Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
Yes and no. Often times a person will be appointed with little to no experience in a specific industry regardless of whether it’s beneficial or not to the process. In any event the best way to neutralize any conflict of interest or independence risk would be to have a panel of 3 mediators/arbitrators so that you can have at least 1 neutral party to balance out any potential risks.
Seeing as you work or have worked in an HR role(unless I’m mistaken as I’m just going off memory) you are likely aware that there are holes for lack of a better term in the system/checks and balances which can negatively impact either side of a dispute. Also as both sides were engaged in negotiations at the time of the appointment I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that they were more focused on getting a deal done than to immediately file objections to the appointment.
|
The reason why you're saying yes/no is possibly because you're netting a few things together. I'm saying that if it's expanded, it might give more insight into why it seems a little odd and weird where maybe it naturally feels like is or isn't an issue depending on how it's viewed. I'm just saying it exists and should be addressed appropriately. I'm not trying to shoot down your comments, I'm trying to give you the tools and insight to understand it, so you can navigate it better.
Process wise, you need:
- Legal literacy
- Financial literacy
- Mediation skills
- Communication skills
- Industry expertise or ability to navigate it
- Understanding of regional/global operations and how decisions will affect those
- Canadian specific experience
- Consulting level knowledge of other similar scenarios, potentially data on similar companies/competitors and/or how to navigate it/when to copy and when to diverge
- Project management to deal with multiple groups pulling info, communicating with groups, researching
- and the list goes on...
You're also right about the panel, but often times, my understanding is that the panel is not just to address independence risks, it's also to address the issue that finding someone will all of the above skillsets is really damn hard.
I deal with HR but I am also an auditor so I deal with the legal and the segregation of duties/independence threats etc. While rushing to get a deal done, I also don't really think the concerns about conflict of interest or independence threats are as concerning as you're making it out to be. You could have a few junior or middle level staff crush this stuff out within a few hours to ensure there's no concern. You could also monitor the way they behave and cross reference it to how someone may behave or approach the situation (ie: if a competitor was in the same situation) to quickly figure out if there's a concern they aren't fighting hard enough for your side vs the other side. It's a negotiation so it's a push a pull. Neither side is supposed to have a resounding win. It's obvious something is wrong if one side just rolls over, but in a negotiation one side also has to choose where they win and where they lose for the best final option for their side (ie: compromise/come to an agreement).
You're right that there are potential holes, but you'd easily notice if those holes are actually affecting the outcome in a serious manner long before the other remaining and more complex processes are complete. It's something that everyone in the hotel "enjoying room service" could have probably gone through and sorted out many times over, because it doesn't take long to do.
Metaphorically, as key and important as conflict of interest and independence threats are, it's about as complex to address as making sure the wheels/tires on a rental car are good to go and not flat/damaged prior to driving off. Even if something wasn't immediately apparent on the walk around, you'd quickly start to notice something isn't right the moment you start driving.