Khadija Arib, Matthijs van Nieuwkerk, the management of the Amsterdam cultural institute Pakhuis De Zwijger, chairman Hein Pieper of the political party New Social Contract — just a few recent examples of leaders who suddenly became the hub of a widely reported crisis. With disastrous consequences for their own reputation and serious scratches on that of their employer. The analyses have already been made elsewhere — social media as a judgment machine, the rise of themes such as integrity and social safety where everyone is a potential whistleblower. Let me suffice with the result: the new leader is permanently in the wind. A crisis in the organization has a more intense, faster, more personal character than ever before. There is no way around it anymore.
It is therefore remarkable that many organizations are barely able to protect themselves against such a potentially devastating crisis. This work needs to start long before a potential problem arises. Stock exchange funds have entire scenarios ready in case a knight on a black horse comes along. There is nothing crazy about setting scenarios for “what if” situations. Especially with organizations with a strong public profile. Such a scenario involves things like: who does what if the place is on fire? How do you deal with governance during a crisis? Are the directors sufficiently trained in their roles as internal and external spokespersons? I myself always ask directors in times of crisis whether their story is' Jinek-proof ': can someone explain in an understandable and honest way what is going on, how the problems are being solved and why that solution was chosen?
But the supervisor's involvement goes further. New — and incumbent — supervisors are more than ever expected to develop a nose for potential threats to the organization. Just assume that there is no carpet to hide things under the road anymore. When directors and supervisors meet, it is of the utmost importance that, in addition to the maelstrom of things (opening, executive announcements, figures so far, you know them), the story behind the numbers also clears the way. Imtech, for example, did not go bankrupt because of an insufficiently critical review of financial statements alone, but mainly because of the company's scope for fraud and deceit.The story behind the numbers: how did we regulate our ethics supervision? What is our company culture: what kind of behavior do we really value, in practice — and why do we do that? What is the management really concerned about? How exactly does the bonus system work? Where are perverse incentives? How much freedom of action do our foreign offices have, and what do we monitor?
Commissioners can, no: must, such checks and balances address systematically. That takes courage and perseverance. In doing so, they must guard themselves against waving remarks. A commissioner I spoke to recently sighed that his director replicated his expressed concern: “What exactly is your question?”
“I don't have a question yet, but I do have a concern,” he replied. “And I would like to address them.” Outstanding! More than ever, cross-thinkers are needed in boardrooms, but especially in supervisory bodies. They have a strong argument for their critical role: a well-tuned ethical compass, communicative transparency and good preparation can prevent publicity and financial debacles — or bring them to an end as damage-free as possible.
