[Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Board update on Governance Committee Report

Wed May 16 03:54:45 UTC 2018

Le mar. 15 mai 2018 à 23:36, Noah <noah at neo.co.tz> a écrit :

>
>
> On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 10:00 PM, Chevalier du Borg <
> virtual.borg at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear N. Noah
>>
>>
> Dear Chevalier,
>
>
>> 2018-05-09 17:39 GMT+00:00 Noah <noah at neo.co.tz>:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *1. ETHICS: *
>>>
>>>
>>> We can see from incontrovertible evidence shared in the chat messages
>>> that both Chair and his Vice acted unethically engaged the CEO to privately
>>> discuss HR issues related to a member of staff that even the CEO was
>>> unaware of but yet also entertained it.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> How is chair and vice chair converstion with CEO about a something they
>> think is critical to company unethetical? I think they have right to share
>> their concerns.
>>
>
>
> I think the board has a right to share concerns about the general
> performance of the organization and would only hold the CEO accountable in
> the event that they though, the organization is not operating in a manner
> the board wished based on sets of duties (KPI) assigned to the CEO by the
> board.
>
> First of all, AfriNIC does have official methods of communications. In the
> case of the board, I assume they tend to officially communicate on AfriNIC
> matters either via their official emails or perhaps regular conference
> calls. I am not sure if whatsapp messaging is also official form of
> communication on any matter concerning AfriNIC board business.
>

That's incorrect. Not all performance communication need an official
channel. Actually the best effective ones are informal -- talk after a
meeting or even Whatsapp (especially since they live in different
countries).
The only thing wrong was that that conversation was share with other people.

> In light of this, whatever concerns directors of the board had should have
> been communicated officially to the CEO via official means.
>

This is incorrect.  HR 101: you don't go official and formal without having
tried informal.

> This way, you avoid rookie incidents similar to the ones that happened
> whereby what was private chats conversations become public.
>

I dont know about rookie. It was very very poor judgement on part of ex
chair.

>
> And If you are going to attempt to gauge the performance of a
> manager/staff, do it based on their performance which means that there has
> to be some (KPI's) in place that you can base upon to objectively measure
> such performances and in case of under-performance, make it a matter of
> concern (warning) to the particular staff member so that they can improve.
> This is certainly not individual directors of board business but the CEO
> and HR responsibility.
>

We on same point here.

> This way you avoid being subjective and personal but rather objective on
> matters of staff performance.
>

At senior level of management, performance is not just about duty and KPI.
It about behavior that anyone can see. If board observe behavior that is
disturbing, the chair have right to discuss with CEO. There is lot and lot
of background information you and me don't know.

>
> Third, one manager running two different departments is obviously
> challenging and basically sets up the manager in question up for failure
> and as such you cant claim they are under performing at the time when they
> were managing two separate departments.
>

Someone can underpeform or overperform while running 3 departments. It is
job of CEO to address that with HR. For you to judge performance, you will
need to see complete appraisal of these staff throughout their career with
the company. CEO has access of that, board might have. You and I do not.

> IMHO, when a vacancy arises in a department especially a management role,
> most organizations HR departments immediately seek to fill the vacant
> position as best practice in corporate  governance and management.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Not you or me know the full story about this.
>>
>
>
> There was a document posted on this list by some anonymous person and
> there have been a series of similar emails related to human resource
> challenges with staff turnover etc posted on this community mailing list if
> you have time to check the archives.
>

I have check. Sure they are. And it is not board who has responsibility for
HR issues. It is CEO
Those challenge alleged in the leaks are not cause by board members. That
turnover was not cause by board members.
We don't know if board try to address that issue. It might be confidential,
but if they failed there, that is failure at one of their key
responsibility.

>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> In my humble opinion, these private chats alone were further evidence of
>>> unethical behavior with all the hallmarks of work-place harassment if you
>>> consider the contents showed in those discussions;
>>>
>>> - the Directors undermined a member of staff who up to this point had
>>> been regarded as competent with unduly excessive and unfair criticism,
>>> deliberately constraining their ability to perform their duty
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Again, not you or I or anyone can determine competence of said staff base
>> on the leak. You must also know of another board member at the time who
>> report on this list that he is willing to testify to investigation and "it
>> will not be on the staff's side".
>>
>
>
> I agree, we cant determine the competence of said staff but neither can
> the directors have done the same unless of the directors are also now
> involved in day to day operations of the organization.
>

Ariana Huffington (board member of Uber) could not have determine
that Travis Kalanick (CEO) had created a toxic, sexist culture at Uber?
Any board that cannot detect a bad culture is a failed board.

>
> Who evaluates staff performance, is it the CEO/HR or the directors of the
> board?
>
> In any case, even if there was some concerns, its the entire board that is
> vested with the powers of determining the management of the organization as
> per as per section 15.1(ii) of the bylaws.
>
> That means, individual directors cant meddle in the operations of the
> organization.
>

I submit this was legitime informal performance conversation between chair,
vice and CEO on their observations. It is bad judgement on part of ex-chair
to have shared them. Such conversations go on all the time in many
companies and boards. You don't hear of them because they don't leak or are
not shared in writing.

>
> My comment is based on the reaction of the member of staff at the time of
> accessing private information questing their performance which is why in
> their letter to the board, they claimed among other things,  "moral
> harassment" and the organization not being favorable to women etc.... its a
> sensitive matter and must be handled with great care else staff will
> conclude they are being witch-hunted after all they have never been
> subjected to warnings or told they were under-performing....
>
> Just my view as an employee some where too..
>

AFRINIC HR should have the final record of all of these problemes right? So
will CEO
Everything claimed should have been investigate by independent
investigator. They just gave their report stating no wrong doing on part of
board (except the obvious for which M. Folayan has resigned).

I am for release of redacted report where all parts relate to internal
function of company be kept private.

>>> *2. HARRASSMENT:*
>>>
>>> Let me also point out to this community and the board, what I believe
>>> would be additional forms of harassment both ethically and morally.
>>> - Insulting someone
>>> - Unfair treatment based on gender or language
>>> - Other misuses of power or position
>>>
>>> Again, from the document that found itself on the mailing list, it was
>>> pretty obvious to all of us that  inappropriate language was used by a
>>> member of staff and from your communication
>>>
>>
>>
>> That should be responsiblility of HR and ultimely CEO no?
>>
>
>
> Certainly and measure must be put in place to contain work-place
> harassment of any form and those who harass other must be disciplined
> accordingly.
>
>
>
>> If you want make this an issue, then you must also call for their
>> resignation for not handle this internal staff harrassement leading to it
>> being escalate to board and now in this court of public opinion (without
>> all the facts)
>>
>
>
> The board is objectively empowered as per sections 15.1(ii)  to deal with
> all management and affairs of the organization.
>
>
>
>>
>> While I have no problem with board related parts of report being disclose
>> her, all parts about staff must remain confidential and internal to AFRINIC.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I therefore call upon the board and management to sort out the looming
>>> human resource challenge facing AfriNIC today.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Wait!!!! will that not be interfering? Is that not job of CEO and HR?
>>
>
>
>
> Not necessarily, the board is objectively empowered as per sections
> 15.1(ii)  to deal with all management and affairs of the organization.They
> will put the CEO to task as a board.
>

I am happy we agree on this issue.
And that intervention is usually informal → informal → informal (( things
don't change or crises)) → formal

-- 
Borg le Chevalier
___________________________________
"Common sense is what tells us the world is flat"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20180516/ce62ab9f/attachment.html>