What if you answered the call to deliver two pizzas for 10,000 bitcoins in 2010?
What if Hillary Clinton lost the popular vote but won the electoral college in 2016?
Thought exercises like these can take you down the rabbit holes that many opt to avoid. But how about asking “what if” type questions as a way to embrace change or welcome a challenge?
Mentally strong leaders do this every day.
In past years, such forward-facing deliberations took place throughout Bank Director’s annual Acquire or Be Acquired conference. This year, hosting an incredibly influential audience in Phoenix simply wasn’t in the cards.
So, we posed our own “what ifs” in order to keep sharing timely and relevant ideas.
To start, we acknowledged our collective virtual conference fatigue. We debated how to communicate key concepts, to key decision makers, at a key moment in time. Ultimately, we borrowed from the best, following Steve Jobs’ design principle by working backward from our user’s experience.
This mindset resulted in the development of a new BankDirector.com platform, which we designed to best respect our community’s time and interests.
This new offering consists of short-form videos, original content and peer-inspired research — all to provide insight from exceptionally experienced investment bankers, attorneys, consultants, accountants, fintech executives and bank CEOs. Within this new intelligence package, we spotlight leadership issues that are strategic in nature, involve real risk and bring a potential expense that attracts the board’s attention. For instance, we asked:
WHAT IF… WE MODERNIZE OUR ENTERPRISE
The largest U.S. banks continue to pour billions of dollars into technology. In addition, newer, digital-only banks boast low fees, sleek and easy-to-use digital interfaces and attractive loan and deposit rates. So I talked with Greg Carmichael, the chairman and CEO of Cincinnati-based Fifth Third Bancorp, about staying relevant and competitive in a rapidly evolving business environment. With our industry undergoing significant technological transformation, I found his views on legacy system modernization particularly compelling.
WHAT IF… WE TRANSFORM OUR DELIVERY EXPECTATIONS
Bank M&A was understandably slow in 2020. Many, however, anticipate merger activity to return in a meaningful way this year. For those considering acquisitions to advance their digital strategies, listen to Rodger Levenson, the chairman and CEO of Wilmington, Delaware-based WSFS Financial Corp. We talked about prioritizing digital and technology investments, the role of fintech partnerships and how branches buoy their delivery strategy. What WSFS does is in the name of delivering products and services to customers in creative ways.
WHAT IF… WE DELIGHT IN OTHER’S SUCCESSES
The former chairman and CEO of U.S. Bancorp now leads the Make-A-Wish Foundation of America. From our home offices, I spent time with Richard Davis to explore leading with purpose. As we talked about culture and values, Richard provided valuable insight into sharing your intelligence to build others up. He also explained how to position your successor for immediate and sustained success.
These are just three examples — and digital excerpts — from a number of the conversations filmed over the past few weeks. The full length, fifteen to twenty minute, video conversations anchor the Inspired By Acquire or Be Acquired.
Starting February 4, insight like this lives exclusively on BankDirector.com through February 19. Accordingly, I invite you to learn more about Inspired By Acquire or Be Acquired by clicking here or downloading the online content package.
Banks need to get CEO transitions right to provide continuity in leadership and successful execution of key priorities.
As the world evolves, so do the factors that banks must consider when turnover occurs in the CEO role. Here are some key items we’ve come across that bank boards should consider in the event of a CEO transition today.
Identifying a Successor
Banks should prepare for CEO transitions well in advance through ongoing succession planning. Capable successors can come from within or outside of the organization. Whether looking for a new CEO internally or externally, banks need to identify leaders that have the skills to lead the bank now and into the future.
Diversity in leadership:
Considering a diverse slate of candidates is crucial, so that the bank can benefit from different perspectives that come with diversity. This may be challenging in the banking industry, given the current composition of executive teams. The U.S. House Committee on Financial Services published a diversity and inclusion report in 2020 that found that executive teams at large U.S. banks are mostly white and male. CAP found that women only represent 30% of the executive team, on average, at 18 large U.S. banks.
Building a diverse talent pipeline takes time; however, it is critical to effective long-term succession planning. Citigroup recently announced that Jane Fraser, who currently serves as the head of Citi’s consumer bank, would serve as its next CEO, making her the first female CEO of a top 10 U.S. bank. As banks focus more on diversity and inclusion initiatives, we expect this to be a key tenet of succession plans.
The banking industry continues to evolve to focus more on digital channels and technology. The Covid-19 pandemic has placed greater emphasis on remote services, which furthered this evolution. As technology becomes more deeply integrated in the banking industry, banks will need to evaluate their strategies and determine how they fit into this new landscape. With increased focus on technology, banks must also keep up with leading cybersecurity practices to provide consumers with the best protection. Succession plans will need to prioritize the skills and foresight required to lead the organization through this digital transformation.
Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) strategy:
Investors are increasingly focused on the ESG priorities and the potential impact on long-term value creation at banks. One area of focus is human capital management, and the ability to attract and retain the key talent that will help banks be leaders in their markets. CEO succession should consider candidates’ views on these evolving priorities.
Paying the Incoming and Outgoing CEOs
The incoming CEO’s pay is driven by level of experience, whether the CEO was an internal or external hire, the former CEO’s compensation, market compensation and the bank’s compensation philosophy. In many cases, it is more expensive to hire a CEO externally. Companies often pay external hires at or above the market median, and may have to negotiate sign-on awards to recruit them. Companies generally pay internally promoted CEOs below market at first and move them to market median over two or three years based on their performance.
In some situations, the outgoing CEO may stay on as executive chair or senior advisor to help provide continuity during the transition. In this scenario, pay practices vary based on the expected length of time that the chair or senior advisor role will exist. It’s often lower than the amount the individual received as CEO, but likely includes salary and annual bonus opportunity and, in some cases, may include long-term incentives.
Retaining Key Executives
CEO transitions may have ripple effects throughout the bank’s executive team. Executives who were passed over for the top job may pose a retention risk. These executives may have deep institutional knowledge that will help the new CEO and are critical to the future success of the company. Boards may recognize these executives by expanding their roles or granting retention awards. These approaches can enhance engagement, mitigate retention risk and promote a smooth leadership transition.
As competition remains strong in the banking industry, it is more important than ever to have a seamless CEO transition. Unsuccessful CEO transitions are a distraction from a bank’s strategic objectives and harm performance. Boards will be better positioned if they have a strong succession plan to help them identify CEO candidates with the skills needed to grow and transform the bank, and if they effectively use compensation programs to attract and retain these candidates and the teams that support them.
Year in and year out, Bank Director’s surveys tap into the views of bank leaders across the country about critical issues: risk, technology, compensation and talent, corporate governance, and M&A and growth.
But 2020 has been a year for the record books. It’s been an interesting time for me as head of research for Bank Director, with the results of our recent surveys revealing changes that, in my view, will continue to have far-ranging effects for the industry.
As boards plan for 2021 and beyond, here are a few things I believe you should be considering.
The Great Tech Ramp-Up The Covid-19 pandemic dramatically accelerated technology adoption by the industry, an issue we explored in Bank Director’s 2020 Technology Survey.
Sixty-five percent of the executives and board members responding to that survey told us that their bank implemented or upgraded technology to respond to Covid-19, primarily to issue Paycheck Protection Program loans. As a result, most banks reported increased spending on technology, above and beyond their budgets for 2020.
The primary drivers that fuel bank technology strategies remain the same — improving customer experience and generating efficiencies — and pressure has only grown on financial institutions to adapt. More than half of the survey respondents told us that their bank’s technology plans had been adjusted due to the pandemic, with most focused on enhancing their digital banking capabilities.
“The next generation will rarely use a branch,” one survey respondent commented, “so a totally quick efficient comprehensive digital experience will be necessary to survive.”
The 2020 Compensation Survey confirmed that most banks dialed back on branch service early in the pandemic; by the time we fielded the Technology Survey in June and July, bank leaders finally recognized the digital channel’s preeminence in terms of growing the bank and serving customers. (The previous year’s survey found respondents placing equal emphasis on digital and branch channels.)
The Technology Survey revealed gaps in small business and commercial lending as well — deficiencies that have been laid bare as a result of the pandemic. More than half of respondents that have adjusted or accelerated their technology strategy indicated they’d expand digital lending capabilities.
Some bankers I spoke with about the survey results indicated concerns that banks could dial back on technology spending due to the profitability pressures facing the industry. However, given the changes we’ve seen, I don’t believe it’s sustainable to dial back on this investment.
That leaves bank leaders facing a few key challenges, starting with determining where to invest their technology dollars. It’s difficult to gauge where the wind will blow, but the survey provides solid clues: 42% believe process automation will be one of the most important technologies affecting their bank, followed by data analytics (39%). Almost 40% believe the security structure to be vitally important; cybersecurity is a perennial concern for bank leaders and as banking grows more digital, this will require additional investment.
Additionally, 64% told us that modernizing their bank’s digital applications forms a core element of their bank’s strategy.
Implementing new technology requires expertise, and the 2020 Compensation Survey found most respondents (79%) telling us that it’s difficult to attract technology and digital talent.
But this may not mean bringing data scientists or other highly-specialized roles on staff. Olney, Maryland-based Sandy Spring Bancorp hired a senior data strategist who is responsible for the use, governance and management of information across the organization; that individual also reviews vendor capabilities and identifies areas that help the bank achieve its goals. “The senior data strategist should be on the lookout for ways to find opportunities for and through data analytics, whether that’s predicting customer trends or finding new revenue-generating opportunities,” said John Sadowski, chief information officer at the $13 billion bank.
Finally, 69% told us their bank didn’t streamline vendor due diligence processes in response to Covid-19. As technology adoption accelerates, consider whether your bank’s third-party management process is sufficiently comprehensive, while still allowing it to quickly and efficiently put new solutions into place.
Work-From-Home Will Alter the Workplace The 2020 Compensation Survey found that banks almost universally implemented or expanded remote work options as a result of the pandemic; the 2020 Technology Survey later told us that for many banks (at least 42%) that change will be permanent for at least some of their staff.
In late October, $96 billion Synchrony Financial — a direct, virtual bank — announced that remote work will become permanent for its employees, allowing them to choose from three options. Some can simply work from home. Others can schedule office space, while some will have an assigned desk. This third group includes executives, who will be asked to work remotely at least a couple days a week to reinforce the cultural shift.
It’s a move that the bank believes will make employees happy, but it also promises to yield significant cost savings by cutting real estate expenses.
It could also yield competitive benefits for banks seeking top talent. Glacier Bancorp, for example, doesn’t limit hires to its Kalispell, Montana-based headquarters — instead, it hires anywhere within its multi-state footprint. That helps the $18 billion bank recruit the technology talent it needs, human resources director David Langston told me in May.
Remote work is a cultural shift that many bank executives will be reticent to make. But even if a long-term remote work option doesn’t align with your bank’s culture, offering flexibility will help support employees, who have their own struggles at home with virtual schooling or caring for high-risk family members.
A recent McKinsey study finds that a lack of flexibility, among other issues, drives women in particular to leave the workforce. The authors also advise that companies “should look for ways to re-establish work-life boundaries” — putting policies in place to assure meeting times and work communications occur within set hours, and encouraging employees to take advantage of flexible scheduling. Unfortunately, employees often worry that taking advantage of these benefits will damage their reputation at work. “To mitigate this, leaders can assure employees that their performance will not be measured based on when, where, or how many hours they work. Leaders can also communicate their support for workplace flexibility [and] can model flexibility in their own lives. … When employees believe senior leaders are supportive of their flexibility needs, they are less likely to consider downshifting their careers or leaving the workforce.”
Flexibility and remote work can help companies retain valued employees.
It’s difficult to change a culture, especially if you believe that what you’re doing works. But sometimes, culture can change around you. I’d encourage you to approach these issues with fresh eyes to ensure your leadership team can direct the change — not the other way around.
Don’t Put Diversity on the Backburner Almost half of respondents to Bank Director’s 2020 Compensation Survey told us their bank doesn’t measure its progress around diversity and inclusion, indicating to me that they don’t have clear objectives around creating an inclusive culture that hires, retains and rewards employees despite race, ethnicity or gender.
Further, just 39% of the CEOs and directors responding to our 2020 Governance Best Practices Survey told us their board has several members who are diverse, based on race, ethnicity or gender. And almost half believe that diversity’s impact on a company’s performance is overrated.
Employees and customers take this issue seriously. Rockland, Massachusetts-based Independent Bank Corp., which has been recognized for LGBTQ workplace equality by the Human Rights Campaign since 2016, incorporates inclusion in its “cycle of engagement.” This starts with engaged employees who provide a higher level of service that delights customers, resulting in strong financial performance for the institution, allowing the company to invest back into its employees — continuing the virtuous cycle.
The $13 billion bank’s culture promotes respect, teamwork, empathy — and inclusion, COO Robert Cozzone told me in a recent interview. “Think about working for a company where you enjoy being around the people that you work with, you enjoy the work that you do, you buy into the mission of the company — you’re going to be much more productive than if you don’t have those things,” he says. Today, “It’s all that more important to show [employees] care and empathy and understanding.”
Small, rural banks may believe it’s difficult to hire diverse talent, making it nearly impossible for them to tackle this issue. Expanding remote work options, mentioned earlier, can help. But ultimately, it’s an issue that companies nationwide will need to address as the demographics of the country change. “We all need to do better [on] diversity and inclusion,” one survey respondent wrote. “Many of us out in rural America don’t have as many opportunities, but we need to keep this topic front of mind, and [read] information and stories on how to be more intentional.”
Directors Must Be Engaged and Educated The 2020 Governance Best Practices Survey also found 39% indicating that at least some members of their board aren’t actively engaged in board meetings; 36% said some members don’t know enough about banking to provide effective oversight.
That survey, conducted just before the pandemic effectively shut down the U.S. economy, found executives and directors identifying three top challenges to the viability of their institution: pressure on net interest margins (53%), meeting customer demands for digital options (40%) and industry consolidation and the growing power of big banks. Further, most directors said that staying on top of the changes occurring in the industry is one of the great challenges facing their board.
Confronting these issues will require engaged and knowledgeable leadership.
Bank Director’s 2020 Compensation Survey, sponsored by Compensation Advisors, surveyed 265 independent directors, CEOs, human resources officers and other senior executives of U.S. banks to understand trends around the acquisition of talent, CEO performance and pay, and director compensation. The survey was conducted in March and April 2020.
Bank Director’s 2020 Technology Survey, sponsored by CDW, surveyed more than 150 independent directors, CEOs, chief operating officers and senior technology executives of U.S. banks to understand how technology drives strategy at their institutions and how those plans have changed due to the Covid-19 pandemic. It also includes compensation data collected from the proxy statements of 98 public banks. The survey was conducted in June and July 2020.
Bank Director’s 2020 Governance Best Practices Survey, sponsored by Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, surveyed 159 independent directors, chairmen and CEOs of U.S. banks under $50 billion in assets to understand the practices of bank boards, including board independence, discussions and oversight, engagement and refreshment. The survey was conducted in February and March 2020.
Several high-profile data breaches in 2019 assured that cybersecurity remains a top concern for bank boards and executive teams. Capital One Financial Corp. and Facebook revealed significant breaches last year — 106 million and over 500 million, respectively — so it’s no wonder that 87% say their anxiety over the issue has increased, according to Bank Director’s 2020 Risk Survey.
In response, more than three-quarters of directors and executives say they’ve increased oversight of cybersecurity and data privacy.
It’s a thorny issue for banks to manage. This
isn’t a typical risk like credit that leverages bank leaders’ expertise and
knowledge to ensure their practices are safe and sound. With cybersecurity, the
threat level changes almost constantly, and the hacker trying to infiltrate
your organization could be a world away.
Yet, the buck stops with the board. While
management is charged with the implementation of the bank’s cyber risk program,
it’s the board’s duty to ensure the bank is protected.
Unfortunately, board oversight is too often taken
seriously only after an incident
occurs, rather than before.
Basic Responsibilities In its IT Examination Handbook, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council outlines responsibilities for bank boards. They include:
Overseeing the development,
implementation and maintenance of the information security program
Communicating expectations to
management and holding them accountable
Approving policies, plans and
Ensuring the program’s
effectiveness by reviewing assessments and reports, and discussing management’s
recommendations for improvement
How boards fulfill these duties varies. Most
oversee cybersecurity within a committee; 19% as a full board.
Further, the frequency with which the board as
a whole reviews cybersecurity can be as often as every meeting or as infrequent
as annually (or less). The size of the bank appears to have little bearing on
how often boards address this issue.
Regulators expect, at minimum, an annual
review. But given the pace of change in the cyber threat landscape, meeting the
minimal standard isn’t adequate. Bank boards need to take cybersecurity more
“If you’re talking cybersecurity less frequently
than quarterly, I don’t think you can truly manage that risk to your
institution,” says Craig Sanders, a partner at survey sponsor Moss Adams. “You
can’t get enough data points to really understand what the risk profile is or
isn’t doing in your institution in terms of [protecting the bank].”
At a minimum, the FFIEC says management should
report to the board annually on the risk assessment process, risk management
and control decisions, third-party arrangements, testing results, security
breaches and management response, and recommendations for updates to the
program. A designated information security officer should report directly to
the board, as well.
In the survey, 76% indicate that the bank’s
chief information security officer meets regularly with the board.
Next-Level Oversight The FFIEC’s Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) has been made available by the interagency body to evaluate all facets of a bank’s cybersecurity program, including the activities the board engages in as part of its oversight capacity.
Annie Goodwin, the risk oversight chair at
$13.7 billion Glacier Bancorp, says the CAT is among the tools in the
Kalispell, Montana-based bank’s cybersecurity arsenal. “It’s valuable in
assessing cybersecurity preparedness,” she says. “During the safety and
soundness exam, the CAT tool is often reviewed, and our board is very familiar
The CAT provides a list of attributes that
indicates a bank’s maturity within each domain: threat intelligence and
collaboration, cybersecurity controls, external dependence management, cyber
incident management and resilience, and cyber risk management and oversight,
including the board’s role. Maturity levels are rated from baseline — a
bare-minimum standard indicating the lowest level of maturity, intended for
banks exhibiting minimal inherent risk — to advanced and innovative, the two
Given the continued prominence of
cybersecurity as a threat to the industry, the survey asked directors and
executives about some of the advanced and innovative activities for board
oversight. The results confirm that some practices are more common than others.
Almost three-quarters of respondents indicate their board participates in training to better understand the cyber threats facing the bank.
Cybersecurity has become a more frequent topic
of discussion for the board at Cross Plains, Wisconsin-based SBCP Bancorp. “Rightly
so,” says CEO Jim Tubbs, given increased threats to the $1.3 billion bank and
its customers. “The first step is informing and educating [the board],” he
says. “The second step is having them understand from us — senior management —
or from our external auditors, to be able to provide them appropriate reports
or knowledge in regards to how we are handling cyber risk, and how [we are]
testing our own systems and how our audit function is working.”
Using data to facilitate strategic decisions and
monitor cyber risk (27%) is one of the least common practices reported by
respondents, along with benchmarking cybersecurity staffing against peer
Sanders says more progressive organizations
are asking for benchmarking metrics to better budget for cybersecurity and
technology, to gauge whether they’re spending enough to protect their
institution. “What are peer banks
spending, and where are they [in terms of] maturity?” he says.
Incorporating more of the practices outlined in the CAT promises to augment the board’s ability to oversee cybersecurity as a risk.
“When you look at the intent of the [regulatory] guidance, and as you move from baseline maturity level to advanced, evolving, innovative — as you move up that chain, the governance piece becomes more heavily focused. They expect more participation” on the part of the board, says Sanders. “A small percentage of banks [say], ‘We want to move to evolving, or we want to move to advanced.’ Those are the ones that are spending more money and committing more to it, [and] their board and management team have a better harmony about what that program should look like and see the value in it.”
Bank Director’s 2020 Risk Survey, sponsored by Moss Adams, surveyed 217 independent directors, CEOs, chief risk officers and other senior executives of U.S. banks under $50 billion in assets. The survey was conducted in January 2020 and focused on the top risks facing financial institutions at that time, including cybersecurity, credit and interest rate risks, and emerging issues.
You can read more about the “Cyber War” facing the banking industry in the second quarter issue of Bank Director magazine. Additionally, Bank Director’s Online Training Series contains information on the board’s role in overseeing cybersecurity. Unit 11 covers best practices for the board. Unit 21 addresses further responsibilities, as well as the importance of an incident response plan and employee training.
This is probably the normal
emotional reaction of many bank directors as the COVID-19 pandemic consumes
large chunks of the U.S. economy, possibly putting their institutions at risk
if the crisis leads to a deep and enduring recession.
The role of the board, even in a crisis of this magnitude, is still to provide oversight rather than manage. The board’s role doesn’t change during a crisis, but certainly the governance process must become more focused and strategic, the pace of deliberations must quicken and communication becomes even more important.
Bank boards are ultimately
responsible for the safety and soundness of their institutions. While senior
management devotes their full attention to running the bank during a time of
unprecedented economic turmoil, the board should be looking ahead to anticipate
what might come next.
“I think the challenge for [directors] is to gauge the creeping impact on their bank over the next few months,” says James McAlpin, who heads up the banking practice at Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner in Atlanta. “The board’s role is oversight … but I believe that in certain times — and I think this is one of them — the oversight role takes on a heightened importance and the board needs to focus on it even more.”
Many economists expect the U.S. economy to tip into a recession, so every board needs to be looking at the key indicia of the health of their bank in relation to its loan portfolio. “I’ve spoken to a few CEOs and board members over the past couple of weeks where there are active conversations going on about benchmarks over the next few months,” says McAlpin. “‘If by, say, the end of April, certain events have occurred or certain challenges have emerged, this is what we’ll do.’ In other words, there’s pre-planning along the lines of, ‘If things worsen, what should be our response be?’”
This is not the first banking
crisis that David Porteous, the lead director at Huntington Bancshares, a $109
billion regional bank in Columbus, Ohio, has lived through. Porteous served on
the Huntington board during the previous banking crisis, recruiting a new
executive management team and writing off hundreds of millions of dollars in bad
loans. That experience was instructive for what the bank faces now.
Porteous says one of the board’s
first steps during the current crisis should be to take an inventory of the available
“assets” among its own members. Are there directors whose professional or
business experience could be helpful to the board and management team as they
work through the crisis together?
Communication is also crucial during a crisis. Porteous says that boards should be communicating more frequently and on a regular schedule so directors and senior executives can organize their own work flow efficiently. Given the social distancing restrictions that are in effect throughout most of the country, these meetings will have to occur over the phone or video conferencing.
“You may have meetings normally on
a quarterly or monthly basis, but that simply is not enough,” Porteous says.
“You need to have meetings in between those. What we have found at Huntington
that served us very well in 2008 and 2009 and is serving us well now, we have
set a time — the same day of the week, the same time of the day, every other
week — where there’s a board call. So board members can begin to build their
plans around that call.”
Porteous says the purpose of these
calls is for select members of the management team to provide the board with
updates on important developments, and the calls should be “very concise, very
succinct” and take “an hour or less.”
Porteous also suggests that either the board’s executive committee or a special committee of the board should be prepared to convene on short notice, either virtually or over the phone, if a quick decision is required on an important matter.
C. Dallas Kayser, the
non-executive chairman at City Holding Co., a $5 billion regional bank
headquartered in Charleston, West Virginia, says that when the pandemic began
to manifest itself in force, the board requested reports from all major
divisions within the bank. “The focus was to have everybody drill down and tell
us exactly how they’re responding to customers and employees,” he says. Like
Porteous at Huntington, Kayser has asked the board’s executive committee to be
available to meet on short notice. The full board, which normally meets once a
month, is also preparing to meet telephonically more often.
As board chair, Kayser says he feels a special responsibility to support the bank’s chief executive officer, Charles “Skip” Hageboeck. “I’ve been in constant conversations with Skip,” he says. “I know that he’s stressed. Everyone is, in this situation.” Being a CEO during a crisis can be a lonely experience. “I recognize that, and I’ve made myself available for discussions with Skip 24/7, whenever he needs to bounce anything off of me,” Kayser says.
One of the things that every board will learn during a crisis is the strength of its culture. “The challenges that we all face in the banking industry are unprecedented, and it really becomes critical now for all directors, as well as the senior leadership of the organizations that they oversee, to work together,” says Porteous. One sign of a healthy board culture is transparency, where neither side holds back information from the other. “You should have that all the time, but it’s even more critical during a crisis. Management and the board have got to have a completely open and transparent relationship.”
Merriam-Webster defines culture as “the set of
shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an
institution or organization.” These attributes are central to a company’s
Corporations with strong cultures tend to have financial performance that matches, according to studies that have investigated the relationship. The corporate review website Glassdoor found in 2015 that the companies on its “Best Places to Work” list, as well as Fortune’s “Best Companies to Work For” list, outperformed the S&P 500 from 2009 to 2014 by as much as 122%. In contrast, Glassdoor’s lowest-rated public companies underperformed the broader market over the same period.
Unlike the financial metrics banks rely on to measure their performance, culture is harder to measure and describe in a meaningful way. How can a bank’s leadership team — particularly its board, which operates outside the organization — properly oversee their institution’s cultural health?
“A lot of boards talk about the board being
the center of cultural influence within the bank, and that’s absolutely true,”
says Jim McAlpin, a partner at the law firm Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner and
leader of its banking practice group. As a result, they should “be mindful of
the important role [they] serve [in] modeling the culture and forming the
culture and overseeing the culture of the institution.”
Winter Haven, Florida-based CenterState Bank
Corp., with $17.1 billion in assets, values culture so highly that the board
created a culture-focused committee, leveraging its directors’ expertise.
CenterState wants “to create an incredible culture for their employees to enjoy and their customers to enjoy,” says David Salyers, a former Chick-fil-A executive who joined CenterState’s board in 2017. He’s also the author of a book on corporate culture, “Remarkable!: Maximizing Results through Value Creation.”
Salyers knew he could help the bank fulfill
this mission. “I want to recreate for others what Truett Cathy created for me,”
he says, referring to the founder of Chick-fil-A. “I love to see cultures where
people love what they do, they love who they do it with, they love the mission
that they’re on, and they love who they’re becoming in the process of
accomplishing that mission.”
Few banks have a board-level culture
committee. Boston-based Berkshire Hills Bancorp, with $13.2 billion in assets,
established a similar corporate responsibility and culture committee in early
2019 to oversee the company’s corporate social responsibility, diversity and
inclusion, and other cultural initiatives. Citigroup established its ethics,
conduct and culture committee in 2014, which focuses on ethical decision-making
and the global bank’s conduct risk management program — not the experience of
its various stakeholders.
CenterState’s board culture committee, established in 2018, stands out for its focus on the bank’s values and employees. Among the 14 responsibilities outlined in its charter, the committee is tasked with promoting the bank’s vision and values to its employees, customers and other stakeholders; overseeing talent development, including new hire orientation; advising management on employee engagement initiatives; and monitoring CenterState’s diversity initiatives.
The committee was Salyers’ suggestion, and he
offered to chair it. “I said, ‘What we need to do, if you want to create the
kind of culture you’re talking about, [is] we ought to elevate it to a board
level. It needs to get top priority,’” he says. “We’re trying to cultivate and
develop the things that will take that culture to the next level.”
As a result of the committee’s focus over the
past year, CenterState has surveyed staff to understand how to make their lives
better. It also created a program to develop employees. These initiatives are
having a positive impact on the employee experience at the bank, says Salyers.
Creating a culture committee could be a valuable practice for some boards, particularly for regional banks that are weighing transformative deals, says McAlpin. CenterState has closed 11 transactions since 2011. In January, it announced it will merge with $15.9 billion asset South State Corp., based in Columbia, South Carolina. The merger of equals will create a $34 billion organization.
“At the board level, there’s a focus on making
sure there is a common culture [within] the now very large, combined institution,”
says McAlpin, referencing CenterState. “And that’s not easy to accomplish, so
the board should be congratulated for that … to form a [culture] committee is a
very good step.”
CenterState’s culture committee leverages the
passion and expertise of its directors. Both Salyers and fellow director Jody
Dreyer, a retired Disney executive, possess strong backgrounds in customer
service and employee satisfaction at companies well-regarded for their
corporate culture. While this expertise can be found on the boards of Starbucks
Corp. and luxury retailer Nordstrom, few bank boards possess these traits.
Focusing on culture and the employee experience from the top down is vital to create loyal customers.
“The best companies know that culture trumps
everything else, so they are intentional about crafting engaging and compelling
environments,” Salyers wrote in his book. “A company’s culture is its greatest
competitive advantage, and it will either multiply a company’s efforts, or
divide both its performance and its people.”
A backlash has emerged in response to diversity and
In the past several years, activists, institutional
investors and some companies — including banks — have advocated for increased
diversity and inclusion on their boards and throughout their firms. These groups
believe that a diversity of race, gender, age and opinion is good for business
and, ultimately, for shareholders.
But two recent studies draw attention to a burgeoning backlash to these efforts. Whether from message fatigue or concern about the board’s focus, companies may need to be mindful about the promotion and communication of their D&I efforts.
Director support to increase gender and racial diversity in the boardroom fell for the first time since 2013 in PwC’s 2019 governance survey. Thirty-eight percent of directors said gender diversity was very important in 2019, down from 46% in 2018. Those who said racial and ethnic diversity was very important fell to 26%, down from 34% the year prior.
Directors seem to be fatiguing of these messages, says
Paula Loop, leader of PwC’s Governance Insights Center, who adds she was
surprised at the recent trend.
“The way that we rationalized it is that it appears that
directors have heard the message and they’re trying to acknowledge that,” she
Respondents to PwC’s survey acknowledged that diversity has added value to their discussions and decisions, Loop says, and that it increasingly makes sense from a business perspective. This finding is supported more broadly: Bank Director’s 2018 Compensation Survey found that 87% of respondents “personally believe” that board diversity, either through age, race or gender, has a positive impact on the bank’s performance.
“We have to remember, especially when you’re thinking
about boards, they … don’t move necessary as quickly as one might think,” Loop
says. “I feel like we’re in an evolution — but there’s been a lot in the last
couple of years.”
Interestingly, PwC observed different responses to the survey based on the gender of respondents. A higher percentage of female directors reported that gender and racial/ethnic diversity on the board was “very important.” Male directors were less inclined to report seeing evidence of the benefits of diversity, and more than half agreed that diversity efforts “are driven by political correctness.”
Male directors were three times as likely as a female
director to assert that investors “devote too much attention” to both gender
and racial/ethnic diversity. Overall, 63% of directors believe investors are
too focused on gender diversity, up from 35% in 2018; 58% report the same when
it comes to racial/ethnic diversity, up from 33%.
The different responses along gender lines demonstrates why diversity matters, Loop says. The report shows that gender-diverse slate of directors do have a “different emphasis or different way of thinking.”
“It validates why it’s good to have a diverse group of
people in a room when you have a conversation about an important issue,” she
But even if a bank makes headway on increasing the gender
diversity on its board, there is still another group to think about:
shareholders. A recent study found that companies that appoint women to the
board experience a decline in their share price for two years after the
appointment. The study looked at more than 1,600 U.S. companies between 1998
“Investors seem to be penalizing, rather than rewarding, companies that strive to be more inclusive,” wrote INSEAD researchers Isabelle Solal and Kaisa Snellman in a November 2019 Harvard Business Review article about their study.
“What we think is happening is that investors believe that firms who choose to appoint women are firms who care more about diversity than about maximizing shareholder value,” writes Solal, a postdoctoral research fellow at the Stone Centre for the Study of Wealth Inequality at INSEAD, in an email interview.
In subsequent research, they found that investors view
appointments of female directors with a company’s “diversity motivation.” The
association is “not that surprising,” she writes, given that “almost all” press
releases feature the gender of the appointee when that person is a woman, and
will often include other references to diversity.
“Gender is never mentioned when the director is a man,” she writes.
Solal says that companies should still appoint women to
their boards, especially given that the shareholder skepticism dissipates in
two years. But companies should be mindful that overemphasizing a director’s
gender or diversity may be unhelpful, and instead highlight the “skills and
qualifications of their candidates, regardless of their gender.”
Small community banks are poised to receive a delay in the new loan loss standard from the accounting board.
The Financial Accounting Standards Board is changing how it sets the effective dates for major accounting standards, including the current expected credit loss model or CECL. They hope the delay, which gives some banks an extra one or two years, provides them with more time to access scarce external resources and learn from the implementation lessons of larger banks.
Bank Director spoke with FASB member Susan Cosper ahead of the July 27 meeting discussing the change. She shed some light on the motivations behind the change and how the board wants to help community banks implement CECL, especially with its new Q&A.
BD: Why is FASB considering a delay in some banks’ CECL effective date? Where did the issue driving the delay come from? SC: The big issue is the effective date philosophy. Generally speaking, we’ve split [the effective dates] between [Securities and Exchange Commission] filers or public business entities, and private companies and not-for-profits. Generally, the not-for-profits and private companies have gotten an extra year, just given their resource constraints and educational cycle, among other things.
We started a dialogue after the effective date of the revenue recognition standard with our small business advisory committee and private company council about whether one year was enough. They expressed a concern that one [extra] year is difficult, because they don’t necessarily have enough time to learn from what public companies have done, they have resource constraints and they have other standards that they’re dealing with.
We started to think about whether we needed to give private companies and not-for-profits extra time. And at the same time, did we need to [expand that] to small public companies as well?
BD: What does this mean for CECL? What would change? SC: For the credit loss standard, we had a three-tiered effective date, which is a little unusual. Changing how we set effective dates would essentially collapse that into two tiers. We will still have the SEC filers, minus the small reporting companies, with an effective date of Jan. 1, 2020.
We would take the small reporting companies and group it with the “all-other” category, and push that out until Jan. 1, 2023. It essentially gives the non-public business entities an extra year, and the small reporting companies an extra two years.
BD: How long has FASB considered changing its philosophy for effective dates? It seems sudden, but I’m sure the board was receiving an increasing amount of feedback, and identified this as a way to address much of that feedback. SC: We’ve been thinking about this for a while. We’ve asked our advisory committees and counsels a lot of questions: “How did it go? Did you have enough time? What did you learn?” Different stakeholder groups have expressed concern about different standards, but it was really trying to get an understanding of why they needed the extra time and concerns from a resource perspective.
When you think about resources, it’s not just the internal resources. Let’s look at a community bank or credit union: Sometimes they’re using external resources as well. There are a lot of larger companies that may be using those external resources. [Smaller organizations] may not have the leverage that some of the larger organizations have to get access to those resources.
BD: For small reporting companies, their CECL effective date will move from January 2020 to January 2023. How fast do you think auditors or anyone advising these SRCs can adopt these changes for them? SC: What we’ve learned is that the smaller companies wait longer to actually start the adoption process. There are many community banks that haven’t even begun the process of thinking about what they need to do to apply the credit loss standard.
It also affords [FASB] an opportunity to develop staff Q&As and get that information out there, and help smaller community banks and credit unions understand what they need to do and how they can leverage their existing processes.
When we’ve met with community banks and credit unions, sometimes they think they have to do something much more comprehensive than what they actually need to do. We’re planning to travel around the country and hold meetings with smaller practitioners — auditors, community banks, credit unions — to educate them on how they can leverage their existing processes to apply the standard.
BD: What kind of clarity does FASB hope to provide through its reasonable and supportable forecast Q&A that’s being missed right now? [Editor’s note: According to FASB, CECL requires banks to “consider available and relevant information, including historical experience, current conditions, and reasonable and supportable forecasts,” when calculating future lifetime losses. Banks revert to their historical loss performance when the loan duration extends beyond the forecast period.] SC: There are so many different aspects of developing the reasonable and supportable forecast in this particular Q&A. We have heard time and time again that there are community banks that believe they need to think about econometrics that affect banks in California, when they only operate in Virginia. So, we tried to clarify: “No, you need to think about the types of qualitative factors that would impact where you are actually located.”
The Q&A tries to provide an additional layer of clarity about what the board’s intent was, to help narrow what a bank actually has to do. It also provides some information on other types of metrics that banks could use, outside of metrics like unemployment. It talks about how to do the reversion to historical information, and tries to clarify some of the misinformation that we have heard as we’ve met with banks.
BD: People have a sense about what the words “reasonable” and “supportable” mean, but maybe banks feel that they should buy a national forecast because that seems like a safe choice for a lot of community banks. SC: Hindsight is always 20-20, but I think people get really nervous with the word “forecast.” What we try to clarify in the Q&A is that it’s really just an estimate, and what that estimate should include.
BD: Is the board concerned about the procrastination of banks? Or that at January 2022, banks might expect another delay? SC: What we’re really hoping to accomplish is a smooth transition to the standard, and that the smaller community banks and the credit unions have the opportunity to learn from the implementation of the larger financial institutions. In our conversations with community banks, they’re thinking about it and want to understand how they can leverage their existing processes.
BD: What is FASB’s overall sense of banks’ implementation of CECL? SC: What we have heard in meetings with the larger financial institutions is that they’re ready. We’re seeing them make public disclosure in their SEC filings about the impact of the standard. We’ve talked to them extensively about some of how they’ve accomplished implementation. After the effective date comes, we will also have conversations with them about what went well, what didn’t go well and what needs clarification, in an effort to help the smaller financial institutions with their effective date.
Succession planning is vital to a bank’s independence and continued success, but too many banks lack a realistic plan, or one at all.
Banks without a succession plan place themselves in a precarious, uncertain position. Succession plans give banks a chance to assess what skills and competencies future executives will need as banking evolves, and cultivate and identify those individuals. But many banks and their boards struggle to prepare for this pivotal moment in their growth. Succession planning for the CEO or executives was in the top three compensation challenges for respondents to Bank Director’s 2018 Compensation Survey.
The lack of planning comes even as regulators increasing treat this as an expectation. This all-important role is owned by a bank’s board, who must create, execute and update the plan. But directors may struggle with how to start a conversation with senior management, while executives may be preoccupied with running the daily operations of the bank and forget to think for the future of the bank without them. Without strong board direction and annual check-ins, miscommunications about expected retirement can occur.
Chartwell has broken down the process into seven steps that can help your bank’s board craft a succession plan that positions your institution for future growth. All you have to do is start.
Step 1: Begin Planning When it comes to planning, there is no such thing as “too early.” Take care during this time to lay down the ground work for how communication throughout the process will work, which will help everything flow smoothly. Lack of communication can lead to organizational disruption.
Step 2: The Emergency Plan A bank must be prepared if the unexpected occurs. It is essential that the board designates a person ahead of time to take over whatever position has been vacated. The emergency candidate should be prepared to take over for a 90-day period, which allows the board or management team time to institute short- and long-term plans.
Step 3: The Short-Term Plan A bank should have a designated interim successor who stays in the deserted role until it has been satisfactorily filled. This ensures the bank can operate effectively and without interruption. Often, the interim successor becomes the permanent successor.
Step 4: Identify Internal Candidates Internal candidates are often the best choice to take over an executive role at a community bank, given their understanding of the culture and the opportunity to prepare them for the role, which can smooth the transition. It is recommended that the bank develop a handful of potential internal candidates to ensure that at least one will be qualified and prepared to take over when the time comes. Boards should be aware that problems can sometimes arise from having limited options, as well as superfluous reasons for appointments, such as loyalty, that have no bearing on the ability to do the job.
Step 5: Consider External Candidates It is always prudent for boards to consider external candidates during a CEO search. While an outsider might create organization disruption, he or she brings a fresh perspective and could be a better decision to spur changes in legacy organizations.
Step 6: Put the Plan into Motion The board of directors is responsible for replacing the CEO, but replacing other executives is the CEO’s job. It is helpful to bring in a third-party advisory firm to get an objective perspective and leverage their expertise in succession and search. When the executive’s transition is planned, it can be helpful to have that person provide his or her perspective to the board. This gives the board or the CEO insight into what skills and traits they should look for. Beyond this, the outgoing executive should not be involved in the search for their successor.
Step 7: Completion Once the new executive is installed, it is vital to help him or her get situated and set up for success through a well-planned onboarding program. This is also the time to recalibrate the succession plan, because it is never too early to start planning.
They typically borrow $10 for every $1 of equity, which can amplify any missteps or oversight. Robust oversight by a board of directors, and in particular the audit and risk committees, is key to the success of any institution.
“At the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, we have consistently found a strong correlation between overall bank health and the level of director engagement,” wrote Kansas City Fed President Esther George in the agency’s governance manual, “Basics for Bank Directors.” “Generally, we have seen that the institutions that are well run and have fewer problems are under the oversight of an engaged and well-informed board of directors.”
This may sound trite, but the strongest bank boards embrace a collective sense of curiosity and cognitive diversity, according to executives and directors at Bank Director’s 2019 Bank Audit & Risk Committees Conference in Chicago.
Balancing revenue generation against risk management requires a bank’s audit and risk committees to invite skepticism, foster intelligent discussion and create a space for constructive disagreements. Institutions also need to remain abreast of emerging risks and changes that impact operations and strategy.
This is why curiosity, in particular, is so important.
“It’s critical for audit committee members to have curiosity and a critical mind,” says Sal Inserra, a partner at Crowe LLP. “You need to ask the tough questions. The worst thing is a silent audit committee meeting. It’s important to be inquisitive and have a sense of curiosity.”
Board members who are intellectually curious can provide credible challenges to management, agrees John Erickson, a director at Bank of Hawaii Corp.
Focusing on intellectual curiosity, as opposed to a set of concrete skills, can also broaden the pool of individuals that are qualified to sit on a bank’s audit and risk committees. These committees have traditionally been the domain of certified public accountants, but a significant portion of audit committee members in attendance at the conference were not CPAs.
Robert Glaser, the audit committee chair at Five Star Bank, sees that diversity of experience as an advantage for banks. He and several others say a diversity of experiences, or cognitive diversity, invites and cultivates diversity of thought. These members should be unafraid to bring their questions and perspectives to meetings.
Having non-CPAs on the audit committee of Pacific Premier Bancorp has helped the firm manage the variety of risks it faces, says Derrick Hong, chief audit executive at Pacific Premier. The audit committee chair is a CPA, but the bank has found it “very helpful” to have non-CPAs on the committee as well, he says.
Audit and risk committee members with diverse experiences can also balance the traditional perspective of the CPA-types.
“It’s important [for audit committee members] to have balance. Bean counters don’t know everything,” says Paul Ward, chief risk officer at Community Bank System, who self-identifies as a “bean counter.”
“Some of the best questions I’ve seen [from audit committee members] have come from non-CPAs,” Ward says.
However, banks interested in cultivating intellectual curiosity and cognitive diversity in their audit and risk committees still need to identify board members with an appreciation for financial statements, and the work that goes into crafting them. After all, the audit committee helps protect the financial integrity of a bank through internal controls and reporting, not just reviewing financial statements before they are released.
Executives and board chairs also say that audit and risk committee members need to be dynamic and focus on how changes inside and outside the bank can alter its risk profile. Intellectual curiosity can help banks remain focused on these changes and resist the urge to become complicit.
I’ll be the first to admit that qualities like curiosity and cognitive diversity sound cliché. But just because something sounds cliché, doesn’t mean it isn’t also true.