The organisational approvals sought from the board should be aligned with the organisation’s strategy because the board provides direction to the organisation’s top management, and the top management gives direction to the rest of the organisation.
The employees’ conduct impacts the behaviour of the organisation’s employees.
The 2020 SOE top management research findings found that if the board and the top management behaviour are negative, that behaviour can impact the organisation.
When team members are aware of the effect of their personality, their contribution to the team will be invaluable to the organisation – and the organisation will flourish since they are both following the strategic plan directives and are in support of it; however, the news regarding TransNamib’s CEO and the board chairperson is disturbing in terms of the board chairperson responsibilities and the CEO.
The board’s chairperson suggesting nepotism in terms of procuring services from a particular organisation.
There are efficient organisations that can conduct the assessment assignment; however, they might not be associated with the Namibia Corporate Governance Institute.
Based on the 2020 SOE top management research, the board would always find someone in the organisation that can cooperate with them and causes instability within the organisation.
This can be due to the executive committee members not working together as a team. Working together as a team is beneficial.
The board of directors’ self-declared war against top management purpose is a hindrance to simple operation at a number of SOE’s and the board members claim their undying commitment to their fiduciary duties and tarnishing the CEO’s image in the process.
The SOE top managements research results concluded that working together brings out durable cooperation that results in a united team, working together as one team, being one team, and not blaming each other, because an executive committee needs to be free from unnecessary disagreements
Unity is critical – and if there is no harmony, there is trouble – for example, the case of TransNamib.
Loyalty is essential as an enabler for teamwork. Organisations should ensure they implement regulations or corporate governance policies that guide the board and guide their responses and decisions.
The chairperson, as a corporate governance practitioner, one would expect the board chairperson to assist the CEO by directing him and not promoting nepotism or provide names of preferred organisations, which an SOE should procure service, provided the procuring of SOE’s are controlled by an Act and not controlled by individual board members.
We thank God for the Acts.
Fiduciary duties are clear on what the chairperson’s powers and authority are – and corrupt/interference practices are not one of them.
The CEO and the board chairperson of TransNamib need to feel that they are part of one team.
Team delivery should not be affected by individual personality differences and refusal to mature.
The CEO and the board chairperson as TransNamib team leaders should have qualities that the team members can emulate and be trusted; as leaders, individuals should feel that they are in one team.
The government can dismiss the board chair and the board can dismiss top leaders if they discover that there exists a lack of knowledge and are ignorant; by carrying out their tasks and providing that the responsibilities of the CEO and the board does not extend over the other as they perform their various functions within and for TransNamib.
The CEO is overall responsible for the company’s functioning and performance, implementation of the strategic plan of the organisation, the chief executive officer’s responsibility to inform the board of directors of the overall organisation’s performance.
The board of directors is responsible for endorsing organisational plans and responsible for organisational success; the CEO needs to form a good relationship with the Board Members and especially with the board chairperson.
The board of directors and senior management as leaders in and of the organisations need to be aware of their responsibility as custodians of the organisation to serve for the greater good of the organisation.
The line ministry or department in the government decides on whom to put on the SOE’s board members and who will be running the SOE as its CEO, which is in direct violation with the Organisation Economic Co-operation and Development guidelines (OECD) on corporate governance, we thank God that this is just suggestion and the member countries can choose to implement or not to implement the suggestions by OECD.
The board provides guidance and recommendation and rejects decisions or proposals by senior management.
Of the activities of SOE boards, there are general principles set by corporate governance for the organisation, providing a specific recommendation on how boards of state-owned enterprises should function and the powers that are vested in them to enable them to carry out their responsibility, meaning that TransNamib CEO and the board chairperson do not need to be friends but they need to work together, what example are they setting for future executives?
Whatever they need to do should be done quickly and not at the cost of TransNamib as an organization, if they are not able to put their differences aside; then they should consider the mature option and step down.
The Ministry of Public Enterprises has a Database with competent people that can be appointed to those positions. This culture of CEO’s being fought or fighting with board chairperson’s needs to change and be addressed. As it looks, TransNamib CEO’s term is nearing its end and one wonders if his performance assessment will be satisfactory to qualify him to be re-appointed, because the CEO has invested time in addressing the disagreements, as opposed to implementing the strategy and providing leadership to TransNamib.
The government appoints the board and the CEO of state-owned enterprises has made it very difficult for the boards to carry out its responsibility because the board’s recommendation does not carry as much weight as that of the government in terms of letting a CEO go or retaining the CEO and this can have serious consequences.
The board is expected to be honest and portray strong moral principles as they will be required or expected – and not hijacking the procurement procedures of SOEs.
This is a clear sign that TransNamib’s CEO and board chairperson display poor people skills and lack comprehension of human behaviour.
This is an apparent communication breakdown between the TransNamib CEO and its board chairperson, who are supposed to work together for the good of TransNamib but due to poor emotional intelligence, maturity and wisdom between the CEO and the board chairperson; TransNamib is suffering in the process.