Sunday, January 13, 2008 - Dr. Rookmin Maharaj
PERSPECTIVES ON TEACHING AND TEACHER ISSUES
Teaching is a profession which is so enormous and so packed with significance that the issues related to it have a consistently high ranking with members of society in virtually every public opinion poll. These issues include multicultural education, teacher training and accreditation, burn-out, teaching under conditions particular to a worldwide certain country, student behavior and preparation, computers in the classroom, parental influence on the teaching process, the changing curriculum and its meaning for teaching, budgetary problems, and a multitude of similar issues. This new book presents issues current to the field from educators and researchers from around the globe.
Table of Contents: Chapter 4.-
Developing Critical Thinking Skills through the use of Computer-Mediated Conferencing; pp. 79-99
Monday, March 24, 2008
VILLAGE SWARAJ AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Mahatma Gandhi.s Ideas as Seen through the Eyes of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Today
Please visit Dr. Rookmin Maharaj's article at:
http://www.advaitaashrama.org/pb_archive/2006/PB_2006_September.pdf
Please visit Dr. Rookmin Maharaj's article at:
http://www.advaitaashrama.org/pb_archive/2006/PB_2006_September.pdf
SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING IN THE UPSTREAM PETROLEUM INDUSTRY IN CANADA
OBJECTIVES :
There are four different reporting guidelines that could be used by Canadian upstream petroleum companies in the preparation of sustainability reports.
These four guidelines are:
• Enhanced Business Reporting Framework (EBR);
• Global Reporting Initiative Guidelines (GRI);
• Sustainability Reporting Guidelines by International Petroleum Industry Environmental
Conservation Association (IPIECA) and American Petroleum Institute (API); and
• Stewardship Benchmarking Guide produced by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP).
The current research compares these guidelines and attempts to determine what obstacles they present, if any, for both preparers and users of sustainability reports. We present recommendations for streamlining the reporting process and making it easier to access sustainability information for use in decision making.Please visit the published report at:http://www.iseee.ca/iseee/files/iseee/ABEnergyFutures-09.pdf
There are four different reporting guidelines that could be used by Canadian upstream petroleum companies in the preparation of sustainability reports.
These four guidelines are:
• Enhanced Business Reporting Framework (EBR);
• Global Reporting Initiative Guidelines (GRI);
• Sustainability Reporting Guidelines by International Petroleum Industry Environmental
Conservation Association (IPIECA) and American Petroleum Institute (API); and
• Stewardship Benchmarking Guide produced by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP).
The current research compares these guidelines and attempts to determine what obstacles they present, if any, for both preparers and users of sustainability reports. We present recommendations for streamlining the reporting process and making it easier to access sustainability information for use in decision making.Please visit the published report at:http://www.iseee.ca/iseee/files/iseee/ABEnergyFutures-09.pdf
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, GROUPTHINK AND BULLIES IN THE BOARDROOM
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This research study discusses corporate governance issues from a behavioural viewpoint. It makes a distinction between strict adherence to formal rules and regulations: CEO/Chair separation, independence of board members and board size and informal characteristics of board members: knowledge, values and groupthink.
There are three main conclusions:
1) This research clearly proves that formal rules and regulations are inadequate; they have little effect upon decision making by board members. Informal characteristics must be considered in unison with the formal system when nominating board members in order to restore shareholder confidence and to rebuild trust in board governance.
2) Similar values and groupthink can contribute positively to board members' decision making. There is, however, a high possibility for groupthink and values to become redundant, masking board members' knowledge.
3) Skills matrices that include questions related to values, knowledge and groupthink and three behavioural characteristics should be considered by boards to ensure the nomination of well-rounded members.Changes to board process, and board decision making, are seminal in preventing future Enron and WorldCom fiascos.
It is only by changing the behaviours of the board of directors, through adopting skills matrices, that sweeping changes can occur. In the past, boards have asked: who are our board members?
The most important question a board can ask today, however, is: how can the skills and knowledge of our board members be used in service of the strategic direction of the corporation?
This can be achieved by recruiting new board members who fill the needs of an organisation, in contrast to nominating 'friends' and continuing the tradition of the old boys club.
It should be noted that out of the 100 of the largest economies in the world, 57 of these are corporations and 49 are countries. Corporations are powerful entities in our society, operating in a manner similar to representative governments.
Like heads of government, at the top echelon of each corporation is the board of directors; their decisions have enormous ramifications for everyone. Although most citizens have a limited or a passive interest in corporate governance, we each depend on these corporations for jobs, salaries and as investors.
Governance of these gargantuan corporations, which wield considerable economic power in the world, concerns each and every citizen.
This study draws novel conclusions about the state of governance today, and presents practical solutions for corporations to consider when selecting board members. The detailed discussion about what happens in the boardroom demystifies board process and provides the bases for three critical objectives when selecting new board members or evaluating current board members performance:
1) ascertain and embellish the knowledge base of directors;
2) motivate directors to share and gather information to ensure personal values are congruent with organisational values; and
3) ensure clear and fluent transmission channels exist to reduce the potential of having groupthink on board.view
Dr.Rookmin Maharaj's full journal article at:http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jdg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/2050074a.html
This research study discusses corporate governance issues from a behavioural viewpoint. It makes a distinction between strict adherence to formal rules and regulations: CEO/Chair separation, independence of board members and board size and informal characteristics of board members: knowledge, values and groupthink.
There are three main conclusions:
1) This research clearly proves that formal rules and regulations are inadequate; they have little effect upon decision making by board members. Informal characteristics must be considered in unison with the formal system when nominating board members in order to restore shareholder confidence and to rebuild trust in board governance.
2) Similar values and groupthink can contribute positively to board members' decision making. There is, however, a high possibility for groupthink and values to become redundant, masking board members' knowledge.
3) Skills matrices that include questions related to values, knowledge and groupthink and three behavioural characteristics should be considered by boards to ensure the nomination of well-rounded members.Changes to board process, and board decision making, are seminal in preventing future Enron and WorldCom fiascos.
It is only by changing the behaviours of the board of directors, through adopting skills matrices, that sweeping changes can occur. In the past, boards have asked: who are our board members?
The most important question a board can ask today, however, is: how can the skills and knowledge of our board members be used in service of the strategic direction of the corporation?
This can be achieved by recruiting new board members who fill the needs of an organisation, in contrast to nominating 'friends' and continuing the tradition of the old boys club.
It should be noted that out of the 100 of the largest economies in the world, 57 of these are corporations and 49 are countries. Corporations are powerful entities in our society, operating in a manner similar to representative governments.
Like heads of government, at the top echelon of each corporation is the board of directors; their decisions have enormous ramifications for everyone. Although most citizens have a limited or a passive interest in corporate governance, we each depend on these corporations for jobs, salaries and as investors.
Governance of these gargantuan corporations, which wield considerable economic power in the world, concerns each and every citizen.
This study draws novel conclusions about the state of governance today, and presents practical solutions for corporations to consider when selecting board members. The detailed discussion about what happens in the boardroom demystifies board process and provides the bases for three critical objectives when selecting new board members or evaluating current board members performance:
1) ascertain and embellish the knowledge base of directors;
2) motivate directors to share and gather information to ensure personal values are congruent with organisational values; and
3) ensure clear and fluent transmission channels exist to reduce the potential of having groupthink on board.view
Dr.Rookmin Maharaj's full journal article at:http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jdg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/2050074a.html
PRE- EMPTIVE FORENSIC CORPORATE GOVERNANCE - Dr. Rookmin Maharaj
While corporate failures, such as Enron, WorldCom, Tyco International Ltd, Peregrine Systems, iVillage, Adelphia Communications Corp, Hollinger International , Barings Bank and the recent Societe Generale bank have focused attention on issues of accounting and financial indiscretion, there is nothing inherently new in the reasons behind these corporate collapses.
Neither is there anything original in the media's hurry to name a scapegoat. For example, at “Barings Futures Singapore (BFS)'s [the] management’s structure through 1995 enabled Leeson to operate without supervision from London headquarters. Leeson was not only the floor manager for Barings' trading division on the Singapore International Monetary Exchange, he was also the head of settlement operations. Leeson was responsible for ensuring that accurate accounting information was reported to the unit.
Normally the head of settlement operations and floor manager would have been held by two different employees. In other words Leeson reported to himself. This absence of checks and balances short-circuited normal accounting and auditing safeguards. After the collapse, several observers, including Leeson himself, placed much of the blame on the bank's own deficient internal auditing and risk management practices. People at the London end of Barings were all [know- it- all’s] that nobody dared ask a stupid question in case they looked silly in front of everyone else” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barings_Bank).
SO WHO GAVE LEESON ALL THIS AUTONOMY? WAS IT NOT TOP EXECUTIVES??If …… “Most important, the corrective actions taken to date [cannot] be sufficient to reduce the frequency and magnitude of corporate bankruptcies. …Without changes in the policy-related conditions that contribute to corporate failure, improved accounting and auditing procedures [will] accelerate bankruptcies with little effect on their frequency or magnitude. Almost all of the public and press attention, however, has focused on reducing the accounting violations, not on those policies that contribute to business failure. The major lesson from the collapse of Enron and other large corporations is that the rules of corporate governance do not adequately protect the interests of the general shareholders against the increasingly divergent interests of corporate managers (www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-22.pdf).
It is argued that a combination of legislation, regulation, effective risk management and appropriate sanctions are needed, if such unethical behaviour, and resulting corporate failure, is to be prevented in future. However, what is required is an astute, independent, assessment of these financial collapse debacles. This may establish that failures within these companies' corporate cultures and management systems allow, if not encourage, unethical behaviour by key individuals.
COULD IT BE THAT THE CONTINUATION OF THE OLD BOYS CLUB may be the fundamental reason for the blatant disregard and perception of invincibility/groupthink mentality of same.
COULD IT BE THAT ONCE AN EMPLOYEE IS INCREASING THE PROFITS AND BOTTOM LINE OF AN ORGANIZATION HE/SHE IS SHELTERED BY TOP EXECUTIVES, WHO MAY TURN A BLIND EYE TO UNETHICAL PRACTICES?
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj’s research on:Corporate Governance and the Board of Directors:Study of the Importance of the Role of the Formal & Informal SystemsInvestigates corporate governance issues from a behavioural viewpoint. It makes a distinction between strict adherence to formal rules and regulations: CEO/Chair separation, independence of board members and board size and informal characteristics of board members: knowledge, values, and groupthink.There are three main conclusions from her research and corporate experience:
1. Clearly proves that formal rules and regulations are inadequate; they have little effect upon decision making by board members. Informal characteristics must be considered in unison with the formal system when nominating board members, management and employees in order to restore shareholder confidence and to rebuild trust in corporate governance.
2. Similar values and groupthink can contribute positively to corporate decision making. However, there is a high possibility for groupthink and values to become redundant, masking board members’ and managements’ knowledge thus affecting their decision making process.
3. Skills matrices that include questions related to values, knowledge and groupthink should be considered by corporations to ensure the nomination of well-rounded members, management and employees.Changes to board process, and board decision making, are seminal in preventing future Enron and WorldCom fiascoes. It is only by changing the behaviours of the board of directors, through adopting skills matrices, that sweeping changes can occur.
In the past boards have asked: who are our board members?
However, the most important question a board can ask today is:
how can the skills and knowledge of our board members be used in service of the strategic direction of the corporation?
This can be achieved by recruiting new board members, management and employees who fill the needs of an organization, in contrast to nominating ‘friends’ and continuing the tradition of the old boys club.
Dr. Maharaj argues that, and has tangible evidence, that what should be done is a forensic audit on 'the people that we hire' and 'employees, managers, board members' should also conduct an audit on their potential employers. What is your opinion?
Does your opinion change with this update?According to alleged rogue trader Jerome Kerviel, " his bosses turned a blind eye to his massive, questionable trades as long as he made money for the bank"(EMMA VANDORE, http://ap.google.com/article/ ALeqM5h4ncvzDOrX AnqyB9avT4zvg 1iJTQD8UG7MBG0Societe Generale Board Meets).
Posted by Dr. Rookmin Maharaj at 2:05 PM
10 comments:
Anonymous said...
Dr.Maharaj,Do you really believe that the old boys network still work today?
January 29, 2008 11:39 AM
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj said...
The old boys/girls network is alive in many different manifestations. For example, there are many studies/research that indicate that people hire those that are similar to themselves. Is this a manifestation of the old boys/girls network? Of couse it is!!!
January 29, 2008 2:24 PM
Anonymous said...
How then do you ensure board independence?
January 29, 2008 2:30 PM
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj said...
You can and will ensure board independence by using Dr. MAHARAJ'S corporate governance model. The model essentially pre screens nominees to the board, not only regarding their technical knowledge, or who they may know on the board, but on their values. Are their values congruent with those of the organization? Does the potential board member fit with the other board members, will he or she have the will to ask tough questions of other board members and of management? This can be accomplished with an in-depth skill matrix in the pre-assessment stage. Then the post stage follows with an annual peer review and evaluations on each board member including the chair and CEO. These evaluations should be conducted by a (independent) third party.
February 4, 2008 7:03 AM
Anonymous said...
Why are there so few women on boards?
February 4, 2008 12:28 PM
Anonymous said...
Taking into context recent events in the stock market, should boards have forseen the enormous losses? What could they have done differently?
February 4, 2008 12:31 PM
Anonymous said...
With all the regulations in existence, there are still too many corporate scandals. How can this be avoided,if at all?
February 4, 2008 12:33 PM
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj said...
In recent interviews I conducted with several Chairs, board members, and CEOs, I asked questions about “boards’ foresight regarding situations that are just inappropriate, whether the actions or inaction by management and the board manifest as losses to shareholders or blatant fraud perpetrated by the board and management.” The general consensus is that boards’ are in a position to govern, not manage the day to day operations of an organization.
However, if the board realizes that the CEO/management are taking advantage of stakeholders, there is lag time that it takes to actually oust a CEO and this affects the amount of losses that may occur. In order to reduce the probability of management/CEO taking advantage of stakeholders, boards members must be vigilant and astute by questioning management if they have concerns about risky projects or are aware of improper risks being undertaken by management and quick and precise action should be taken by the board to rectify the indiscretion.However, there is not only the principal-agent problem for shareholders/stakeholders to consider.
In today’s global economy stakeholders cannot depend solely on the invisible hand. Stakeholders must investigate and look at who are the board members. Is there collusion between board and management, there is the ‘old boys’ network’ to consider. In a recent high profile fraud case one board member (a well RESPECTED U.S. attorney) stated that he ‘skimmed’ documents that were given to him by management since he believed that if there was anything amiss management would have advised him.
In other words this example suggests that board members are yes men/women to management. A reasonable person may be under the impression that the board of directors will enforce and ensure that the agents (CEO/management) will not take unfair advantage of the principals (investors, shareholders and all stakeholders). According to modern governance theory the board of directors is considered the intercessor to the principal-agent problem. But in most of our corporations in Canada and the United States the principals are the agents they are one and the same or alternatively this is called the ‘small pool problem.’
As investors, community members, and stakeholders we as individuals must make a concerted effort to exercise our right as shareholders/stakeholders to ensure we police the police (board members), remember we can attend annual meetings and chose to vote out the board.
February 6, 2008 8:08 AM
February 7, 2008 6:50 AM
While corporate failures, such as Enron, WorldCom, Tyco International Ltd, Peregrine Systems, iVillage, Adelphia Communications Corp, Hollinger International , Barings Bank and the recent Societe Generale bank have focused attention on issues of accounting and financial indiscretion, there is nothing inherently new in the reasons behind these corporate collapses. Neither is there anything original in the media's hurry to name a scapegoat. For example, at “Barings Futures Singapore (BFS)'s [the] management’s structure through 1995 enabled Leeson to operate without supervision from London headquarters. Leeson was not only the floor manager for Barings' trading division on the Singapore International Monetary Exchange, he was also the head of settlement operations. Leeson was responsible for ensuring that accurate accounting information was reported to the unit. Normally the head of settlement operations and floor manager would have been held by two different employees. In other words Leeson reported to himself. This absence of checks and balances short-circuited normal accounting and auditing safeguards. After the collapse, several observers, including Leeson himself, placed much of the blame on the bank's own deficient internal auditing and risk management practices. People at the London end of Barings were all [know- it- all’s] that nobody dared ask a stupid question in case they looked silly in front of everyone else” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barings_Bank).SO WHO GAVE LEESON ALL THIS AUTONOMY? WAS IT NOT TOP EXECUTIVES??If …… “Most important, the corrective actions taken to date [cannot] be sufficient to reduce the frequency and magnitude of corporate bankruptcies. …Without changes in the policy-related conditions that contribute to corporate failure, improved accounting and auditing procedures [will] accelerate bankruptcies with little effect on their frequency or magnitude. Almost all of the public and press attention, however, has focused on reducing the accounting violations, not on those policies that contribute to business failure. The major lesson from the collapse of Enron and other large corporations is that the rules of corporate governance do not adequately protect the interests of the general shareholders against the increasingly divergent interests of corporate managers (www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-22.pdf).It is argued that a combination of legislation, regulation, effective risk management and appropriate sanctions are needed, if such unethical behaviour, and resulting corporate failure, is to be prevented in future. However, what is required is an astute, independent, assessment of these financial collapse debacles. This may establish that failures within these companies' corporate cultures and management systems allow, if not encourage, unethical behaviour by key individuals. COULD IT BE THAT THE CONTINUATION OF THE OLD BOYS CLUB may be the fundamental reason for the blatant disregard and perception of invincibility/groupthink mentality of same. COULD IT BE THAT ONCE AN EMPLOYEE IS INCREASING THE PROFITS AND BOTTOM LINE OF AN ORGANIZATION HE/SHE IS SHELTERED BY TOP EXECUTIVES, WHO MAY TURN A BLIND EYE TO UNETHICAL PRACTICES?Dr. Rookmin Maharaj’s research on:Corporate Governance and the Board of Directors:Study of the Importance of the Role of the Formal & Informal SystemsInvestigates corporate governance issues from a behavioural viewpoint. It makes a distinction between strict adherence to formal rules and regulations: CEO/Chair separation, independence of board members and board size and informal characteristics of board members: knowledge, values, and groupthink.There are three main conclusions from her research and corporate experience:1. Clearly proves that formal rules and regulations are inadequate; they have little effect upon decision making by board members. Informal characteristics must be considered in unison with the formal system when nominating board members, management and employees in order to restore shareholder confidence and to rebuild trust in corporate governance.2. Similar values and groupthink can contribute positively to corporate decision making. However, there is a high possibility for groupthink and values to become redundant, masking board members’ and managements’ knowledge thus affecting their decision making process.3. Skills matrices that include questions related to values, knowledge and groupthink should be considered by corporations to ensure the nomination of well-rounded members, management and employees.Changes to board process, and board decision making, are seminal in preventing future Enron and WorldCom fiascoes. It is only by changing the behaviours of the board of directors, through adopting skills matrices, that sweeping changes can occur. In the past boards have asked: who are our board members? However, the most important question a board can ask today is: how can the skills and knowledge of our board members be used in service of the strategic direction of the corporation? This can be achieved by recruiting new board members, management and employees who fill the needs of an organization, in contrast to nominating ‘friends’ and continuing the tradition of the old boys club.Dr. Maharaj argues that, and has tangible evidence, that what should be done is a forensic audit on 'the people that we hire' and 'employees, managers, board members' should also conduct an audit on their potential employers. What is your opinion?Does your opinion change with this update?According to alleged rogue trader Jerome Kerviel, " his bosses turned a blind eye to his massive, questionable trades as long as he made money for the bank"(EMMA VANDORE, http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h4ncvzDOrXAnqyB9avT4zvg1iJTQD8UG7MBG0Societe Generale Board Meets).
Posted by Dr. Rookmin Maharaj at 2:05 PM
10 comments:
Anonymous said...
Dr.Maharaj,Do you really believe that the old boys network still work today?
January 29, 2008 11:39 AM
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj said...
The old boys/girls network is alive in many different manifestations. For example, there are many studies/research that indicate that people hire those that are similar to themselves. Is this a manifestation of the old boys/girls network? Of couse it is!!!
January 29, 2008 2:24 PM
Anonymous said...
How then do you ensure board independence?
January 29, 2008 2:30 PM
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj said...
You can and will ensure board independence by using Dr. MAHARAJ'S corporate governance model. The model essentially pre screens nominees to the board, not only regarding their technical knowledge, or who they may know on the board, but on their values. Are their values congruent with those of the organization? Does the potential board member fit with the other board members, will he or she have the will to ask tough questions of other board members and of management? This can be accomplished with an in-depth skill matrix in the pre-assessment stage. Then the post stage follows with an annual peer review and evaluations on each board member including the chair and CEO. These evaluations should be conducted by a (independent) third party.
February 4, 2008 7:03 AM
Anonymous said...
Why are there so few women on boards?
February 4, 2008 12:28 PM
Anonymous said...
Taking into context recent events in the stock market, should boards have forseen the enormous losses? What could they have done differently?
February 4, 2008 12:31 PM
Anonymous said...
With all the regulations in existence, there are still too many corporate scandals. How can this be avoided,if at all?
February 4, 2008 12:33 PM
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj said...
In recent interviews I conducted with several Chairs, board members, and CEOs, I asked questions about “boards’ foresight regarding situations that are just inappropriate, whether the actions or inaction by management and the board manifest as losses to shareholders or blatant fraud perpetrated by the board and management.” The general consensus is that boards’ are in a position to govern, not manage the day to day operations of an organization. However, if the board realizes that the CEO/management are taking advantage of stakeholders, there is lag time that it takes to actually oust a CEO and this affects the amount of losses that may occur. In order to reduce the probability of management/CEO taking advantage of stakeholders, boards members must be vigilant and astute by questioning management if they have concerns about risky projects or are aware of improper risks being undertaken by management and quick and precise action should be taken by the board to rectify the indiscretion.However, there is not only the principal-agent problem for shareholders/stakeholders to consider. In today’s global economy stakeholders cannot depend solely on the invisible hand. Stakeholders must investigate and look at who are the board members. Is there collusion between board and management, there is the ‘old boys’ network’ to consider. In a recent high profile fraud case one board member (a well RESPECTED U.S. attorney) stated that he ‘skimmed’ documents that were given to him by management since he believed that if there was anything amiss management would have advised him. In other words this example suggests that board members are yes men/women to management. A reasonable person may be under the impression that the board of directors will enforce and ensure that the agents (CEO/management) will not take unfair advantage of the principals (investors, shareholders and all stakeholders). According to modern governance theory the board of directors is considered the intercessor to the principal-agent problem. But in most of our corporations in Canada and the United States the principals are the agents they are one and the same or alternatively this is called the ‘small pool problem.’ As investors, community members, and stakeholders we as individuals must make a concerted effort to exercise our right as shareholders/stakeholders to ensure we police the police (board members), remember we can attend annual meetings and chose to vote out the board.
February 6, 2008 8:08 AM
Anonymous said...
February 7, 2008 6:50 AM
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj said...
Anonymous said.... With all the regulations in existence, there are still too many corporate scandals. How can this be avoided,if at all?
Dr. Maharaj said..... This question of more rules and regulations!!!, rules and regulations can only act as a guide. An important issue is who are these people who are chosen as board members?
We NEED TO wake up to reality. If board members are handpicked by management there must be a reason, for example, in a recent high profile fraud case, an experienced, well respected audit chair ‘under oath’ stated that ‘the documents he SKIMMED were prepared by management and counsel, and if anything was INCORRECT he RELIED ON MANAGEMENT TO DRAW HIS ATTENTION TO THE non-compete agreements’.
THIS, MAY I REMIND YOU was A WELL RESPECTED AUDIT CHAIR! The fact is that he left due diligence to management, in other words he left his job to management, and rubber stamped their decision. The questions remain, was this audit chair unaware that his job involved investigating whether non-compete payments are legal in the pertinent jurisdiction or he was aware of this and instead of ‘causing waves’ or being a ‘trouble maker’ he succumbed to a groupthink mentality?
“Groupthink occurs when a person’s thought process and decision-making capabilities become marred by peer pressure. This may cause the group to overestimate their power and morality, causing the members to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions. This behaviour can encourage an illusion of invulnerability, creating excessive optimism and encourage the group to take extreme risks” (Maharaj, 2007).
The probability of nominating board members with a groupthink mentality can be reduced by using Dr. Maharaj’s Corporate Governance decision making model.
Dr. Maharaj’s research is based on both qualitative and quantitative research conducted over a period of two years on over 1,200 executives in both Canada and the united States.
Dr. Maharaj’s Corporate Governance decision making model suggests that there is a temporal linkage between board characteristics which are Values, Groupthink and Knowledge and the three tools Evaluations, Skills Matrices, Interconnections on Decision-making (Maharaj, thesis, 2007).
Therefore, corporations, Universities, health care organizations, and political institutions, (to name a few) should use Dr. Maharaj’s model to nominate board members who are not afraid to question the status quo or encourage creative tension in the board room instead of being merely parsley on fish.
References:
Maharaj, R., (2008). International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 5, 68–92 "Corporate governance, groupthink and bullies in the boardroom. "Maharaj, 2007, Thesis Dissertation.
Neither is there anything original in the media's hurry to name a scapegoat. For example, at “Barings Futures Singapore (BFS)'s [the] management’s structure through 1995 enabled Leeson to operate without supervision from London headquarters. Leeson was not only the floor manager for Barings' trading division on the Singapore International Monetary Exchange, he was also the head of settlement operations. Leeson was responsible for ensuring that accurate accounting information was reported to the unit.
Normally the head of settlement operations and floor manager would have been held by two different employees. In other words Leeson reported to himself. This absence of checks and balances short-circuited normal accounting and auditing safeguards. After the collapse, several observers, including Leeson himself, placed much of the blame on the bank's own deficient internal auditing and risk management practices. People at the London end of Barings were all [know- it- all’s] that nobody dared ask a stupid question in case they looked silly in front of everyone else” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barings_Bank).
SO WHO GAVE LEESON ALL THIS AUTONOMY? WAS IT NOT TOP EXECUTIVES??If …… “Most important, the corrective actions taken to date [cannot] be sufficient to reduce the frequency and magnitude of corporate bankruptcies. …Without changes in the policy-related conditions that contribute to corporate failure, improved accounting and auditing procedures [will] accelerate bankruptcies with little effect on their frequency or magnitude. Almost all of the public and press attention, however, has focused on reducing the accounting violations, not on those policies that contribute to business failure. The major lesson from the collapse of Enron and other large corporations is that the rules of corporate governance do not adequately protect the interests of the general shareholders against the increasingly divergent interests of corporate managers (www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-22.pdf).
It is argued that a combination of legislation, regulation, effective risk management and appropriate sanctions are needed, if such unethical behaviour, and resulting corporate failure, is to be prevented in future. However, what is required is an astute, independent, assessment of these financial collapse debacles. This may establish that failures within these companies' corporate cultures and management systems allow, if not encourage, unethical behaviour by key individuals.
COULD IT BE THAT THE CONTINUATION OF THE OLD BOYS CLUB may be the fundamental reason for the blatant disregard and perception of invincibility/groupthink mentality of same.
COULD IT BE THAT ONCE AN EMPLOYEE IS INCREASING THE PROFITS AND BOTTOM LINE OF AN ORGANIZATION HE/SHE IS SHELTERED BY TOP EXECUTIVES, WHO MAY TURN A BLIND EYE TO UNETHICAL PRACTICES?
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj’s research on:Corporate Governance and the Board of Directors:Study of the Importance of the Role of the Formal & Informal SystemsInvestigates corporate governance issues from a behavioural viewpoint. It makes a distinction between strict adherence to formal rules and regulations: CEO/Chair separation, independence of board members and board size and informal characteristics of board members: knowledge, values, and groupthink.There are three main conclusions from her research and corporate experience:
1. Clearly proves that formal rules and regulations are inadequate; they have little effect upon decision making by board members. Informal characteristics must be considered in unison with the formal system when nominating board members, management and employees in order to restore shareholder confidence and to rebuild trust in corporate governance.
2. Similar values and groupthink can contribute positively to corporate decision making. However, there is a high possibility for groupthink and values to become redundant, masking board members’ and managements’ knowledge thus affecting their decision making process.
3. Skills matrices that include questions related to values, knowledge and groupthink should be considered by corporations to ensure the nomination of well-rounded members, management and employees.Changes to board process, and board decision making, are seminal in preventing future Enron and WorldCom fiascoes. It is only by changing the behaviours of the board of directors, through adopting skills matrices, that sweeping changes can occur.
In the past boards have asked: who are our board members?
However, the most important question a board can ask today is:
how can the skills and knowledge of our board members be used in service of the strategic direction of the corporation?
This can be achieved by recruiting new board members, management and employees who fill the needs of an organization, in contrast to nominating ‘friends’ and continuing the tradition of the old boys club.
Dr. Maharaj argues that, and has tangible evidence, that what should be done is a forensic audit on 'the people that we hire' and 'employees, managers, board members' should also conduct an audit on their potential employers. What is your opinion?
Does your opinion change with this update?According to alleged rogue trader Jerome Kerviel, " his bosses turned a blind eye to his massive, questionable trades as long as he made money for the bank"(EMMA VANDORE, http://ap.google.com/article/ ALeqM5h4ncvzDOrX AnqyB9avT4zvg 1iJTQD8UG7MBG0Societe Generale Board Meets).
Posted by Dr. Rookmin Maharaj at 2:05 PM
10 comments:
Anonymous said...
Dr.Maharaj,Do you really believe that the old boys network still work today?
January 29, 2008 11:39 AM
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj said...
The old boys/girls network is alive in many different manifestations. For example, there are many studies/research that indicate that people hire those that are similar to themselves. Is this a manifestation of the old boys/girls network? Of couse it is!!!
January 29, 2008 2:24 PM
Anonymous said...
How then do you ensure board independence?
January 29, 2008 2:30 PM
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj said...
You can and will ensure board independence by using Dr. MAHARAJ'S corporate governance model. The model essentially pre screens nominees to the board, not only regarding their technical knowledge, or who they may know on the board, but on their values. Are their values congruent with those of the organization? Does the potential board member fit with the other board members, will he or she have the will to ask tough questions of other board members and of management? This can be accomplished with an in-depth skill matrix in the pre-assessment stage. Then the post stage follows with an annual peer review and evaluations on each board member including the chair and CEO. These evaluations should be conducted by a (independent) third party.
February 4, 2008 7:03 AM
Anonymous said...
Why are there so few women on boards?
February 4, 2008 12:28 PM
Anonymous said...
Taking into context recent events in the stock market, should boards have forseen the enormous losses? What could they have done differently?
February 4, 2008 12:31 PM
Anonymous said...
With all the regulations in existence, there are still too many corporate scandals. How can this be avoided,if at all?
February 4, 2008 12:33 PM
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj said...
In recent interviews I conducted with several Chairs, board members, and CEOs, I asked questions about “boards’ foresight regarding situations that are just inappropriate, whether the actions or inaction by management and the board manifest as losses to shareholders or blatant fraud perpetrated by the board and management.” The general consensus is that boards’ are in a position to govern, not manage the day to day operations of an organization.
However, if the board realizes that the CEO/management are taking advantage of stakeholders, there is lag time that it takes to actually oust a CEO and this affects the amount of losses that may occur. In order to reduce the probability of management/CEO taking advantage of stakeholders, boards members must be vigilant and astute by questioning management if they have concerns about risky projects or are aware of improper risks being undertaken by management and quick and precise action should be taken by the board to rectify the indiscretion.However, there is not only the principal-agent problem for shareholders/stakeholders to consider.
In today’s global economy stakeholders cannot depend solely on the invisible hand. Stakeholders must investigate and look at who are the board members. Is there collusion between board and management, there is the ‘old boys’ network’ to consider. In a recent high profile fraud case one board member (a well RESPECTED U.S. attorney) stated that he ‘skimmed’ documents that were given to him by management since he believed that if there was anything amiss management would have advised him.
In other words this example suggests that board members are yes men/women to management. A reasonable person may be under the impression that the board of directors will enforce and ensure that the agents (CEO/management) will not take unfair advantage of the principals (investors, shareholders and all stakeholders). According to modern governance theory the board of directors is considered the intercessor to the principal-agent problem. But in most of our corporations in Canada and the United States the principals are the agents they are one and the same or alternatively this is called the ‘small pool problem.’
As investors, community members, and stakeholders we as individuals must make a concerted effort to exercise our right as shareholders/stakeholders to ensure we police the police (board members), remember we can attend annual meetings and chose to vote out the board.
February 6, 2008 8:08 AM
February 7, 2008 6:50 AM
While corporate failures, such as Enron, WorldCom, Tyco International Ltd, Peregrine Systems, iVillage, Adelphia Communications Corp, Hollinger International , Barings Bank and the recent Societe Generale bank have focused attention on issues of accounting and financial indiscretion, there is nothing inherently new in the reasons behind these corporate collapses. Neither is there anything original in the media's hurry to name a scapegoat. For example, at “Barings Futures Singapore (BFS)'s [the] management’s structure through 1995 enabled Leeson to operate without supervision from London headquarters. Leeson was not only the floor manager for Barings' trading division on the Singapore International Monetary Exchange, he was also the head of settlement operations. Leeson was responsible for ensuring that accurate accounting information was reported to the unit. Normally the head of settlement operations and floor manager would have been held by two different employees. In other words Leeson reported to himself. This absence of checks and balances short-circuited normal accounting and auditing safeguards. After the collapse, several observers, including Leeson himself, placed much of the blame on the bank's own deficient internal auditing and risk management practices. People at the London end of Barings were all [know- it- all’s] that nobody dared ask a stupid question in case they looked silly in front of everyone else” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barings_Bank).SO WHO GAVE LEESON ALL THIS AUTONOMY? WAS IT NOT TOP EXECUTIVES??If …… “Most important, the corrective actions taken to date [cannot] be sufficient to reduce the frequency and magnitude of corporate bankruptcies. …Without changes in the policy-related conditions that contribute to corporate failure, improved accounting and auditing procedures [will] accelerate bankruptcies with little effect on their frequency or magnitude. Almost all of the public and press attention, however, has focused on reducing the accounting violations, not on those policies that contribute to business failure. The major lesson from the collapse of Enron and other large corporations is that the rules of corporate governance do not adequately protect the interests of the general shareholders against the increasingly divergent interests of corporate managers (www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-22.pdf).It is argued that a combination of legislation, regulation, effective risk management and appropriate sanctions are needed, if such unethical behaviour, and resulting corporate failure, is to be prevented in future. However, what is required is an astute, independent, assessment of these financial collapse debacles. This may establish that failures within these companies' corporate cultures and management systems allow, if not encourage, unethical behaviour by key individuals. COULD IT BE THAT THE CONTINUATION OF THE OLD BOYS CLUB may be the fundamental reason for the blatant disregard and perception of invincibility/groupthink mentality of same. COULD IT BE THAT ONCE AN EMPLOYEE IS INCREASING THE PROFITS AND BOTTOM LINE OF AN ORGANIZATION HE/SHE IS SHELTERED BY TOP EXECUTIVES, WHO MAY TURN A BLIND EYE TO UNETHICAL PRACTICES?Dr. Rookmin Maharaj’s research on:Corporate Governance and the Board of Directors:Study of the Importance of the Role of the Formal & Informal SystemsInvestigates corporate governance issues from a behavioural viewpoint. It makes a distinction between strict adherence to formal rules and regulations: CEO/Chair separation, independence of board members and board size and informal characteristics of board members: knowledge, values, and groupthink.There are three main conclusions from her research and corporate experience:1. Clearly proves that formal rules and regulations are inadequate; they have little effect upon decision making by board members. Informal characteristics must be considered in unison with the formal system when nominating board members, management and employees in order to restore shareholder confidence and to rebuild trust in corporate governance.2. Similar values and groupthink can contribute positively to corporate decision making. However, there is a high possibility for groupthink and values to become redundant, masking board members’ and managements’ knowledge thus affecting their decision making process.3. Skills matrices that include questions related to values, knowledge and groupthink should be considered by corporations to ensure the nomination of well-rounded members, management and employees.Changes to board process, and board decision making, are seminal in preventing future Enron and WorldCom fiascoes. It is only by changing the behaviours of the board of directors, through adopting skills matrices, that sweeping changes can occur. In the past boards have asked: who are our board members? However, the most important question a board can ask today is: how can the skills and knowledge of our board members be used in service of the strategic direction of the corporation? This can be achieved by recruiting new board members, management and employees who fill the needs of an organization, in contrast to nominating ‘friends’ and continuing the tradition of the old boys club.Dr. Maharaj argues that, and has tangible evidence, that what should be done is a forensic audit on 'the people that we hire' and 'employees, managers, board members' should also conduct an audit on their potential employers. What is your opinion?Does your opinion change with this update?According to alleged rogue trader Jerome Kerviel, " his bosses turned a blind eye to his massive, questionable trades as long as he made money for the bank"(EMMA VANDORE, http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h4ncvzDOrXAnqyB9avT4zvg1iJTQD8UG7MBG0Societe Generale Board Meets).
Posted by Dr. Rookmin Maharaj at 2:05 PM
10 comments:
Anonymous said...
Dr.Maharaj,Do you really believe that the old boys network still work today?
January 29, 2008 11:39 AM
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj said...
The old boys/girls network is alive in many different manifestations. For example, there are many studies/research that indicate that people hire those that are similar to themselves. Is this a manifestation of the old boys/girls network? Of couse it is!!!
January 29, 2008 2:24 PM
Anonymous said...
How then do you ensure board independence?
January 29, 2008 2:30 PM
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj said...
You can and will ensure board independence by using Dr. MAHARAJ'S corporate governance model. The model essentially pre screens nominees to the board, not only regarding their technical knowledge, or who they may know on the board, but on their values. Are their values congruent with those of the organization? Does the potential board member fit with the other board members, will he or she have the will to ask tough questions of other board members and of management? This can be accomplished with an in-depth skill matrix in the pre-assessment stage. Then the post stage follows with an annual peer review and evaluations on each board member including the chair and CEO. These evaluations should be conducted by a (independent) third party.
February 4, 2008 7:03 AM
Anonymous said...
Why are there so few women on boards?
February 4, 2008 12:28 PM
Anonymous said...
Taking into context recent events in the stock market, should boards have forseen the enormous losses? What could they have done differently?
February 4, 2008 12:31 PM
Anonymous said...
With all the regulations in existence, there are still too many corporate scandals. How can this be avoided,if at all?
February 4, 2008 12:33 PM
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj said...
In recent interviews I conducted with several Chairs, board members, and CEOs, I asked questions about “boards’ foresight regarding situations that are just inappropriate, whether the actions or inaction by management and the board manifest as losses to shareholders or blatant fraud perpetrated by the board and management.” The general consensus is that boards’ are in a position to govern, not manage the day to day operations of an organization. However, if the board realizes that the CEO/management are taking advantage of stakeholders, there is lag time that it takes to actually oust a CEO and this affects the amount of losses that may occur. In order to reduce the probability of management/CEO taking advantage of stakeholders, boards members must be vigilant and astute by questioning management if they have concerns about risky projects or are aware of improper risks being undertaken by management and quick and precise action should be taken by the board to rectify the indiscretion.However, there is not only the principal-agent problem for shareholders/stakeholders to consider. In today’s global economy stakeholders cannot depend solely on the invisible hand. Stakeholders must investigate and look at who are the board members. Is there collusion between board and management, there is the ‘old boys’ network’ to consider. In a recent high profile fraud case one board member (a well RESPECTED U.S. attorney) stated that he ‘skimmed’ documents that were given to him by management since he believed that if there was anything amiss management would have advised him. In other words this example suggests that board members are yes men/women to management. A reasonable person may be under the impression that the board of directors will enforce and ensure that the agents (CEO/management) will not take unfair advantage of the principals (investors, shareholders and all stakeholders). According to modern governance theory the board of directors is considered the intercessor to the principal-agent problem. But in most of our corporations in Canada and the United States the principals are the agents they are one and the same or alternatively this is called the ‘small pool problem.’ As investors, community members, and stakeholders we as individuals must make a concerted effort to exercise our right as shareholders/stakeholders to ensure we police the police (board members), remember we can attend annual meetings and chose to vote out the board.
February 6, 2008 8:08 AM
Anonymous said...
February 7, 2008 6:50 AM
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj said...
Anonymous said.... With all the regulations in existence, there are still too many corporate scandals. How can this be avoided,if at all?
Dr. Maharaj said..... This question of more rules and regulations!!!, rules and regulations can only act as a guide. An important issue is who are these people who are chosen as board members?
We NEED TO wake up to reality. If board members are handpicked by management there must be a reason, for example, in a recent high profile fraud case, an experienced, well respected audit chair ‘under oath’ stated that ‘the documents he SKIMMED were prepared by management and counsel, and if anything was INCORRECT he RELIED ON MANAGEMENT TO DRAW HIS ATTENTION TO THE non-compete agreements’.
THIS, MAY I REMIND YOU was A WELL RESPECTED AUDIT CHAIR! The fact is that he left due diligence to management, in other words he left his job to management, and rubber stamped their decision. The questions remain, was this audit chair unaware that his job involved investigating whether non-compete payments are legal in the pertinent jurisdiction or he was aware of this and instead of ‘causing waves’ or being a ‘trouble maker’ he succumbed to a groupthink mentality?
“Groupthink occurs when a person’s thought process and decision-making capabilities become marred by peer pressure. This may cause the group to overestimate their power and morality, causing the members to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions. This behaviour can encourage an illusion of invulnerability, creating excessive optimism and encourage the group to take extreme risks” (Maharaj, 2007).
The probability of nominating board members with a groupthink mentality can be reduced by using Dr. Maharaj’s Corporate Governance decision making model.
Dr. Maharaj’s research is based on both qualitative and quantitative research conducted over a period of two years on over 1,200 executives in both Canada and the united States.
Dr. Maharaj’s Corporate Governance decision making model suggests that there is a temporal linkage between board characteristics which are Values, Groupthink and Knowledge and the three tools Evaluations, Skills Matrices, Interconnections on Decision-making (Maharaj, thesis, 2007).
Therefore, corporations, Universities, health care organizations, and political institutions, (to name a few) should use Dr. Maharaj’s model to nominate board members who are not afraid to question the status quo or encourage creative tension in the board room instead of being merely parsley on fish.
References:
Maharaj, R., (2008). International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 5, 68–92 "Corporate governance, groupthink and bullies in the boardroom. "Maharaj, 2007, Thesis Dissertation.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Corporate Governance and our Health Care System - Dr. Rookmin Maharaj
Some articles about Dr. Smith:
1) “Before leaving Ontario in disgrace a few years ago, Dr. Smith was an avid farmer of Hereford cows, helped dig up victims of the 1918 flu pandemic from the Arctic permafrost, and travelled to India to investigate a string of murders. ….. Former head of Ontario's pediatric forensic pathology unit also threatened a police officer who gave him a speeding ticket, was infamous for his sloppy work habits, and contributed to the wrongful homicide prosecutions of several parents and caregivers, sometimes with devastating consequences. In a 1994 interview with the Edmonton Journal, after a high-profile Alberta abuse case ended in acquittal, Dr. Smith is quoted as boasting that there had been convictions in all but two of the 20-25 cases of deliberate head injuries in which he testified. The key, he reportedly explained, was co-ordination between all the experts involved. "We don't cook our stories, but we identify problems," Dr. Smith was quoted as saying” http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=268040Disgraced Ontario pathologist begins testimony - Tom Blackwell, National Post Published: Sunday, January 27, 2008
2) Dr. Charles Smith convinced most of the Sudbury, Ont., police force that a local woman had killed her toddler, and refused to change his opinion even when faced with contradictory medical evidence. "He articulated well," said the detective…"Dr. Smith didn't appear receptive to discussion or changing his opinion based on that information," Insp. Keech told the inquiry. "He seemed to maintain his opinion from the initial consultation to the final consultation." http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=237370 - Pathologist convinced police that woman killed her child - Tom Blackwell, National Post Published: Monday, January 14, 2008
3) Reports of the 1991 meeting suggest Dr. Smith defended his findings in the case, and that someone described the judge who rejected his testimony as "strange" and from "the bottom of the heap." … The inquiry heard earlier that the judgment went virtually unnoticed by the Ontario chief coroner's office, which kept Dr. Smith in the pediatric pathology post until 2004……Dr. Huyer and Dr. Driver also described the pathologist yesterday as a professional and respectful colleague who was readily available to lend his expertise. His evangelical Christian leanings were also clear. "He did not preach to me [but] I was quite aware he had strong religious feelings," said Dr. Huyer. Dr. Smith would sometimes comment on his colleague's "aberrant" behaviour, chastising Dr. Huyer for swearing in his presence. http://www.%20nationalpost%20.com/news/story.html?id=226829 - Close
tour_comments_off = true; Reader Discussion
Court critique of pathologist set off alarm - Dr. Charles Smith -Tom Blackwell, National Post Published: Thursday, January 10, 2008
4) In a 1997 letter raised earlier, the hospital's chief pathologist at the time threatened to curtail Dr. Smith's surgical pathology activities and dock his pay because of delayed and inaccurate reports. http://www.nationalpost.com/news/ story.html?id=184728 - Smith self-taught as forensic pathologist, probe told - Public Inquiry - Tom Blackwell, National Post Published: Thursday, December 20, 2007
WHY WERE THESE CRIMINAL ACTIONS ALLOWED TO CONTINUE IN A SO CALLED 1ST WORLD COUNTRY????
This tragedy was allowed to occur because of Dr. Smith was not open-minded and was not be able to think objectively even if his individual commitment was high. Open mindedness is not simply a function of how Dr. Smith felt but of how Dr. Smith ‘thought’ and that he listen only to himself. Apparently Dr. Smith was not only listening to himself but he also had many professionals convinced that he was doing a good job.
Was this a result of GROUPTHINK Mentality?
Was it due to a brotherhood of ‘like’ professionals who did not want:
a) to create waves about another professional, although many knew he did ’shoddy work’; !
“The more amiability and esprit de corps among the members of a policy-making in-group, the greater is the danger that independent critical thinking will be replaced by groupthink, which is likely to result in irrational and dehumanizing actions directed against out-groups” (Janis, 1983, p. 13). This quote sums up the concept of what is defined as ‘groupthink.’
Groupthink refers to a deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgement that results from in-group pressures and in-group ‘esprit de corps’ .
Groupthink can be:
a) grossly inadequate way the policy-makers carry out their decision-making tasks.
b) these groups show signs of high cohesiveness and of an accompanying concurrence-seeking tendency that interferes with critical thinking.
c) where the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action or even thinking rationally. In the case of Dr. Smith, the results were detrimental to many families. It included the wrongful homicide prosecutions his opinions triggered. Dr. Smith had made serious errors in 20 criminally suspicious deaths he investigated between 1991 and 2001. Parents and others were charged with homicide in most of the cases, though many have since been cleared.
HOW CAN WE ENSURE THAT THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN?
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj has developed a unique and revolutionary model that can identify the characteristics requisite for effective Corporate Governance within an organization that strikes the ideal balance between the formal and informal rules and regulations. Dr. Maharaj has researched with the top oil and gas, mining, chemical, and pipeline companies in North America. She continues to transform ideas into actions, ultimately increasing the bottom line for She is currently consulting with companies in Alberta, Canada on Corporate Governance. She has worked in the energy sector in Alberta Canada for over fifteen years. She has a master’s degree in Higher Education and has taught in France, the Caribbean and in Canada at the University of Calgary and Mount Royal College on Environmental Management and Business. Contact:rmaharaj@ucalgary.ca, maharajl@netzero.net
Janis, I.L. (1983). Groupthink Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company
1) “Before leaving Ontario in disgrace a few years ago, Dr. Smith was an avid farmer of Hereford cows, helped dig up victims of the 1918 flu pandemic from the Arctic permafrost, and travelled to India to investigate a string of murders. ….. Former head of Ontario's pediatric forensic pathology unit also threatened a police officer who gave him a speeding ticket, was infamous for his sloppy work habits, and contributed to the wrongful homicide prosecutions of several parents and caregivers, sometimes with devastating consequences. In a 1994 interview with the Edmonton Journal, after a high-profile Alberta abuse case ended in acquittal, Dr. Smith is quoted as boasting that there had been convictions in all but two of the 20-25 cases of deliberate head injuries in which he testified. The key, he reportedly explained, was co-ordination between all the experts involved. "We don't cook our stories, but we identify problems," Dr. Smith was quoted as saying” http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=268040Disgraced Ontario pathologist begins testimony - Tom Blackwell, National Post Published: Sunday, January 27, 2008
2) Dr. Charles Smith convinced most of the Sudbury, Ont., police force that a local woman had killed her toddler, and refused to change his opinion even when faced with contradictory medical evidence. "He articulated well," said the detective…"Dr. Smith didn't appear receptive to discussion or changing his opinion based on that information," Insp. Keech told the inquiry. "He seemed to maintain his opinion from the initial consultation to the final consultation." http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=237370 - Pathologist convinced police that woman killed her child - Tom Blackwell, National Post Published: Monday, January 14, 2008
3) Reports of the 1991 meeting suggest Dr. Smith defended his findings in the case, and that someone described the judge who rejected his testimony as "strange" and from "the bottom of the heap." … The inquiry heard earlier that the judgment went virtually unnoticed by the Ontario chief coroner's office, which kept Dr. Smith in the pediatric pathology post until 2004……Dr. Huyer and Dr. Driver also described the pathologist yesterday as a professional and respectful colleague who was readily available to lend his expertise. His evangelical Christian leanings were also clear. "He did not preach to me [but] I was quite aware he had strong religious feelings," said Dr. Huyer. Dr. Smith would sometimes comment on his colleague's "aberrant" behaviour, chastising Dr. Huyer for swearing in his presence. http://www.%20nationalpost%20.com/news/story.html?id=226829 - Close
tour_comments_off = true; Reader Discussion
Court critique of pathologist set off alarm - Dr. Charles Smith -Tom Blackwell, National Post Published: Thursday, January 10, 2008
4) In a 1997 letter raised earlier, the hospital's chief pathologist at the time threatened to curtail Dr. Smith's surgical pathology activities and dock his pay because of delayed and inaccurate reports. http://www.nationalpost.com/news/ story.html?id=184728 - Smith self-taught as forensic pathologist, probe told - Public Inquiry - Tom Blackwell, National Post Published: Thursday, December 20, 2007
WHY WERE THESE CRIMINAL ACTIONS ALLOWED TO CONTINUE IN A SO CALLED 1ST WORLD COUNTRY????
This tragedy was allowed to occur because of Dr. Smith was not open-minded and was not be able to think objectively even if his individual commitment was high. Open mindedness is not simply a function of how Dr. Smith felt but of how Dr. Smith ‘thought’ and that he listen only to himself. Apparently Dr. Smith was not only listening to himself but he also had many professionals convinced that he was doing a good job.
Was this a result of GROUPTHINK Mentality?
Was it due to a brotherhood of ‘like’ professionals who did not want:
a) to create waves about another professional, although many knew he did ’shoddy work’; !
“The more amiability and esprit de corps among the members of a policy-making in-group, the greater is the danger that independent critical thinking will be replaced by groupthink, which is likely to result in irrational and dehumanizing actions directed against out-groups” (Janis, 1983, p. 13). This quote sums up the concept of what is defined as ‘groupthink.’
Groupthink refers to a deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgement that results from in-group pressures and in-group ‘esprit de corps’ .
Groupthink can be:
a) grossly inadequate way the policy-makers carry out their decision-making tasks.
b) these groups show signs of high cohesiveness and of an accompanying concurrence-seeking tendency that interferes with critical thinking.
c) where the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action or even thinking rationally. In the case of Dr. Smith, the results were detrimental to many families. It included the wrongful homicide prosecutions his opinions triggered. Dr. Smith had made serious errors in 20 criminally suspicious deaths he investigated between 1991 and 2001. Parents and others were charged with homicide in most of the cases, though many have since been cleared.
HOW CAN WE ENSURE THAT THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN?
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj has developed a unique and revolutionary model that can identify the characteristics requisite for effective Corporate Governance within an organization that strikes the ideal balance between the formal and informal rules and regulations. Dr. Maharaj has researched with the top oil and gas, mining, chemical, and pipeline companies in North America. She continues to transform ideas into actions, ultimately increasing the bottom line for She is currently consulting with companies in Alberta, Canada on Corporate Governance. She has worked in the energy sector in Alberta Canada for over fifteen years. She has a master’s degree in Higher Education and has taught in France, the Caribbean and in Canada at the University of Calgary and Mount Royal College on Environmental Management and Business. Contact:rmaharaj@ucalgary.ca, maharajl@netzero.net
Janis, I.L. (1983). Groupthink Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company
New Spitzer 'socker' [Lack of !] Corporate Governance
Sunday, March 23, 2008
New Spitzer 'socker'! ..[LACK OF! ] Corporate Governance
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj has developed a unique and revolutionary model that can identify the characteristics requisite for effective Corporate Governance within an organization that strikes the ideal balance between the formal and informal rules and regulations. Dr. Maharaj has researched with the top oil and gas, mining, chemical, and pipeline companies in North America. She continues to transform ideas into actions, ultimately increasing the bottom line for organizations.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/03/23/2008-03-23_eliot_spitzer_kept_on_black_stockings_fo.html?ref=nl&nltr_ct=1&nltr_id=New%20Spitzer%20
"BY RICH SCHAPIRO DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER Sunday, March 23rd 2008, 4:00 AMSabo/News Eliot Spitzer A controversial political strategist sent a letter to the feds in November saying that then-Gov. Eliot Spitzer "used the services of high-priced call girls" in Florida - and kept his socks on while he did."
***********************************************************************************
Do these actions by top politicians business persons and leaders shock you?
The fact is that these people were elected, nominated or hired to these positions without due care and respect for the taxpaying public.
Where were the checks and balances, this is a case of ineffective Corporate Governance.Effective decision making for corrective action can only occurs within an organization where there are checks and balances.
This means that there MUST BE CHANGES TO NORMS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES WHERE THERE ARE NO CHECKS AND BALANCES, FOR PERSONS PUT IN POSITIONS OF AUTHORITY.ONLY WHEN THERE ARE MECHANISMS PUT IN PLACE WITHIN ORGANIZATIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, GOVERNAMETAL BODIES, CAN WE AS TAX PAYERS BE ASSURED THAT THERE IS TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY ASSOCIATED WITH THESE POSITIONS!!
Success is a two edge sword. Once executives/people in power or with power become successful for a period, they are less liable to be open to ‘learning’ and may create organizational defenses or a groupthink mentality. Once (through success) an executive learns to cover up his or her actions they soon view such action as necessary, practical, realistic and even caring. Once this happens [executives] tend to stop questioning the basis for ‘error’, they stop even thinking about ‘error’ or looking for ‘error’. The [executives] become insensitive and blind, and, also become blind to their insensitivity and blindness.
Business people, executives and people in power can benefit by paying more attention to the operation of ‘their values’ and how ‘their values’ affect their decision making as it is reasonable to believe that personal values are important determinants in the choice of decision-making and so affects corporate strategy.
See my blogs:
http://corporategovernanceconcerns.blogspot.com/
http://corporategovernancepullupyoursox.blogspot.com/
http://corporategovernancesoxboards.blogspot.com/
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj's Press and Publications:
1. Dr. Rookmin Maharaj addresses Corporate Governance issues.(February 2008) / M. Rookmin Maharaj, Ph.D, traite d'enjeux propres à la gouvernance d'entreprise. (Février 2008)
http://caaa.ca/Home/whatsNew/index.html
2. June 27, 2005, Mumbai : The successful award graduate recipient is Dr. Rookmin Maharaj, from University of Calgary. Dr Maharaj's project was on "Mahatma Gandhi's Village Swaraj Initiative compared with Sustainable Development seen through the eyes of Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru today". According to the Institute's President, Dr. Arun Mukherjee, "The Lal Bahadur Shastri Student Awards will further our efforts to promote knowledge and understanding between India and Canada. The awards will contribute to fostering values of tolerance, mutual respect and understanding among young Canadians attending our universities." Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) is underwriting the awards and, according to Mr. Mukesh Gupta, TCS Director of Strategic Relations in Canada "The Lal Bahadur Shastri Student Awards promote an increased awareness in bridging the gap of Indo-Canadian relations. TCS is proud to support these awards as they mirrors our efforts in the business community." http://www.advaitaashrama.org/pb_archive/2006/PB_2006_September.pdf
3. Sustainability ReportingDr. Rookmin Maharaj, Haskayne School of. Business, University of Calgary:www.iseee.ca/iseee/files/iseee/ABEnergyFutures-09.pdf
4. Publications, Reports & Presentations University of CalgaryRookmin Maharaj presentation by Dr. Robert Mansell, ISEEE Managing Director, to IRIS Seminar Series.www.iseee.ca/iseee/whatsnew/reports
5. Annual Report 2007Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary; 2005 Rookmin Maharaj. 2004 www.icaa.ab.ca/pdf/CAEFAR07unsignedFinal.pdf
6. IFBR Conference Costa Rica 2006http://www.icaa.ab.ca/pdf/CAEFAR07unsignedFinal.pdf
7. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance - CorporateCorrespondence: ... I thank Dr James Gillies, Professor Emeritus of Policy, and founding ...www.palgrave-journals.com/jdg/journal/v5/n1/full/2050074a.html
8. NY Daily News - Discussionshttp://corporategovernanceconcerns.blogspot.com/Dr. Rookmin Maharaj has developed a unique and revolutionary model that can identify the ...www.nydailynews.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=12231&tstart=80&start=20
9. 'Corporate behaviour' Blogs Search on Considerably.netPRE- EMPTIVE FORENSIC CORPORATE GOVERNANCE Dr. Rookmin Maharaj 2008-01-26 22:19:00 It is argued that a combination of legislation, regulation, ...www.considerably.net/Corporate_behaviour/blogs.htm
10. Table of ContentsRookmin Maharaj, University of Calgary ..... Maharaj, Rookmin ........................ 14, 22. Mansumitrchai, Somkiat............... 28, 32 ...www.theibfr.com/archive/PROGRAM-COSTARICA2006.pdf
11. Journal Issue: COSO 1992 control framework: Corporate governance, groupthink and bullies in the boardroom Rookmin Maharajlawlib.wlu.edu/CLJC/index.aspx?mainid=1270&issuedate=2008-02-04&homepage=no - 27k -
12. Nova Publishers My Account Nova Publishers Shopping Cart Home ...Haskayne School of Business, Univ. of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, NW and Dr. Rookmin Maharaj, Univ. of Calgary, NW) Chapter 5. ...https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=5521
13. Perspectives on Teaching and Teacher Issues - Blackwell OnlineRookmin Maharaj, 79. Ch. 5, Interdisciplinary teaching : integration of physical education skills and concepts with mathematical skills and ...bookshop.blackwell.com/jsp/id/Perspectives_on_Teaching_and_Teacher_Issues/9781600215810
14. CiteULike: Corporate governance, groupthink and bullies in the ...@article{citeulike:2314115, author = {Maharaj and Rookmin}, citeulike-article-id = {2314115}, doi = {10.1057/palgrave.jdg.2050074}, issn = {1741-3591}, ...www.citeulike.org/article/2314115
15. 'Corporate behaviour' Blogs Search on Considerably.netRookmin Maharaj 2008-01-26 22:19:00 It is argued that a combination of legislation, regulation, effective risk management and appropriate sanctions are ...www.considerably.net/Corporate_behaviour/blogs.htm
16. Cases in Sustainable Tourism: An Experiential Approach to Making- 2006 - 422 pages
17. Dr. Rookmin was extremely helpful with final edits and permissions. books.google.ca/books?isbn=0789027658...
18. Theses & Dissertations University of CalgaryMaharaj, Rookmin. Corporate Governance and the Board of Directors: Study of the Importance of the Role of the Formal and Informal Systems www.ucalgary.ca/igp/studentcentre/theses -
19. IngentaConnect Search ResultsAuthor: Maharaj, Rookmin. Source: International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Volume 5, Number 1, February 2008 , pp. 68-92(25) ...api.ingentaconnect.com/search;jsessionid=3kfj8l4j3m121.alexandra?database=1&title=Order -
************************************************************************************Dr. Rookmin Maharaj Corporate Governance Consultant:
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj has developed a unique and revolutionary model that can identify the characteristics requisite for effective Corporate Governance within an organization that strikes the ideal balance between the formal and informal rules and regulations. Dr. Maharaj has researched with the top oil and gas, mining, chemical, and pipeline companies in North America. She continues to transform ideas into actions, ultimately increasing the bottom line for Organizations, Political Institutions, and Educational Institutions to name a few.
Please email your comments, questions or ideas on Dr. Maharaj's blog, or at:
rmaharaj@ucalgary.ca
maharajl@netzero.com
New Spitzer 'socker'! ..[LACK OF! ] Corporate Governance
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj has developed a unique and revolutionary model that can identify the characteristics requisite for effective Corporate Governance within an organization that strikes the ideal balance between the formal and informal rules and regulations. Dr. Maharaj has researched with the top oil and gas, mining, chemical, and pipeline companies in North America. She continues to transform ideas into actions, ultimately increasing the bottom line for organizations.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/03/23/2008-03-23_eliot_spitzer_kept_on_black_stockings_fo.html?ref=nl&nltr_ct=1&nltr_id=New%20Spitzer%20
"BY RICH SCHAPIRO DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER Sunday, March 23rd 2008, 4:00 AMSabo/News Eliot Spitzer A controversial political strategist sent a letter to the feds in November saying that then-Gov. Eliot Spitzer "used the services of high-priced call girls" in Florida - and kept his socks on while he did."
***********************************************************************************
Do these actions by top politicians business persons and leaders shock you?
The fact is that these people were elected, nominated or hired to these positions without due care and respect for the taxpaying public.
Where were the checks and balances, this is a case of ineffective Corporate Governance.Effective decision making for corrective action can only occurs within an organization where there are checks and balances.
This means that there MUST BE CHANGES TO NORMS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES WHERE THERE ARE NO CHECKS AND BALANCES, FOR PERSONS PUT IN POSITIONS OF AUTHORITY.ONLY WHEN THERE ARE MECHANISMS PUT IN PLACE WITHIN ORGANIZATIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, GOVERNAMETAL BODIES, CAN WE AS TAX PAYERS BE ASSURED THAT THERE IS TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY ASSOCIATED WITH THESE POSITIONS!!
Success is a two edge sword. Once executives/people in power or with power become successful for a period, they are less liable to be open to ‘learning’ and may create organizational defenses or a groupthink mentality. Once (through success) an executive learns to cover up his or her actions they soon view such action as necessary, practical, realistic and even caring. Once this happens [executives] tend to stop questioning the basis for ‘error’, they stop even thinking about ‘error’ or looking for ‘error’. The [executives] become insensitive and blind, and, also become blind to their insensitivity and blindness.
Business people, executives and people in power can benefit by paying more attention to the operation of ‘their values’ and how ‘their values’ affect their decision making as it is reasonable to believe that personal values are important determinants in the choice of decision-making and so affects corporate strategy.
See my blogs:
http://corporategovernanceconcerns.blogspot.com/
http://corporategovernancepullupyoursox.blogspot.com/
http://corporategovernancesoxboards.blogspot.com/
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj's Press and Publications:
1. Dr. Rookmin Maharaj addresses Corporate Governance issues.(February 2008) / M. Rookmin Maharaj, Ph.D, traite d'enjeux propres à la gouvernance d'entreprise. (Février 2008)
http://caaa.ca/Home/whatsNew/index.html
2. June 27, 2005, Mumbai : The successful award graduate recipient is Dr. Rookmin Maharaj, from University of Calgary. Dr Maharaj's project was on "Mahatma Gandhi's Village Swaraj Initiative compared with Sustainable Development seen through the eyes of Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru today". According to the Institute's President, Dr. Arun Mukherjee, "The Lal Bahadur Shastri Student Awards will further our efforts to promote knowledge and understanding between India and Canada. The awards will contribute to fostering values of tolerance, mutual respect and understanding among young Canadians attending our universities." Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) is underwriting the awards and, according to Mr. Mukesh Gupta, TCS Director of Strategic Relations in Canada "The Lal Bahadur Shastri Student Awards promote an increased awareness in bridging the gap of Indo-Canadian relations. TCS is proud to support these awards as they mirrors our efforts in the business community." http://www.advaitaashrama.org/pb_archive/2006/PB_2006_September.pdf
3. Sustainability ReportingDr. Rookmin Maharaj, Haskayne School of. Business, University of Calgary:www.iseee.ca/iseee/files/iseee/ABEnergyFutures-09.pdf
4. Publications, Reports & Presentations University of CalgaryRookmin Maharaj presentation by Dr. Robert Mansell, ISEEE Managing Director, to IRIS Seminar Series.www.iseee.ca/iseee/whatsnew/reports
5. Annual Report 2007Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary; 2005 Rookmin Maharaj. 2004 www.icaa.ab.ca/pdf/CAEFAR07unsignedFinal.pdf
6. IFBR Conference Costa Rica 2006http://www.icaa.ab.ca/pdf/CAEFAR07unsignedFinal.pdf
7. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance - CorporateCorrespondence: ... I thank Dr James Gillies, Professor Emeritus of Policy, and founding ...www.palgrave-journals.com/jdg/journal/v5/n1/full/2050074a.html
8. NY Daily News - Discussionshttp://corporategovernanceconcerns.blogspot.com/Dr. Rookmin Maharaj has developed a unique and revolutionary model that can identify the ...www.nydailynews.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=12231&tstart=80&start=20
9. 'Corporate behaviour' Blogs Search on Considerably.netPRE- EMPTIVE FORENSIC CORPORATE GOVERNANCE Dr. Rookmin Maharaj 2008-01-26 22:19:00 It is argued that a combination of legislation, regulation, ...www.considerably.net/Corporate_behaviour/blogs.htm
10. Table of ContentsRookmin Maharaj, University of Calgary ..... Maharaj, Rookmin ........................ 14, 22. Mansumitrchai, Somkiat............... 28, 32 ...www.theibfr.com/archive/PROGRAM-COSTARICA2006.pdf
11. Journal Issue: COSO 1992 control framework: Corporate governance, groupthink and bullies in the boardroom Rookmin Maharajlawlib.wlu.edu/CLJC/index.aspx?mainid=1270&issuedate=2008-02-04&homepage=no - 27k -
12. Nova Publishers My Account Nova Publishers Shopping Cart Home ...Haskayne School of Business, Univ. of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, NW and Dr. Rookmin Maharaj, Univ. of Calgary, NW) Chapter 5. ...https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=5521
13. Perspectives on Teaching and Teacher Issues - Blackwell OnlineRookmin Maharaj, 79. Ch. 5, Interdisciplinary teaching : integration of physical education skills and concepts with mathematical skills and ...bookshop.blackwell.com/jsp/id/Perspectives_on_Teaching_and_Teacher_Issues/9781600215810
14. CiteULike: Corporate governance, groupthink and bullies in the ...@article{citeulike:2314115, author = {Maharaj and Rookmin}, citeulike-article-id = {2314115}, doi = {10.1057/palgrave.jdg.2050074}, issn = {1741-3591}, ...www.citeulike.org/article/2314115
15. 'Corporate behaviour' Blogs Search on Considerably.netRookmin Maharaj 2008-01-26 22:19:00 It is argued that a combination of legislation, regulation, effective risk management and appropriate sanctions are ...www.considerably.net/Corporate_behaviour/blogs.htm
16. Cases in Sustainable Tourism: An Experiential Approach to Making- 2006 - 422 pages
17. Dr. Rookmin was extremely helpful with final edits and permissions. books.google.ca/books?isbn=0789027658...
18. Theses & Dissertations University of CalgaryMaharaj, Rookmin. Corporate Governance and the Board of Directors: Study of the Importance of the Role of the Formal and Informal Systems www.ucalgary.ca/igp/studentcentre/theses -
19. IngentaConnect Search ResultsAuthor: Maharaj, Rookmin. Source: International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Volume 5, Number 1, February 2008 , pp. 68-92(25) ...api.ingentaconnect.com/search;jsessionid=3kfj8l4j3m121.alexandra?database=1&title=Order -
************************************************************************************Dr. Rookmin Maharaj Corporate Governance Consultant:
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj has developed a unique and revolutionary model that can identify the characteristics requisite for effective Corporate Governance within an organization that strikes the ideal balance between the formal and informal rules and regulations. Dr. Maharaj has researched with the top oil and gas, mining, chemical, and pipeline companies in North America. She continues to transform ideas into actions, ultimately increasing the bottom line for Organizations, Political Institutions, and Educational Institutions to name a few.
Please email your comments, questions or ideas on Dr. Maharaj's blog, or at:
rmaharaj@ucalgary.ca
maharajl@netzero.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)