity: Assessing a director's background helps mitigate risks related to ethical conduct, conflicts of interest, or past legal issues, therefore safeguarding the company’s reputation. 4. Risk Mitigation: Validating a director’s qualifications helps reduce the risk of potential mismanagement, conflicts, or decisions made with inadequate expertise, thereby contributing to risk management and compliance. 5. Shareholder Confidence and Accountability: Robust due diligence bolsters stakeholder confidence by dem
Pako R. Kedisitse says...
Posted Wednesday, 17 January 2024
This article highlights some professional insights that are in many cases ignored at the expense of the public good. In fact, this is the sin of familiarity spirit which manifests in many ways. One would not believe me when I say there are still some elderly people whom when requested to produce drivers licenses they start doing the 'jitterbug' (They are hit by nervousness because they never had that documentation nor were they ever been asked for them due to presumptions that surely they have). Let us all be subjected to this regour, such as director pre-appointment assessment and skills gap analysis, every board induction, board evaluation and qualifications verifications, etc. For example, to participate in new directors induction is the beginning of team building; it is a start of directors gelling or congealing together; the chair starts identifying discussion monopolists and reservists and start building strategies of overcoming such professional dysfunctionalities. Pako