When a company’s performance deteriorates year after year, every oversight function should be forced to answer a basic question: did its leaders challenge executives, or did they become too comfortable maintaining access and relationships?
A function that appears more focused on executive schmoozing, polished presentations, and avoiding difficult conclusions than on confronting persistent underperformance is not providing meaningful oversight. It is providing institutional cover.
Accountability should begin with the head of the function and extend directly to their leadership team. If they repeatedly failed to identify, escalate, or communicate the seriousness of the company’s decline, leadership changes and a fundamental restructuring are warranted. At some point, shareholders should stop funding oversight teams that seem unwilling to challenge the people they are supposed to hold accountable.