Mirjam van Praag (1967)'s career is certainly multi-faceted. After studying Econometrics at the University of Amsterdam, she worked at companies such as Procter & Gamble and The Boston Consulting Group, obtained her PhD with a thesis on the success of entrepreneurs at the University of Amsterdam and was appointed professor of Entrepreneurship & Organization there in 2005. She focused it Amsterdam Center for Entrepreneurship (ACE) on and she combined her professorship and ACE with supervisory roles and board positions at organizations such as CPB, Kriterion, APG and Berlingske Media. At that time, she was also a Crown Member of the SER. She was then Professor of entrepreneurship at the Copenhagen Business School and then chairman of the VU Executive Board for almost six years. Today, Van Praag chairs the Advisory Council for Science, Technology and Innovation (AWTI) and Professor of Entrepreneurship and Leadership at the VU. She combines these two roles with supervision in the cultural sector, including as chairman of the Supervisory Board at the De Balie debate center. She has also been a member of the Supervisory Board of De Nederlandsche Bank since 2020.
So many roles, so many hats: she herself says she always “flows in and out of business”. It tempted partner in De Bestuurskamer John Jaakke into a two-talk about the interaction between science and practice when it comes to good supervision.
%20(1).png)
You have a solid scientific background. What can you do with that knowledge as a supervisor?
“To be honest, in my supervisory roles, my experience as a director is much more useful than my scientific knowledge. It helps enormously if you have been a director in a complex organization yourself. My scientific research focuses on successful entrepreneurship and — also very relevant — applying entrepreneurship in organizations that are not necessarily entrepreneurial. After all, there is a lot of entrepreneurship in large organizations, in particular; it helps that I have been able to study in practice for a long time how to generate entrepreneurial energy — creativity, openness, fearlessness — in official, sometimes rigid and anxious environments. But if you want to prepare well for supervision, science is not the shortest route, haha.”
You're a professor of entrepreneurship and leadership — what do you think about innovation in supervision?
“Many supervisors and boards focus on managing risks. What are the rules, the laws, the models you have to adhere to? What kind of criticism is looming? The more challenging the political, economic and social environment, the more people are inclined to stick to rules and procedures. Especially when administrative errors can quickly lead to public punishment. I notice that innovation flourishes when space is made more often for what I just call “playfulness”. The open, free conversation in the boardroom about opportunities and threats, about how it is possible, about untrodden paths. About the need for exploration and innovation so as not to fall behind or even perish. The paradoxical thing is that if you don't, you're actually running a big risk. I see a growing willingness among directors to talk openly about this.”
“Managing risks is important. But that doesn't mean you have to be the coolest boy in class. An example? In the board of a previous employer, privacy was considered sacred — the fear of sharing data threatened to hamper the use of valuable data. As a board member, I said: don't go all the way in protecting data. Comply with the law, but also keep the space that is available to be entrepreneurial.”
How do you bring entrepreneurship within governance and supervision to the table?
“I give workshops and lectures, telling boards of directors and supervisors that an entrepreneurial view is, in fact, a childish gaze is — in the best sense of the word: open-minded, intuitive, playful. To be able to channel that open view, to be able to use it so that you can use it in your daily administrative work as useful: that is extremely important. An open mind ensures better governance. It provides a better balance between effectively managing current affairs and discovering new ways and experimenting for innovation.”
“In addition, the supervisor can also be proactive: challenging and questioning and with room for experimentation: “If you try this and that?” Supervisors could well give their board more space to break new ground. However, you also have to be careful that an organization does not become the vehicle of one, or a few, entrepreneurs who are too far ahead of the troops. In some supervisory positions, I slow down the management a bit; in most, it's okay to go up a notch. The game is finding the optimal balance between maintaining order and finding freedom to do business.”
In my collection, I call the “maelstrom of things” the fixed agenda of the board meeting. Guiding, but also preventing innovation. How do you get the latter on the agenda when supervising an adult organization?
“In my experience, it is good to reserve plenty of time for a freer “with your feet on the table” thinking session when planning meetings. However, I will discuss in advance with individual members what we will agree on. The long-term vision, or something that deserves attention now. And not at the end of the meeting, because the urgent drives out the important. Before you know it, there's no time left for deepening. Another tip: create an annual agenda with plenty of “thematic blocks” in it.”
How do you organize supervision that can handle such change?
“Every supervisory board benefits from an atmosphere of trust, not only with your board but also with each other. In your booklet, you call that “time and joy”. That is very important. Many new commissioners are often afraid to say little. That hampers a fresh perspective — even if you have a very diverse team on paper. As chairman, I try to pay close attention to that. Are things left unsaid? Is the atmosphere suddenly changing? Why does X suddenly react so cruelly? Did everyone have a say? How do people respond to input? Do we understand where everyone comes from? Is there anything I can learn from this input, this person? In 2022, I followed the 'Challenge of Leadership Program' at INSEAD with Manfred Kets de Vries. That was where everyone comes from was extensively discussed. There, I also concluded that almost everyone actually had a difficult childhood. Knowing that also connects.”
Have you ever thought: can I take this for granted as a supervisor?
“Often. Especially at the time, also at the VU, where a lot is always happening. There, the board always had to deal with a vocal, extremely democratized population. I sometimes jokingly said, when the board presented a plan: first ask the 33 thousand students, then ask the six thousand employees, and then I will come back to you. A polyphonic community with a lot of participation and a regular activist mentality often proves useful and even valuable in the long run — but that is not always the case. An example: the debate at VU Amsterdam in 2022 about partnerships with companies in fossil fuel producing energy. There was a lot and active resistance to this. We have had people contribute, both from science and from their political or ideological background. This led relatively quickly, in consultation with directors of Shell and other oil companies, to a widely supported plan about a form of constructive dialogue in order to be able to work together again as soon as possible if certain conditions were met, while the cooperation was temporarily suspended. Because all parties felt heard, the outcome was widely appreciated. We were the first university in our country with such a plan.”
Have you started to look at governance differently over the course of your career?
“Sure. As a supervisor, I now know that the undercurrent deserves more attention. The unsaid, what you can 'feel' in organizations. Governance goes beyond the paper — it's human work. It also helps, I notice, that, as a supervisory director, I can say to my directors: I have been there. I know the pace and structure of decision-making, how to include people.”
“As a supervisor, you can help bring entrepreneurship in organizations in the right direction, but in the Executive Board undertakes entrepreneurship. As chairman, you can shape the qualities of a leadership team. In addition, issues such as openness, listening ability, transparency are important, in addition to keeping pace, maintaining structure and bringing entrepreneurial genes into an organization. It's about the balance between what's called “exploration and exploitation” in public administration. Good directors are Ambidextrous, as it were.”
Wouldn't the core of supervision be asking the right questions?
“Yes, and use those questions to put things on the agenda that were not yet on the agenda. I once learned from former Rabobank Commissioner Ron Teerlink that, as a supervisory director, you can interrogate new insights. “Wouldn't it be that...” and then get your point. I've always remembered that method that is as friendly as it is effective. Where possible, I use it.”
