Marco Teórico

The extensive social vetting and interviewing process with the Chairman revealed a focus on values and philosophy in the final stages of a NED appointment. Interviews with the Chairman were described as informal conversations, often of a very general nature and yet candidates were aware that an assessment of mutual fit around values and philosophical stances was taking place. Tami referred to her interview with the Chairman as one about her underpinning values and what she stood for as a person.

She clearly had a good experience and made a connection with the Chairman in her interview. There was little doubt in her mind she wanted to work with him.

The interview was one of the best interviews I’ve had in my life. The conversation was exploring what kind of person I was. I described it once to a friend of mine as a conversation almost at the level of basic values –

‘what do you think is important in life? ‘And I left that conversation feeling I think this company has the values of a company I would like to work for.

And I feel the Chairman exemplifies them. (Tami)

Yet Tami went on to describe the interview as rather ambiguous, unusual and not about anything specific. Her interview data suggest that she and the Chairman shared similar values and her informal non-specific conversation with him reinforced those values and their importance in her gaining access to the corporate elite.

It was a vague interview in many respects because it wasn’t very focused. I didn’t feel I was being grilled and it was pleasant. It was an unusual process. It wasn’t about the profile (NED criteria). It wasn’t about

the company. Nothing specific really just what we thought was important in life. It was more to see if there is a level of mutual interest in each other. (Tami)

Tami described the drive to do the best in whatever she did as a fundamental value she shared with individuals like the Chairman at the top of organisations. However, she acknowledged that it was not appropriate for a candidate to be pushy or overtly display their inner drive in a NED interview. She was aware that she was mingling with members of the highest echelons of business and that there was appropriate behaviour, which would reveal the underpinning values appropriately. She was aware she was working to a code or a set of rules practised by members of the corporate elite.

Everything I’ve done I’ve done to the best possible and have clear achievements. People can think, ‘she tries to do well’. I think that all these people at the top of organisations are exactly like that. They’re driven. You give the best you’ve got and I think if people see that, whether in government or elsewhere. That’s what people are looking for.

That’s what I mean by fit: it’s attitude and that’s why attitude is so important. You’ve done well, but you are not pushy about it. You have some fundamental values that over-ride everything you do. (Tami)

Later on in her interview she was self-congratulatory for not going into the process in a selling mode and taking a more exploratory and measured approach instead. She again alluded to some kind of appropriateness of expression of her values.

When I started I wasn’t into selling mode, I was really into exploring. I think that helped. Funnily enough, that may have been a key positive factor for me with the Chairman. (Tami)

A candidate needed to have been successful at the top of their field, have connections into the corporate elite and needed to express in their behaviour values that fitted with members of the corporate elite. Jane recalled her interview with the Chairman, highlighting the philosophical nature of the meeting. She emphasised the importance of humour and how both she and the Chairman connected on the values associated with it.

He struck me as the kind of individual I would sit well with. He was open and had a sense of humour. He was quietly confident. He said “you have to have a sense of humour to work with me”. Which was interesting, but actually it put me at ease. They could play hard, but they didn’t take themselves so seriously. We got a sense of each other, what we are about as people and how we treat people and situations. It’s about a whole lot of stuff in general. (Jane)

The evidence suggests that the fit between Chairman and candidate at that point in time was one of fit with deep-seated values and disposition in life. Not particularly personal, but more a fit with the Chairman as a member of the corporate elite. The Chairman’s quiet confidence, his obvious success in life and his ability to use humour, drew on values that Jane admired and connected with. However, this also suggests that Jane was aware she had a connection with a member of the corporate elite, which must have reassured her of entry through her appointment. Theresa evidenced this social vetting at a values level when she first met the Chairman nine years ago.

Unlike when you interview for executive jobs, the process is more ambiguous. There is less structure. You can meet and not be sure what you’re discussing. It was about me as a whole person and the people we knew in common. The first-time nothing came of it. I got feedback that the meeting had gone well, but nothing happened for nine years. Last October, the same contact, who’s still on the board, called me up ‘ X, who’s the Chairman, remembers meeting you nine years ago, he was impressed with you then and we’re recruiting again and he’d like to meet you’. (Theresa)

Theresa had a good interview, had good feedback and yet nothing happened for nine years. She laid her lack of success down to the breaks in her C.V. and the absence of the required amounts of human capital needed for a NED. When she returned nine years later she was appointed.

When I went back, I felt that he’d already made up his mind based on our meeting nine years ago. It was informal and I felt that he wanted to go through all the hoops to get people on board, but I felt that he’d decided.

My story stacked up. I had more experience and my MSc. Everything I had done during the last nine years just confirmed our initial impressions.

We understood each other, how we approached life and the stances we took on issues. It is how I am in the round (whole person). It’s how you see things at a bigger and deeper level (Theresa).

Theresa points out that the interview for her NED appointment with the Chairman was a formality. In her view, the Chairman had made his decision on her nine years ago and this interview was an exercise in complying with the formal corporate governance guidelines. She based her viewpoint on the premise that they had understood each other’s values and how they generally approached life. They had connected at a deeper level. The additional human capital she had accumulated in the intervening years would no doubt have been a contributory factor in her gaining the NED.

However, her connection on the board, who asked her to come for interview, and the Chairman of the board were her key contacts on both occasions. This would seem to suggest that Theresa had both the social capital and fit with the values and philosophical approach of members of the corporate elite nine years ago in her first interview. Such was the importance of her connection, about deep seated values, that it was still there nine years later and helped her secure a NED position. All NEDs evidence the ambiguous, informal and unstructured nature of the vetting process and seemed to understand cultural fit was being assessed.

Further the data reveal that this fit with the deep seated values and philosophy of members of the corporate elite was more quickly established for those candidates who were more embedded in the corporate network. Candidates who were less embedded in the networks of the corporate elite experienced a more lengthy interviewing process with the Chairman to establish this fit. These differences are reflected rather poignantly in the interview data of Sona and Alexi. Sona emphasised that the Chairman knew her as a whole person, her character and principles as a person and pointed out that this information was communicated to the Chairman more at a social than a work level.

Her interview data evidence her many connections in the corporate elite and those closely connected to the Chairman. It was in these networks that Sona was referenced and hence her overall appointment process was short. Her interviewing process with the Chairman consisted of one informal meeting.

I had worked with him at X and yes he knew me at a reasonably senior level. No, I knew Y (Chairman) as we were good friends socially and he just knew me as a person, my character and I guess my principles. Not

just in the boardroom, but more generally. There is a lot of responsibility that comes with being a NED. It’s a position in society and not everyone is cut out to be one. It’s who you are and I guess the friends you mix with.

(Sona)

Alexi, like all the other NEDs, described her conversation with the Chairman as a high level philosophical and values based conversation. She experienced the interview as a very personal and values based conversation about her perspectives on business life and relationships. Alexi was aware that her relationships and interactions with people both she and the Chairman had in common were being assessed. However, in contrast to Sona she experienced an intensive and long interview process with the Chairman.

The conversation was relaxed. We discussed how I had approached various challenges that director’s face. It was casual and wide-ranging. It was about my philosophy in life and business; my way of working and experiences with board members I’d met, or people we had in common.

We had a broad conversation about life’s experiences, so it was more personal than company focused. I felt positive about the whole process.

It’s different to exec roles. There was a lot about philosophy and values.

My conversation was probably the longest single meeting I have ever had, two and a half hours. I met with him subsequently several times for one and a half to two hours. (Alexi)

Alexi’s data suggest that the Chairman was probing for the candidate’s philosophical approach in business and life in general. The values that guided her behaviour and how these played out in her interactions with the members of the corporate elite they had in common. In the absence of an extensive network in the FTSE 100 corporate elite, Alexi experienced a lengthy interviewing process with the Chairman, which seems to suggest her fit with the Chairman, as a member of the corporate elite, was being established to a large extent in the interviews.

Jacob had similar experiences to Alexi. His interview with the Chairman was a high level philosophical discussion. However, his interviewing process was intensive and lengthy.

My first meeting was a marathon two-hour meeting on all sorts: my views on business; corporate governance; accounting practices. He didn’t grill

me. He didn’t say ‘what’s your view of FAS15’ or whatever? But he explored philosophical situations and what my approach would be. He wanted to see whether there was a commonality of view on our approach. We did meet on several occasions on similar themes. It was very ambiguous really, but comprehensive. (Jacob)

The Chairman needed to establish the candidate’s fit, not just in terms of their style and behaviour, but their philosophical stance and values underpinning their behaviour.

When this information was accessible to him in the connections both he and the candidate had in common, then the process progressed more quickly. When the Chairman could not access enough information on a candidate’s values and philosophy and their fit with members of the corporate elite, then he established fit in a lengthy interviewing process as evidenced by candidates Alexi and Jacob. The majority of the candidates experienced the latter extensive interviewing process, as many of them did not have extensive connections in the corporate elite. Further, the data reveal that candidates experienced this expression of values and philosophy most poignantly in their interviews with the Chairman in the form of a chemistry or click factor.