We audit the finances. Why not executive behavior?
Kathleen Saxton’s piece in the Guardian last week makes a sharp point.
Companies have audit committees, risk registers and external auditors, because “financial integrity is never entrusted to goodwill.”
But when an executive is the problem, it gets called a “leadership style” and handed to HR.
She proposes “behavioral governance.” Boards could:
*Independently test whether people can safely disagree with senior leaders
*Look for patterns in staff departures instead of treating each exit as a one-off
*Connect complaints, settlements and NDAs so organizational memory doesn’t reset with every departure
*Review new leaders at 3, 6 and 12 months, after the interview charm wears off.
*Keep all of it independent of the hierarchy it’s meant to check
I’d add two more:
1. Keep a running record of misconduct complaints for each leader, especially the inconclusive ones. One “unsubstantiated” complaint proves little. Five of them against the same person over three years tell a story. Toxic leaders are rarely caught on a single case, so if each complaint is closed and forgotten, the pattern never comes to light.
2. Check whether promotions are being shaped by visa applications. Promoting someone to meet a job-title or salary threshold for their sponsorship, ahead of better-qualified colleagues, is discrimination against the people passed over. It’s also hard to see from the inside. Boards can compare promotion timing and criteria against sponsorship milestones, and ask for every promotion to be defensible on merit alone, whoever gets it.
As Saxton writes: “If we insist on independent governance for finance, why do we accept its absence for people?”