I’ve never heard of a person in a professional setting disclaim themselves as a team player. This in spite of two general views on the definition:

1. A team player always puts the needs of the team above their own. The tactics decided on by the team will be acceptable to this viewholder even if they are not aligned. The viewholder is likely to work well in the team as potential conflict is negated.
2. A team player works well within the team. Much as in sport, the team’s goals are almost always the same as the individual’s goals. When the team requires the viewholder to prioritise the team’s objectives in conflict, the viewholder has room to disagree.  Disagreement does not mean exclusion and it may resort to consensus or compromise.
3. A team player is someone who can be counted on to do their work and not let the process or other operators down. I discount this view as you have your KPI right there and I will assume the other views above naturally include these attributes in their definitions.

THE PROBLEM
These two viewpoints may seem largely similar until conflict arises and then it resolves to a dichotomy. Regardless of the reader’s feelings on free will or group dynamics it is impossible to hold both viewpoints.

Tribal party politics experience these problems, which is where the system of ‘party whips’ is evoked. Rationality and merit then disappears as game theory dictates the opinion holders to go for the predicable option.
In organisations with a strict authoritarian culture viewpoint 1 is more prevalent although some military structures famously included consensus decision makers (boers, ANZACs)

THERE IS NO I IN TEAM
In the first viewpoint the only reward for being a team player is inclusion. Inclusion may translate to safety, benefits or status. In the second system there is some scope for self-actualisation.

PREFERENCE
It may seem the case is being made for the second viewpoint only although it should be argued that they are different options at different times. One would not encourage viewpoint 1 in school, novice manufacturing or in some forms where accelerated decision-making is required (emergency services).

ANOTHER VIEW
A viewholder may hold the belief that they can work for the team best by being outside the team. They prefer not to be involved in group dynamics which often scupper rational and meritorious decision-making and find their position on the fringes of the group. They necessarily can’t be leaders yet are specialist peers. In sport they are likely to be the specialist coaches; in politics perhaps functionaries in the civil service and in corporates they are probably consultants, internal analysts, business development managers or some project managers.

These viewholders tend to be specialists or ex-specialists and carry management and organisational skills. They prefer not to use influence or informal channels as often the weaker decisions triumph in those settings. They twin their objectives with that of the team but expect to leave when the job is complete.

When you’re next asked the glib “Are you a Team Player?” question, ask them to define their terms

From The Telegraph 19 Nov 2009: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/shares/6588959/How-to-buy-shares-with-perks.html

How to buy shares with perks

Consumers can gain benefits ranging from thousands of pounds off the price of a new home to a 30pc discount on Eurotunnel travel just for holding shares in certain companies.

Société Générale tells clients how to prepare for ‘global collapse’

Société Générale has advised clients to be ready for a possible “global economic collapse” over the next two years, mapping a strategy of defensive investments to avoid wealth destruction.

In discussion the other day we were puzzled as to why the majority of companies on the JSE do not take advantage of Schedule 23 for their regulatory communications to the market and shareholders.

For issuing companies to embark on an electronic consent program, the following benefits accrue to company and shareholder:

1. Email addresses of shareholders for direct communication
2. Mobile numbers and landline numbers if proffered
3. Reduced printing and mailing costs
4. More cash in the kitty for dividends or retained earnings
5. Saving the planet
6. Training your shareholders to come to your official website as the #1 source of fact, news and comment

There are even more reasons to clean up one’s share register, embark on an asset reunification project  (tidying up unclaimed dividends) and ALL of them do credit to your brand. How you choose to spin it, be it by planting a tree for every shareholder converted or a reporting unit in your sustainability report, is up to you.

In South Africa, where public monies are involved, its always only a matter of time before the issue becomes politicised.

<pause for effect>

It follows that employing good shareholder communication governance NOW is better than having industrial action in a few months or years, at your AGM or outside your glass doors.

Via Twitter. Link to full article

Essentially, IRIS did a survey on the financials of 1500 Indian public companies. Discrepancies appeared in over 200 of them; figure differences as opposed to accounting interpretations.

One of the outcomes of the survey was to highlight the effect that XBRL will have in bringing such problems to light, and ultimately, to bring them in line.

In more XBRL-as-Superman news,  UBMatrix has a paper on how XBRL will help track TARP spending.

Two codes of corporate governance have ruled informed public companies in the last 15 years in South Africa – the King codes.

The third code was launched in Johannesburg last week for public review – you can view it here.

Some interesting points:

• shareholders ought to approve remuneration, and an annual remuneration report needs to be published
• the audit committee to be appointed by shareholders
• a Chief Risk Officer to be mooted
• Sustainability reporting should be an ongoing process
• the majority of the board should be non-executive; the majority of that being independent.

I must observe with unjaundiced eye that South African companies, notably the blue-chips, do adhere to the King recommendations. As it is a widely used benchmark, it is expected to come across in the company’s annual report. No self-respecting company secretary could pretend not to know about King and the recommendations.

It seems some of the proposals in the draft review are to be found between what is happening in the developed world and the new South African Companies Act, also fermenting in legal and regulatory circles.

The King II Code of Corporate Governance, which  recommends good practices for listed entities in South Africa, has always been in favour of companies having non-executive representation on the boards as well as the committees of listed companies. The reasoning behind these recommendation went as follows:

• non-executives are relatively impartial
• they bring different expertise and strategic input, being seperate from the operational running of the company
• they should be in the majority on the remuneration and audit committees in order to represent shareholder interests 

PWC brought out the Non-Executive Directors Best Practices and Fees Report which was of far more pertinence in 2009 than in any other time.  Amid bailouts in developed countries and exorbitant remuneration, non-executives are either being looked to highlight problems or to shape up their own accountability.  That aside, in this country a professional non-executive director is a full-time career.

As an afterthought, why do boards get ‘remunerated’ and ‘compensated’ for their time, whilst workers get ‘wages’ or a ‘salary’?

It’s here: the mandate for XBRL to become an official filing process, alongside EDGAR, for listed companies in the US. 

The SEC announced this in a long-awaited roundtable today, 17 December 2008.  The IDEA system was launched today too. This has followed on the completion of the US GAAP taxonomies. 

Immediate impact: 
Companies that are listed in the US (even foreign-owned) will have to begin a process of filing in XBRL in addition to current EDGAR requirements. It will not replace EDGAR at first, and will have to be placed on the company website (if it has one). Mutual funds will have to do same for risk-return summaries.

This is a phased approach, beginning with companies with a worldwide float of over US$ 5 billion and a december year -end. There will be limited liability, the same as in the voluntary filing program. If you satisfy these requirements, talk to your EDGAR vendor tomorrow.

The big picture
XBRL software vendors will see some consolidation in the market; I believe an influx of developers from the consumer-centric web 2.0 world  may find that XBRL combines their aspirations of mashups and service oriented achitecture, and financial analysis apps will experience a steep innovation curve.

At the same time, SAP and other ERP vendors will escalate XBRL within their products, for internal analysis and risk management presented in visual fashions.

Foreign markets will see the world’s biggest endorsing XBRL unconditionally, and rush to complete their taxonomies.

There is likely to be too much credit given to XBRL in the early , pre-and post inauguration days: it is not a panacea, but currently it looks like the best idea going. The ultimate aim, though never stated, is 24-7 disclosure: from the General Ledger to the markets

After weeks of speculation and false starts, it became clear that this would be a political decision. The lack of oversight in Wall Street and Washington is clearly an ethical and governance issue, but it has become clear that XBRL could go a long way to allow for better analysis, rapid decisions and early warning systems. It may not be the sherriff, but it’s the sherriff’s mustang.