It was so predictable that the Board would obstruct the replacement of Mark Wood with Sir Michael Lyons... and play for time, while they re-grouped.
There is a profound vacuum of trusted leadership.
So we basically have the same regime as 2 weeks ago, just Russell (CEO) and Mark (Chair) not there.
I completely disagree with the delay (or ultimate obstruction) over appointing Sir Michael as Chairman and Axel as director, which were integral parts of the Public Benefit campaign, which virtually 500 members signed up for.
But to be quite clear, the personnel now on the Board (and the new interim CEO) are the personnel who had been waving through the policies of Mark and Russell - without any public contradictions - and this regime and its policies have just been massively called out at the EGM, with a huge loss of Trust and Confidence.
Does Rob’s statement yesterday engender trust, confidence, that this isn’t just the previous regime regrouping and playing for time?
On the flip side, they are gambling that a 2nd EGM won’t be called, because the win at the 1st one was too borderline.
That is the factor Simon Blackler will face as well of course.
In principle, I’d like to see the entire Board dismissed by the members, at which point, members have power and a company obligation to appoint at least one director to keep the company legal. That’s the nuclear option.
However, a second passed resolution of that kind would not be certain.
I personally feel sad that Rob (acting Chair) and the Board have missed an opportunity here - a common-sense opportunity - to appoint Sir Michael as quickly as they have appointed Ellie Bradley (Board evictee and interim CEO), to demonstrate a willingness to walk the walk of change, and not just talk the talk. That would have engendered trust that they were sincere in their ‘Road to Damascus’ conversion. It was possible to do.
As before, they seem to be listening only to the bits they want to hear. The first change hundreds of members called for was the replacement of Mark with Sir Michael. Instead, we have a vacuum of trust and a vacuum of trusted leadership.
Instead, the effect will be continuing loss of trust and confidence. This could lead to further instability for the company. Implicit in today’s announcement seems to me to be the desire to block Sir Michael’s appointment and the level of radical change last week’s EGM was called for.
Sure two fall guys in particular have gone - Russell and Mark - but today we were very much witnessing the same regime re-building itself. I have no trust in this Board’s intended direction. I will speak, and have spoken, to individuals on the Board and members of staff. But as things stand, unless individuals speak out (which they still may do) they will be tarnished with the same opprobrium lavished on Mark and Russell. From their reportedly ‘unanimous’ collaboration in the demonisation of the Public Benefit initiative, they never wanted the proposed changes and were vehemently opposed to what Public Benefit was requesting: Change of leadership right at the top. And everything that would follow from that. This 'remnant' Board rubber-stamped the policies Mark and Russell were kicked out for. None of them have earned trust. All of them have been a part of a regime that was gralloched last week.
To re-shape a quote by (I think) David Cameron: “they are all in this together”.
There is a profound vacuum of trusted leadership.
So we basically have the same regime as 2 weeks ago, just Russell (CEO) and Mark (Chair) not there.
I completely disagree with the delay (or ultimate obstruction) over appointing Sir Michael as Chairman and Axel as director, which were integral parts of the Public Benefit campaign, which virtually 500 members signed up for.
But to be quite clear, the personnel now on the Board (and the new interim CEO) are the personnel who had been waving through the policies of Mark and Russell - without any public contradictions - and this regime and its policies have just been massively called out at the EGM, with a huge loss of Trust and Confidence.
Does Rob’s statement yesterday engender trust, confidence, that this isn’t just the previous regime regrouping and playing for time?
On the flip side, they are gambling that a 2nd EGM won’t be called, because the win at the 1st one was too borderline.
That is the factor Simon Blackler will face as well of course.
In principle, I’d like to see the entire Board dismissed by the members, at which point, members have power and a company obligation to appoint at least one director to keep the company legal. That’s the nuclear option.
However, a second passed resolution of that kind would not be certain.
I personally feel sad that Rob (acting Chair) and the Board have missed an opportunity here - a common-sense opportunity - to appoint Sir Michael as quickly as they have appointed Ellie Bradley (Board evictee and interim CEO), to demonstrate a willingness to walk the walk of change, and not just talk the talk. That would have engendered trust that they were sincere in their ‘Road to Damascus’ conversion. It was possible to do.
As before, they seem to be listening only to the bits they want to hear. The first change hundreds of members called for was the replacement of Mark with Sir Michael. Instead, we have a vacuum of trust and a vacuum of trusted leadership.
Instead, the effect will be continuing loss of trust and confidence. This could lead to further instability for the company. Implicit in today’s announcement seems to me to be the desire to block Sir Michael’s appointment and the level of radical change last week’s EGM was called for.
Sure two fall guys in particular have gone - Russell and Mark - but today we were very much witnessing the same regime re-building itself. I have no trust in this Board’s intended direction. I will speak, and have spoken, to individuals on the Board and members of staff. But as things stand, unless individuals speak out (which they still may do) they will be tarnished with the same opprobrium lavished on Mark and Russell. From their reportedly ‘unanimous’ collaboration in the demonisation of the Public Benefit initiative, they never wanted the proposed changes and were vehemently opposed to what Public Benefit was requesting: Change of leadership right at the top. And everything that would follow from that. This 'remnant' Board rubber-stamped the policies Mark and Russell were kicked out for. None of them have earned trust. All of them have been a part of a regime that was gralloched last week.
To re-shape a quote by (I think) David Cameron: “they are all in this together”.
