The Sound Management Framework

A credible solution for public institutions, municipalities, and public companies.

Vox populi, Vox Dei! The bad management of the public organizations, the repeated scandals, the colossal mess in the management of an already nightmarish Health system, the apparent conflicts of interest in financing the political parties and in awarding construction contracts by the municipalities; the disappointing performance of the Caisse de Dépôt, not to forget the investors duped by Vincent Lacroix and Earl Jones; they all contributed to a certain extent, to the desensitization of the general public to the horror and the complications of the political administrations. The coup de grâce will soon be given by our Quebecker humorists who will most certainly make all of us roar with laughter, but who will also bring their contribution to the everyday acceptance of the unthinkable. If they do it, why shouldn’t we do it too?

Others may say that the administrative slips and the corruption have long been part of the game and that they will always be present because “man is a wolf to man.” In other words, let’s prosecute those who exaggerate, the incautious ones who got crammed full and who left enough traces to be caught by the skillful sleuth of economic fraud police investigators. At this point, why don’t we teach those incautious individuals how to be cautious?

Some others will find a way to prove that the media contributed to the general hysteria. According to them, a public inquiry has no point but to sustain these wicked, bloodthirsty journalists; therefore, after losing millions of dollars in public expenditures, we will have succeeded to illustrate only part of the truth. Of course! “Cover this breast which I must not see!”

Finally, in this debate, some academics, some professional orders or other organizations oriented towards the public protection will be there, ready to explain to us that management is complex, that there is no simple solution, that skills are rare, that ethics isn’t really managerial ethics, and that management is all this, everything, and even the opposite. Excellent, everything is prepared for the following disastrous scenario.

Would it be possible to make life even more difficult for these clever sneaky managers? Can we make it harder for them?

I think that without a managerial or ethical framework, it is unacceptable to give free expression to the managers’ imagination and especially to the possibility of getting around the next constraints imposed by our legislators.

I suggest a global and universal solution consisting in the implementation of a true and integrated Sound Management and sound governance Framework characterized by ethical and legal values that won’t come into contradiction.

For instance, managers got used to taking into consideration the Transparency principle, but they keep forgetting about the principles of Continuity, Efficiency, Balance, Fairness, and of course Abnegation.

According to the Sound Management model, these six principles must coexist in homeostasis to ensure the viability of an organization and the integrity of its managers. No principle is to be put forward to the detriment of the other principles in order to justify management irregularities.

Based on the OAAQ’s Generally Accepted Sound Management Principles, the Institute of Sound Management suggests a systematic and rigorous model to ensure the organizations’ sound management. The Sound Management Framework can therefore be seen as a large integrating binder which prevents that the weakest management link once more breaks the confidence we place in professional managers.

The ISM sustains that this confidence, which is almost lost, can be rebuilt as long as managers accept, from now on, a Sound Management Framework within which the Sound Management values will be systematically integrated to their everyday actions. Their managerial skills should be subject to a framework that ensures and protects their integrity. In other words, the recent problems related to the governance and management of the public or private organizations are less related to the managers’ incompetence than to the absence of a framework which could mark out the managers’ powers by implementing the Generally Accepted Sound Management Principles. Apparently, it doesn’t help hounding managers by making a lot of a fuss.

The Sound Management model is an integrated system and, all in all, it is quite simple to introduce and apply the Sound Management principles. Proactively, the manager can wonder about each managerial action (Managerial Functions) such as: Plan, Organise, Direct, Control, and Coordinate combined with the six fundamental principles as follows: Plan and Transparency; Organise and Continuity; Direct and Abnegation, etc. These Sound Management values were collated a long time ago in a compendium of the Generally Accepted Sound Management Principles and Norms, which was published more than 17 years ago. But the perception is paradoxical. Where should we start from? Everybody preaches for virtue, but basically, what counts more are the short-term results. (See the following article: La résistance des décideurs)

The first obstacle in applying these virtuous principles is generally the lack of will to implement a systematic framework. It is in fact easier to react afterwards and implement some minimal rules of governance. No matter how serious they appear to be, are these governance rules good enough to guarantee the prevention of a future below-average performance of their organization?

Starting from the OAAQ’s principles and Sound Management model, the ISM introduces an integrated governance framework. The exhaustive and proactive method suggests 41 check points (self-diagnosis). Moreover, the implementation principles such as precaution, subsidiary, caution, and setback remind managers of their fiduciary role towards the resources and assets that were entrusted to them.

Applying the Sound Management model to a Sound Management framework could, among other things, result in a way of thinking. This kind of analysis could easily explain certain elements that may have constituted the source of the recent scandals and of the below-average performance of certain institutions and public organizations.

• Implementing managerial ethical rules to prevent and manage the conflicts of interest (Organise and Abnegation)
• Anticipating risks is not directly related to the organisation’s mission (Plan and Balance)
• Managing risks that, in time, remove all sense of responsibility to the governance (Direct and Continuity)
• Granting a way of paying managers, possibly at risk (especially the performance bonus and the potential conflict of interest) (Direct and Abnegation)
• The managers’ accountability towards the Board of Directors (Direct and Transparency)
• The need to render clear the nature of the risks to the Board’s decision makers (Direct and Transparency)

If you are interested in finding more about this, the implementation of this concept is described in my book Le cadre de Saine Gestion, un modèle de gouvernance integer, published by CCH.

Bernard Brault, F. Adm.A, Fcmc, is an expert consultant in Governance, in Managerial Ethics®, and in Sound Management. He is also the author of the following books: Exercer la saine gestion, Fondements, pratique et audit, and Le cadre de Saine Gestion, un modèle de gouvernance intégré, published by CCH.

Share this article

Comment on this article

• Reduced price on training sessions

• Reduced price on publications

• Free access to tools, guides and references

• Presence on our list of consultants

• All members benefits