John Maltby - Chairing: getting the role, performing, and hiring your successor

🎙️ You can listen to the full podcast interview with John Maltby on Apple Podcasts, Spotify and YouTube.

John Maltby is Chair of Allica Bank, Max Nicholas Renewables, and The West Brom Building Society and NED at Nordea. Listen to his conversation with Nurole CEO Oliver Cummings to hear his responses to:

• Can you talk through your transition from CEO to Chair? (2:07)
• What bad Chair experiences did you learn from? (4:47)
• What did you do to prepare for the role? (8:54)
• Do Chairs need prior experience in their firm’s sector? (11:13) 
• Why should firms not go for Chairs who have done exactly what they’re looking for before? (14:11)
• What are the essential things organisations need to look for when hiring Chairs? (16:21)
• How can you stand out as a Chair candidate? (18:54)
• Do you have a framework for assessing Chairs? (21:21)
• How do you think about board tenure? (25:10)
• How do you think about risk? (28:50) And
• ⚡The Lightning Round ⚡(35:48) 

** This manuscript has been generated by AI and contains inaccuracies**

Oliver Cummings: [00:00:00] Hello, and welcome to another episode of enter the boardroom with Neuro, the business podcast that brings the boardroom to you. I'm your host Oliver Cummings, CEO of Neuroll, the board search specialist and market leader bringing science to the art of board hiring. Before we get into the interview, I want to let you know about the Neuroll board community.

One of my favorite elements is the Neuroll mastermind. A safe haven for board members to discuss challenges and opportunities with peers. As an observer, I've been struck by how valuable it is to just listen to these discussions, which often make me more aware of my own blind spots as a board member. It was this realisation that catalyzed the launch of the New Role Board Community Discussion Forum, where members can seek advice and share experiences on pressing challenges and opportunities openly or anonymously.

I always loved the idea of being able to tap into the hive mind of the Neuroball community and get its best thinking of tapping into its network to open stubbornly closed doors. Well, now you can. Recent popular discussions [00:01:00] include how to reconcile CEO board differences about a chair candidate. How do I manage conflicts of interest as I go plural?

What can I do to get our new CEO up and running as quickly as possible? And how to be a good investor director. If you want to know what's top of mind for your board colleagues. Or get help with a challenge you're wrestling with. Or open a door for you or one of your boards at the click of a button. You can try The Community for free for 30 days.

As well as discussion threads, you'll benefit from smart online networking, one to one career guidance with our headhunters, third party board roles, mastermind groups, and Q& As with senior board members. Head to community. neurol. com to find out more. Today's guest, John Maltby, is chair of Alica Bank, a digital bank, Max Nicholas Renewables, a renewable energy technology firm, and the West Brom, a building society.

Alongside his chair positions, John is also a non executive director at Nordea, a leading Nordic universal bank. He's previously sat on the boards of over half a dozen technology firms and financial institutions, ranging from [00:02:00] incumbents like Bank of Ireland to challengers like Bluestep. John, a huge welcome and thank you so much for joining us today.

Good afternoon, Ollie. John, one of the most common topics that comes up amongst the participants in New Role's Board Community Mastermind Groups, where we bring together peers to learn and network through these curated online discussions of challenges or opportunities, is how to prepare to become a chair.

And so I want to start by asking you if you can just talk us through the critical moments of your CEO to chair transition. It was a 

John Maltby: bit of a surprise for me. I was still an executive at the time and it was for an organization called Good Energy, which are a name listed renewable energy company. They were looking for somebody that had listed company experience.

I've been a chief executive of a listed company. They were looking for somebody that had a real passion for sustainability. I was at the time, the Lloyds executive champion on sustainability. And they were looking for somebody that. Could the, uh, coach for the chief executive, Juliet, who is absolutely brilliant and she is the founder of the [00:03:00] company and is a real leading light in renewable energy.

And they were looking actually to raise finance as well. So they wanted somebody with a banking background. And actually when you want those combinations together, I was in the fortunate position is there weren't many people. That were there and it happened to fit in with the time of my executive career, where I suppose I'd transitioned to being what I would describe as an executive chair type CEO, rather than an Uber MD type of CEO.

And I had as part of my role in Lloyds, we'd created a very strong executive team, and I was really pleased that four of them have subsequently gone on to be chief executives in their own right. And so I was at that stage of my career where I've had the ambition to do it. So it was right for me is the point that I'm making.

How did I prepare for it? I thought through good and bad chairs that I've had in my career as an executive. And if I'm honest, there were more bad than good. And I thought I want to be the chair that I never had as an executive. And by that, I meant actually. I wanted to be the chair that Juliette could call on to help.

She was new to dealing with public investors. She was new to building and growing a team. And I wanted to be that [00:04:00] coach to some degree. We needed to create a proper governance for the organization. And so I thought quite a lot about that. I talked a lot with Juliette and the existing board. I spoke to quite a lot of other chairs.

And I went into that with a view about, okay, this is my first chair role. I've got a lot to learn. This is a new industry for me. I've got a lot to learn, but there's some things that I can bring and hopefully help as well. And in the, I suppose for the first many years, actually, and I, it still goes on. If I'm honest, I constantly wanted to, Learn and develop and grow and get feedback and how could I be better?

And so I think it was quite a lot of thinking, quite a lot of discussion, but a clear view about the type of chair that I wanted to be based upon some really good models of people that I admired for that. And frankly, some people that I thought, no, I'm not going to be like that. I 

Oliver Cummings: love that. It actually brings together a few things that I've been mulling on recently.

It was a nice podcast from Adam Grant, who was talking about how the early failures of his career that he thought at the time were disasters have actually helped him [00:05:00] become what he is today. And funnily enough, a. session we had recently on becoming a chair with a panel where the panelists all talked about the bad chairs and how important they were.

Roger Parry, our previous podcast guest, talking about being an apprentice, you have to hope that you have good chairs to learn from as you learn a lot from those bad experiences. So I'm fascinated to hear, can you categorize what those bad experiences were? 

John Maltby: I think the expectations and the requirements on a chair have changed in the last 10 years.

The bad experiences I would describe as when the chair, it was all about them, and they didn't want issues to be brought to them. They wanted solutions that they wanted to rubber stamp. They didn't see the chief executive as the executive, as, you know, As effectively, I suppose, people and humans and so on, but actually things that, that, that could be targeted or bullied or whatever coming to the board was a very intimidating environment for anybody.

And, and me before I was, if you'd like me on the executive committee, I used to present at boards as many people during their [00:06:00] executive career. And I remember thinking, actually, this is not a great experience. I'm not encouraged to perform at my best. I'm being. Tested or I'm being, people are trying to find me out and all those behaviors I would describe.

And, and for me, fundamentally, I think the bad chairs are the ones that think it's about them. And the good chairs are the ones that recognize the role of the chair is to help the executive be a success. And fundamentally in that way, that's where the company is going to be a success and meet all the needs of the stakeholders.

And I think it's as simple as that. And the other aspect I've seen is where. People that I've known as executives that have become chairs and tried to be somebody that they're not. There's a role model, which means that they're, I know they're more formal or they're, they try to be the spokesperson where it's not natural.

And so I think you need to be self aware. You need to know what your strengths, how they compliment everybody else and play to those. But fundamentally it comes down to recognition of what your role is. 

Oliver Cummings: It's really interesting. That echoes a lot of what was on That becoming a chair panel sounds like mindset is really important, that idea that [00:07:00] you're there in service of the executive to some extent.

John Maltby: Absolutely, in service of the organization, in service of the executive, in service of the stakeholders. They're not, not the other way around. And I think that's one of the things that's changed. 

Oliver Cummings: And also they bring out of this concept of authenticity, that you're human. Approachable 

John Maltby: yeah and the other people you're dealing with a human as well and it's an obvious thing to say but I think it is important and the other thing I would say is the chair is the next stage of your career is not the end of your career you've not learned everything you're ever going to learn in fact it's a fantastic opportunity to continue learning and the chair should continue to learn the board should continue to learn the organization should continue to learn and I think if you take That's approach.

Then I think it becomes a very positive experience for everybody. And you're able to recognize that you've, you as a chair, haven't got all the answers. You're not, you shouldn't expect it to have all the answers. You've got colleagues around the table. You've got advisors that you bring in. Your role is to ensure that you have the right debate.

You get the right information. [00:08:00] She make the. The best decisions that you can, not that you make all the decisions. I'm really excited that for me, this sort of style of chair is what I'm seeing more and more. But I think 10 years ago, I think it was probably rarer. And I think it is the style that, that is probably going to lead to more sustainable organizations.

Now, there's a reason why football managers in the premiership only last three years is because they're, they're judged almost over that. Period. And the expectations are there. They, I mean, they extended the analogy in the wrong way. They can't, then they're not able to move the goalposts. Things change.

COVID, wars, and various other things. As a chair and a board, you need to also be mindful of yes, what you've said before, but also how you evolve and develop as an organization and how you manage that. And i think you only do that if you're learning organization if you're learning and you're open and you have those discussions and those debates 

Oliver Cummings: i feel like i have observed that through our mastermind groups where it's been very clear amongst the chair [00:09:00] population there are some who have what carol dweck would call a fixed mindset where you approach me about the idea of participating in a mastermind group and learning from their peers not why would i do that i know everything i'm here for others to learn from me and then you have the other group which is it sounds like you fall very much into that category which is Constant marginal gains, marginal improvements.

I can learn from anyone and sort of the race seizing on whether it's people with less experience or from a different background or different experience, what else did you do to prepare? So it sounds like you had this reference. points of, of good and bad chairs. Was there anything else you did to prepare yourself for that first role?

John Maltby: It's a 

Oliver Cummings: different industry 

John Maltby: when it's a different industry. So energy, I've not worked in energy before. In fact, you know, my non executive career has been more varied actually than my executive career. I've worked in insurance. I've worked in not for profit. I've worked in healthcare as well as energy and so on.

I think I tried to. Find out a bit about what the issues were and where there was commonality and where there wasn't. Now, what were the [00:10:00] things that were, I thought were transferable. So in, in financial services, understand about regulation, you understand about risk management, you understand about balance sheets and how you make money and how you lose money and so on, and those felt transferable.

But what were the things I didn't understand? What were the, and not that I was ever going to be an expert, Juliet was the expert, but I did speak to some people from that industry, part of my due diligence, because I think due diligence is a two way thing that you need to understand the organization and the industry going in, but you also need to understand that you think if you're honest with yourself and you're self aware that you can add value.

So for example, I've been approached for working in retail. Now you might say retail financial services, retail, very similar. Uh, I don't think they are. Retail is about this quarter sales versus next, last quarter sales. It's about that sort of side of things rather than building a portfolio of relationships and earning income over those relationships over time.

And energy in some ways, there were some similarities there. So I did spend some time talking to some other people that I know in the industry, [00:11:00] energy industry. I did some reading around and understood what the issues were. I also use the interview process to get an appreciation of how I could apply my experience to that situation, but also what I didn't know and what I would be looking to learn.

Oliver Cummings: The received wisdom typically is that you want a chair who understands. My experience is that can go badly the other way. If you have someone who thinks they understand the sector and doesn't have the ability to adapt and understand that this situation is different and unique, you clearly fall into the category of thinking actually, no, you can get your head round.

What do you think organizations who are hellbent on finding someone from the sector are missing? Perceived wisdom isn't always 

John Maltby: the right wisdom, I suppose is the point. And I think you need that deep sector expertise around the board table, but it doesn't have to be in the chair. And in some days, if it's not in the chair, it gives you that independence of view, independence of sight, the ability to look at things, not necessarily take all the assumptions that have led to the position in that industry for granted.

I'll give you a, for [00:12:00] instance, I worked You know, Actively Health, which is a health insurance organization. I was the chair of risk there, but they're like many insurance organizations. Actuaries play a really important part in their role in understanding risks and pricing and so on. And I didn't understand that, but actually what happened, and there's lots of very technical things in insurance companies about how they determine prices and how they determine capital.

And there's this thing called an also, which is, which was treated as a black box, it was a black box and only the people that understood it were the actuaries. So there's a black box and the board was given the outputs of this black box. And that was really important. You have to pay homage to this black box.

I didn't really think that was the right thing. And I said, look, I'd like to understand this. And of course the first reaction was, Oh, you couldn't possibly understand it, John. And I said, maybe not, but give me a go. And yeah, there were bits of it I didn't understand, but what I did understand, and I think I was able to ask this question because I wasn't from the industry.

I understood what the outputs were and I understood what the inputs were and what the assumptions and how those inputs. So for example, It was up an insurance [00:13:00] organization. So the level of claims, it was the history of the person. It was the assumptions you made about things that happened in external factors, healthcare, weather, whatever it might be, those are the inputs, but those inputs were the business drivers.

And that was what was really important. So we then had the conversation around the board table to say, we need to agree what the inputs and the assumptions are that goes into this black box so that we can understand what the impact of the outputs are. And yes, all the actresses do all their black magic stuff, but we are in control of the drivers of the business.

And I think that me coming in, I didn't feel embarrassed that I didn't know, but I felt that it was important that I understood and then the board understood those drivers. And so I think in some cases that it gives you. The opportunity to ask those questions, to understand it, to boil it down into business principles, business drivers.

So I think that's one point. I think being a chair as well, you're the conductor of an orchestra. You're not the lead violinist, but you need to know how to use the lead violinist and how to bring everything together to achieve [00:14:00] the outcome and how to bring together the personalities that are in an orchestra, in a board.

And that you need to be passionate about The industry, the sector, 

Oliver Cummings: it reminds me of the Albert Einstein quote. If you can't explain something simply, you haven't understood it. And actually having a chair from outside the industry really puts the pressure on the organization to do exactly that, to have really understood this stuff so that they can explain it to someone who hasn't understood.

Cause I mean, I suppose it's something we regularly see organizations who, you know, we'll, we'll put a chair roll up on the platform and. They will say, these are the challenges we're looking to solve X, Y, Z. And we encourage them to focus on the problems rather than their interpretation of the solution.

And what you'll often see then is a range of different people put themselves forward who will solve that challenge in different ways. But my observation is organizations as a sort of bias towards de risking it. They see someone who's done it before, done exactly [00:15:00] what they're looking to do before. If they've got someone who's done it, why would they?

Reach out side of that. So maybe you made that sort of argument for that organization. I've 

John Maltby: seen that from, I've seen that from search firms. I've also seen that particularly from private equity firms. I have lots of people, private equity firms call up and say, Oh, we want John because he's had a success in mortgages or success in SME business, banking or whatever it is.

And. I get it, but I think that one of the biggest risks that any organization face is groupthink. And if you've got the expert in the chair role, who's going to challenge the chair? They're looking to the chair for the expertise. I don't think that is the role of the chair in my view. They need to have the expertise and have access to the expertise, but you also need to challenge the perceived wisdom.

It depends if you're a disruptor. Actually, you're challenging the perceived wisdom because that's the whole definition of a disruptor. And I've worked at quite a few disruptive organizations. Yes, you need to know how it makes money and yes, you need to know what's important, but you also need to challenge that perceived wisdom because otherwise you're not [00:16:00] creating innovation.

Otherwise you're not creating disruption. Otherwise you're not creating progress. That's why. My view is that the chair is to facilitate those conversations. And if the chair is the expert, then they start from that position. And successful organizations aren't chaired by people who are always right.

They're by people that ensure that the right decisions or otherwise you're not getting the contribution of everybody else. 

Oliver Cummings: So let's flip that on his head. Then let's say one of the investors you've worked with calls you up and says, John, we need a new chair for this company. We'd like your advice on how to think about who's going to be the right person.

For this role, what are the things, if you're saying they don't necessarily need that sector, and actually it might even be unhelpful to have had that sector experience, what are the things that you would be looking for that you think really matter? 

John Maltby: Yeah, in some circumstances it is important to have sector experience, you know, and banks are complex organizations, but if you are quite close in a bank, probably understanding how a treasury function works is important because you understand money and financing and so on.

But for me, The [00:17:00] important things in characteristics are the behaviors of the individual back to this point about what makes good chairs and bad chairs. Is this an individual who is committed to making the organization a success rather than committed to making them a success? And one wonderful thing about being, not everybody, but many people when they get to the stages is that you're liberated by Not having to earn as much money as you did as an executive because your kids maybe are off your hands and there's a different level of commitment.

That isn't always the case and I recognize that but I think that's important. So it's the motivations are about, you know, adding value, making an organization a success, doing something that matters. I would also want to know what type of executive they were if they were a first time executive or what type of other roles they'd done.

Were they the sort of person that were the In the weeds, in the guts, in the, and was that needed for this role because it was a turnaround or actually was this about actually creating a growth agenda and coaching the chief executive? In which case, what were the examples that where they've been at? Are they a learning person?

Are they coming to this basically talking about [00:18:00] all that they know rather than, you know, How can they use what they know to apply for different circumstances and being curious about the issue in this organization and how they can apply that. So I think to me, some of the softer side of skills I would be looking for.

There are some, if you're a, if you're a manufacturing organization, somebody. I did an engineering degree and that's the last time I've really used my engineering background, but clearly understanding how supply chains work and understanding some of the issues and some of the things associated with that now is important.

So I'm not saying sector isn't important. It's just how you apply that and not my expertise, but I would focus more. On the softest skills and how that compliments the chief executive, how that compliments the rest of the board, the style of the individual about how they're going to grow and learn as a person, but also more importantly, as a chair and how that's going to help the organization.

The way I've often thought about it is 

Oliver Cummings: it's a little bit like if you're, when you look at some of these Olympic athlete programs where increasingly, I think they've gone towards just raw scores. How fast can this person run the a hundred meter in? their [00:19:00] lung capacity and you find that sort of base level of athleticism and then you start applying the training on top because I think the thinking is you can't teach that bit that sort of base.

Is there an equivalent do you think for that in the Japanese because in some ways I think some of the things you're talking about are often wrongly described as soft skills, but my sense would be there would be more people who have. Some of those, or that there is a broader group of people than there are roles available.

So you still got to filter down further from there. And so someone listening to this now might say, I've got all of those things. How do I help myself stand out or be clear that I'm the right person for this role? I'll give you a, for instance, actually. And it was a 

John Maltby: sort of, it was helpful for me and quite humbling for me.

So I applied for one of several roles on the new role platform. I've not got one yet, by the way, I haven't, and I've learned from it, from each of them. And that's been really good. But I applied for one and it was a, a chair of a digital organization. And I'm very much unfocused on some of those things.

And you're absolutely right. There were lots of people that probably could have said some of the things that I talked about. One [00:20:00] of the things that New Role did, which I haven't seen from any other organization, which I was really impressed by, and actually it's really helped me, was that you, I didn't make the shortlist and okay, I did make the shortlist, it was a bit, pride was hurt a bit, but then what you did is you sent through a profile of the five people that did, and I could see.

On their profiles, what was the distinctive things? What were the things that were important and whether or not in one case, I think that they were, they'd really helped an organization that was in a dreadful situation, recover, and that come through, there was a lot of different examples. And I thought, yeah, I get it.

I really get the points. And so I think you're right. Those skills that I've described are probably a base. thing. I think you then need to load onto it. Are there experiences? Are there, is there sector knowledge or is there technical knowledge that's relevant? But it's not, to me, it's the combination of those.

And it's tough choosing people. And actually I think it's tough for choosing non execs and chairs and executives because you've got probably a wider range of people that [00:21:00] you could choose. And it's about the blend of the organization. The chair is slightly different because you need to have that facilitation and so on.

And not everybody's a natural chair. But I think that it's the blend that comes together. And so therefore, as a nomination committee, as an organization that's looking to, you've got to think through, okay, not just who's the right person, but where did that person fit? How would they work together? So it's, it is tough.

I 

Oliver Cummings: love that. I mean, Jordan, that's a wonderful example of, I would say a characteristic that is common to all the highest performing candidates we see on the platform, which is how you respond to rejection and great evidence of what we're talking about earlier, that sort of the growth mindset that, You've just demonstrated that it's been fascinating for us.

So we're doing some work at the moment with one of the sort of leading professors in the space, looking at how different people respond to rejections. And we've been testing lots of different approaches and we haven't found the solution yet, but what's been fascinating, there's research that shows everyone responds badly to rejection, but some people respond worse to it than others.

But what's been really interesting for me to see is how, when we try new [00:22:00] approaches, the average CSAT score of a sentiment. typically will stay the same, but the range will vary. So certain things will polarize people. So some people really like detailed feedback. Others just feel like it's salt in the wound.

And I, why are you telling me all this stuff? All I needed to know is that I, you were going to reject. So really interesting to hear how you think about that. I'm curious. I recently got asked by an organization how I'd think about assessing a chair. And I've been through this myself as a couple of times as a board member as well.

And I gave them, I think it was seven criteria that I would think about. So for me, it was, you start with the competence. What are the skills and experience that they'll help you with over the next couple of years, looking at that sort of collaboration, do they listen to your questions? I've had chairs who, you know, to your point earlier on transmit and it's radio rather than listening mode.

Adaptability. Do they have that humility and ability to recognize that your situation is different as an organization they haven't seen this for, and they're going to have to apply what they've learned before to a new situation. Cause I've definitely seen [00:23:00] that chair where, you know, to the person with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail syndrome.

I've seen chairs who actually just didn't care enough about. The organization and it's night and day when someone does, and I think that often goes hand in hand with a capacity question, which is a mistake. I've sometimes made a going for a big name, but she didn't really have the time to commit to an organization.

And actually, sometimes I think we would have been better off this back of my investing days, going for someone a little less well known, who was really good. It's like a first time fund manager. They Push all the boats out to make sure it's a success, whereas someone who's been there done it can sometimes be resting on their laurels and chemistry your point around.

How do you get on with them on? How do they get on with the CEO and how do they get on with the other board members? And then the final one is alignment, where sometimes seen that go wrong with various organizations where they weren't clear about what the success criteria if you got both the chair, incoming chair and the rest of the board to write down what a success look like they would have had completely different.

Success criteria. 

John Maltby: How does that resonate? I think that's a great list. [00:24:00] And I found out I'm going to use that. Oh, so thank you. I'm going to use that. I think that going for that. The only one I would add, passionate one I'm really passionate about, because I think that something is that why do something you're not passionate about?

The one that I, that wasn't on your list explicitly was diversity. Diversity of thought, diversity of background. To avoid this group thing can actually bring a different perspective. You know, the best decisions, as we know, are decisions that have been looked at from different lenses and different ways, and you're thinking about the what if and the so what, and all of those, you know, I'm very much a driver to all of the aspects of diversity that we focus on, but it isn't just how we codify it in gender and ethnicity and so on.

It is also in terms of social background, mindset, approach, all of those things. And I think that's an element of chemistry, but the risk of chemistry is you recruit people that you like and that you get on with. Sometimes it's important to have that friction or that conflict and dissent is important and that's probably the toughest thing to do in terms of recruiting when somebody's coming up with a, an alternative view and that's why you need to be a learning.

chair and you need to [00:25:00] be somebody that can reflect and think about and not think that they're, they're always right. And it's that whole, my example of the bad chairs at the beginning of status and so on. So I thought that would be the only one I had, but I think that's a great list. 

Oliver Cummings: Your board tenures have ranged from two years to well over five.

On one hand, I think board members need to be careful not to move too quickly or it can raise questions. On the other hand, it strikes me that many boards. are hampered by non executives staying too long. And the assumption is that people will complete their term rather than thinking about actually what does the organization need?

And if that changes, we'll change the personnel irrespective of where they are in their term. How have you thought about that with your roles? 

John Maltby: Yeah, I think going into any role, you go into the role I got into the role with two thoughts in mind. One is I'm prepared to commit to the organization for nine years if necessary, but also a view that said, Circumstances change that I, I might not be the right person or the circumstances might change.

So in my case, a couple of reasons where the shorter [00:26:00] tenure happened was because we had decided to sell the business or list the business. Actually, in this case, this was blue step. In Sweden, if we'd have IPO the business, I'd have still be Jack. And that was what we'd set it up. But we actually sold it to another private equity firm who had a Nordic chair lined up and that was fantastic and so on.

And that was great. Another circumstance, this was tandem where we acquired Harrods bank, which was a competitor of another business that I was involved with. So it was a conflict. I think circumstances change. I had good energy. I'd been there for best part of six years, but we'd come up with a strategy that was to evolve the business from being.

A supply of renewable energy and a generator of renewable energy to more of a tech organization that brought energy systems together. And we needed, frankly, a more entrepreneurial, somebody that would drive that forward. And that was why I'd recruited somebody as my successor. But what we also created was that my successor, Will, um, hadn't got maybe as much experience with me in terms of the listed company and so on.

[00:27:00] So we made sure that there were people on the board that had that. But Will was the right person to take over from me because we were evolving the business, but we need to also, in the same way that the technical expertise had been complimented for me, I wasn't a renewable engineer expert, the same thing we needed to add that.

So I think board succession and board composition, I think are really, and thinking forward and thinking not just one step forward, but two steps forward and making sure that you're preparing. And as a result of that, you end up with 10 years, which, which are What's right for the company and what's right for the business, not always what's right for you.

And that's fine. And the wonder, the wonderful thing about having a portfolio career is you're passionate about everything that you do, but you're not so dependent on one thing that people shouldn't hang on because if it's not right for you or you're not right for them, then you should recognize that, but plan ahead and do things in a planned way.

So circumstances change, but you go into a role and you're expected to devote whatever time is needed up to the nine years. But also with that [00:28:00] understanding and recognition that things change. Actually on the Bluestep role, there was an expectation that I was brought in to help the previous owner get the organization ready and fit for the next stage of it.

And it happened to be either an IPO and either continued or not. And that was understood from day one. I think there are different circumstances and I, but I agree with you that gone are the days where people thought, well, I'm sorted for the next nine years. And the other thing I think which is more difficult as a chair is when somebody gets stale and they have some brilliant involvement and brilliant expertise or they've gone native or they're less independent or lots of different reasons and that happens and that's where it's tough conversations to have that but it's important conversations to have that's part of the role of the nomination committee that's part of the role of the chair if it's the chair is typically the role of the seat and there's lots of ways in which governance structures help inform that but they've got to be used.

Oliver Cummings: Last question. During your time as Nordea chair, you've had to deal with allegations the bank was involved in facilitating money laundry. This happened before you joined the bank. [00:29:00] Curious to hear how this has impacted the way you think about risk. 

John Maltby: Yeah, and I think it's something that Whenever you take on a role, you do due diligence and you understand the reasons why and so on.

And actually, I love working in the Nordic. I think it's a wonderful society with a great culture. And one of the aspects of the Nordic culture is that it's very, very societal. People do things for the benefit of society rather than necessary for themselves. And that creates a culture of trust.

Unfortunately, not everybody subscribes to that. And I think that in some ways, the root causes of why was the Nordics had a particular problem with money laundering is because there probably wasn't the checks and balances. That you need, and that there was things were taken on trust. And, and so I think the first thing is to understand the reasons why it happened.

Nordea wasn't the most affected by it. And then it's to say, okay, what were the root causes of that? What were the root cause? And what are the controls that we can put in place to ensure that everyone understands why this is so important? Because money laundering gets at the heart of customers regulators confidence.[00:30:00] 

In a bank, now, if you aren't controlling that people will, we don't would question. Are you looking after our money? Are you making sure it doesn't go to the wrong causes and the wrong users and so on. So I think understanding the root causes, ensuring, and the risk committee has done this at Nordia, ensuring that the investment is made by the organization and ensuring and getting the shareholders to buy into this, to actually put the technology in place.

To test this because the other thing about what we've all people have worked with banks have seen the situation where there's been an overreaction or been, you know, these money laundering requirements. And suddenly it's so difficult to open an account because you have to go through 20 pages and 10, it has to be fit for purpose and technology is an important part in bringing that together.

And so that you can. Do all the checks, put all the controls in place, but do it in a way which is actually also a good experience for the customer. You're trying to identify the people that you are at risk of, if you like, of committing financial crime, rather than actually trying to the, [00:31:00] which is the small, very small percentage of people out there and compromising the experience of everybody else who's trying to do it the right way.

So I think that, that, To understand the root causes, make sure you make the investment and make the case for the investment, be very open about it and work with the regulator and commit to making the changes, get the right culture from the top and Nordea, I think has a fantastic culture from the top.

Frank, the chief executive and his whole executive team are very committed for Nordea being. safe and secure place being at the forefront of managing financial crime and preventing financial crime and so on. And I think that the risk committee plays a role in raising these issues, challenging the focus, ensuring that the balance of risk, and I mentioned about how the customers are treated and how You're eliminating, because you can eliminate financial crime by doing nothing by actually stopping doing everything.

That isn't the right answer. Of course, it's not the right answer. So I think those are the things that, that any board and particularly the risk committee can help ensure that those discussions and those debates and those choices are. Whether [00:32:00] it's financial crime or cyber security, though, of course, you are faced with people that are investing heavily in themselves.

And so you have to keep, you know, you have to recognize that. Are you going to prevent everything? No, a cyber attack or something like that. How do you detect that it's happened and how do you then ensure that doesn't create an impact on customers? It doesn't create an impact on the regulatory requirements and so on.

So I think those things are again about risk and understanding that and not believing that you are bomb proof or fireproof or recognizing that some of this, you need to invest to make sure that. You're doing what you can, but you're not exposed to this, but also then being very conscious that you might be exposed to this and how you're going to, how you're going to respond in that case.

And so I think with Nordea, as with many other large banks, you're in the global international payments world. So you are exposed to this. You learn from if you've had a problem and you ensure that it doesn't happen again, but you also ensure that you are constantly investing on doing this, [00:33:00] but keeping those risks in balance.

Oliver Cummings: Reminds me of another of our podcast guests, Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6, who was on the board of AIG and shared his experience of having received the perfect set of financials eight weeks before the thing went under, and talking to him about his of reflections on that. One of the things was he said, just be wary of organizations with too many capillaries.

And if I think back to my own experience, I started my career in, inside a bank, in the private equity arm of a global bank. And I barely probably really understood what was going on in just the private equity arm outside of Europe. I mean, what was happening in the US and Asia, let alone all the other products.

So really interested to, how do you sleep at night when you do have so many capillaries, so much complexity given the liability. And responsibility you carry as a board member. 

John Maltby: I think you, you engage with those capillaries. I think, no, so I'll use the, I chair the audit committee for Nordea and we have subsidiaries and you're quite right, but it [00:34:00] was one of those subsidiaries.

Some of the problems happen. What we have done is the, we've invested the time. There are committee members of the audit committees of those organizations. So I've spent the time with them talking about what Our objectives as the group are our controls and things like that, and actually ensuring that they feel confident that they can discharge their responsibilities as an independent member of a non executive board, even though, if you like, they're quite a long way away.

And so that there's not this Nordea as a group telling us to do things. So we've got to do that. They understand why it's important for them and that we're also rolling out the same training that we all have on. Anti money laundering and we have on financial crime and cyber to all of those people. So effectively what we are doing is we're trying to, through this culture, through this tone from the top, through this sort of why this is important and their role is to ensure that they're part of that process rather than separate and seen as something which is hidden three layers down in the organization.[00:35:00] 

And also having a culture of flushing issues out. As I say, things happen. In big complex organizations, things happen. What causes the problems is you don't know about them. And they fester and, and they become bigger problems. And so we have a, we have an internal audit team, which is in all parts of the organization, and we've devoted more and more of the time of that internal audit team into the subsidiaries.

Where's the biggest part of the balance sheet? In the capillaries. That doesn't mean where the biggest risks are. It may be the biggest financial impact, but it's not necessarily the biggest reputational impact or the biggest other thing. So I think thinking about that and re prioritizing where you focus your antenna or your radar or, or whatever to understand that.

But to me, a lot of it is about culture, having people understand why this is important, but also having a culture that says, if you've got an issue, raise it. And so those are the things that I think you need to do. 

Oliver Cummings: John, the time has flown by, which means it's time to move on to our lightning round, where I say a statement and ask you for a quick response if you're ready.

Okay. Boardroom behaviour 

John Maltby: that irritates you most? The thing that really I don't like [00:36:00] is it's about themself. People that are selfish and people about what's in it for me. A big no. Best book every board member should read and why? Eh. I've read lots of management books. I love the first chapter, I love the executive summary book, and I love the first example, but then I get bored and I wonder why they're telling me the same thing in five different ways.

So I wouldn't encourage people to read management books. I'd encourage people to read articles or synopsis. Most significant professional insight? I would say, and this is more of a personal insight, but find a way of being yourself. I think it's so hard trying not to be or trying to be something that you're not and or not being aware of it.

And the other one, more on a professional level is as an organization, choose how you want to compete. Now I've worked in quite a few sort of disruptors and quite a few sort of challenger banks, and I've seen some of those organizations try to compete with the big boys on their terms. That's not the way you as a, as a disruptor, the insight to me is somebody said, pick and choose where you want to [00:37:00] compete, pick and choose the customers that you think you can add value to.

And therefore that you can do that. Don't try to be, you know, don't spend your time thinking about, well, what would this organization do? So that would be a couple of things. One a personal, one a professional. 

Oliver Cummings: Have you read Hamilton Helmer, Seven Powers, who was a previous guest on the podcast? I 

John Maltby: might've read the synopsis, but.

Oliver Cummings: He's brilliant. I highly recommend. Where's professional advice you ever received? 

John Maltby: I would say actually no professional advice is bad because you, I think any, having people's views and understanding it, digesting it and making a call, I think is a good thing. But. I think this piece of board behavior, but this sort of wait for the first three meetings before you say anything.

People have said that to me so many times had people say that to me when they've been advised that, and I would say, you've lost so much value you can add. You've lost so much insight. 

Oliver Cummings: You would love the podcast we did with Owen Eastwood, who Right. There's a high performance coach and he said on a high performance team, no one says it's fine to get up to speed after three, six [00:38:00] months.

No, you've gotta be going from day one. What have you changed your mind on about boards over time? I think a couple of things. One is boards 

John Maltby: are there to serve the organization, not the other way around. And the second thing is that you need to keep in balance all stakeholders. You're responsible for the sustainability of the organization over time.

And sometimes you have pressures on you, particularly in listed companies with quarterly reporting seasons where That group of stakeholders has got a very loud voice and sometimes you have to balance that against everything else. And all stakeholders, customers, colleagues, regulators, suppliers, society, I think that's really, it's tough.

It can be really tough. 

Oliver Cummings: And finally, three things our listeners should take away from this podcast if they take nothing else. 

John Maltby: Being the non executive director is Can be, should be the most fulfilling part of your career. I was in the first one. I think it's a wonderful learning experience. Choose the roles and companies that you're passionate about.

You will add more value and get more from it. And they'll get more from you if you do [00:39:00] that and be flexible and responsive. It's not about you. It's about what's needed. For the organization at the time, those would be three from me. 

Oliver Cummings: John, thank you so much for taking the time. It's been wonderful watching you both talk, but also demonstrate in the way that you talk, that sort of a growth mindset and approach that you take to being board member.

So thank you so much for sharing your wisdom with all of us. Thank you 

John Maltby: for the opportunity. 

Oliver Cummings: If you found this conversation interesting and would like to be involved in similar discussions, join the New Role board community. Community membership gives you access to 24 hour discussion threads on boardroom challenges and opportunities like those we've been discussing, smart online networking events, one to one career sessions with our headhunters, third party board roles, mastermind groups, and Q& As with senior board members.

Head to community. newrole. com to find out more.

🎙️ You can listen to the full podcast interview with John on Apple Podcasts, Spotify and YouTube.