Nautical Chart Adequacy Evaluation Using Publicly-Available Data

The International Hydrographic Office (IHO) C-55 publication communicates the need to improve the collection, quality and availability of hydrographic data world-wide, while also monitoring and rectifying possible deficiencies and shortcomings that are presented on the chart. This task of evaluating the adequacy of nautical chart products poses a challenge to many national hydrographic offices. This stems from the dearth of readily available spatial information: namely, the lack of reliable and accessible vessel traffic data, and little means to assess the changing nature of both near-shore bathymetry and shoreline in a simple and reliable manner. In this paper, we present the potential use of automatic-identification system (AIS) data, satellite-derived bathymetry (SDB), and airborne-lidar bathymetry (ALB) to provide an operational procedure for evaluating the adequacy and completeness of information of NOAA charts. Preliminary results from three U.S. study sites are presented in this paper: Nantucket Sound, MA; Barnegat Bay Inlet, NJ; and Barataria Bay, LA. Based on the publically-available datasets it was possible to identify changes in the charts and develop a reconnaissance procedure to monitor these changes on a yearly basis

Companies face special challenges when employee departures pick up speed

Firms need to track turnover volatility as much as turnover rates, write Matthew Call, Anthony Nyberg and Rob Ployhar

Virtual Board Meetings: Reverberations Resulting from COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has driven boards to meeting virtually. Consequently, to better understand the challenges of virtual board meetings, we conducted semi-structured interviews with eight board members. These directors had an average of 14 years of board experience while serving on 27 boards of large, publicly traded, multinational organizations. The directors offered highly consistent responses. Interviews were supplemented with a survey administered to 22 directors that provided support for the core themes identified in the interviews

The Impact of the 2020 Crises on Executive and Board Dynamics: Results of the 2021 HR@Moore Survey of CHROs

As part of the 2021 HR@Moore Survey of Chief Human Resource Officers (CHROs) we sought to identify how the COVID pandemic impacted CEO Succession Processes, Board member relationships, and aspects of the Executive Leadership Team (ELT). We compared our results on the same measures from 2019 (pre-pandemic/racial justice crises), 2020 (midst of the pandemic/racial justice crises) and 2021 (post crises). The results from both direct questions about the impact of COVID on CEO succession and measures of the effectiveness of the processes over time suggest that the pandemic had little effect on CEO succession processes, other than causing firms to expand their view of the competencies that make for effective leaders. Regarding group cohesiveness, the results showed that the crises brought boards together to exhibit more cohesiveness and this cohesiveness has persisted. ELTs, on the other hand, saw a decline in cohesiveness during the year of the crises, but this rebounded to pre-crisis levels the following year. Finally, while most organizations committed to building more diversity in their organizations in response to the racial justice protests, only minor progress can be seen among most organizations as minority representation among ELTs only increased to 19% in 2021 from 17% in 2019. The year 2020 saw a series of crises that rocked the business world. In mid-March the World Health Organization (WHO) declared that COVID-19 was a global pandemic. A few months later, the killing of George Floyd sparked a series of social justice protests aimed at racial inequities across the globe. Boards, CEOs and members of the Executive Leadership Team (ELT) had to navigate these profound and lasting crises. The current report examines how these crises impacted organizations’ CEO succession processes, the way that boards work together, the way ELTs work together, and the diversity of ELTs. We take this on through both examining specific questions that were part of the 2021 survey that asked respondents about the ways in which the pandemic impacted their CEO succession processes, and by comparing to conditions pre- and post-the onset of the pandemic. In addition, because the HR@Moore Survey of Chief Human Resource Officers (CHROs) has been conducted over multiple years and we have assessed certain facets of the board and ELT, we are able to compare the 2019 (pre-pandemic), 2020 (mid-pandemic) and 2021 (latepandemic) results to capture changes in these aspects

Organizational Responses to Say-on-Pay Votes: Results of the 2021 HR@Moore Survey of CHROs

Since the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010, US publicly traded companies subject to proxy rules must allow shareholders to submit an advisory vote on the compensation of their most highly compensated executives at least every three years (known as Say-on-Pay votes), and on how often shareholders would like to be presented with Say-on-Pay votes. Given the potential interplay between executive compensation and succession planning, as illustrated in recent Center for Executive Succession research that shows executive compensation and executive succession decisions appear to be related when it comes to the selection of internal CEO appointments, we sought to better understand how firms develop executive compensation plans and respond to sayon-pay votes. Respondents first indicated that boards sometimes consider succession plans when setting executive compensation. Additionally, executive compensation incentives are rarely tied to succession planning metrics, though this is unlikely to be a problem. In the end, however, results suggest that some boards do co-manage executive compensation and succession planning. Results also indicated that board members are perceived to be concerned with the potential for negative say-on-pay votes or negative recommendations from proxy advisory firms. This is concerning as it potentially suggests that executive compensation decisions are being driven more by the considerations of outside agencies rather than internal concerns regarding talent management or company strategy. We then sought to understand what might raise concerns regarding say-on-pay voting thresholds and how companies would likely respond to negative say-on-pay votes. Respondents most often noted that say-on-pay approval of less than 80% would be concerning, though the threshold distribution was widely dispersed. If this threshold were to be crossed, respondents indicated that changes in executive incentives would be most likely (27 instances), followed by reviews of the compensation program (19 instances), shareholder outreach (16 mentions), and compensation consultant changes (7 instances). 4 HR@MOORE The passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in 2010 requires US publicly traded companies subject to proxy reporting rules to submit to shareholder advisory votes regarding the compensation of the company’s Named Executive Officers at least once every three years. These votes have subsequently been termed say-on-pay. The rise in say-on-pay, as well as growth in general shareholder activism, have also given rise to proxy advisory firms who provide data analysis, insights, and recommendations to investors regarding company policies, such as the appropriateness of executive compensation. Recent research from the Center for Executive Succession illustrates the interplay between executive compensation and executive succession planning. This research shows that when the pay disparity between the CEO and the company’s second highest paid executive officer was lower, companies were more likely to promote an inside executive to be the next CEO. Furthermore, this research found that when an inside executive was chosen, the second highest paid executive was more likely to be named CEO when the pay gap between the second highest paid executive and third highest paid executive was greater. These findings were in line with proxy advisory firms’ belief that larger pay gaps between the CEO and other executives are evidence of ineffective succession planning and an increased likelihood of having to hire the next CEO from outside the firm. They also provide an indication that executive compensation and succession planning decisions may go hand in hand in meaningful fashion, increasing the importance of managing the efforts jointly. Given the central importance of executive compensation overall, its apparent linkages to effective executive succession planning, and the growing role and power of proxy advisory firms, the 2021 HR@Moore Survey of Chief Human Resource Officers (CHROs) sought to explore issues related to say-on-pay votes and executive compensation and succession. We surveyed approximately 375 CHROs and 105 of them completed these questions for a 28% response rate

The Impact of the COVID-19 Crisis on Executive Succession: Results of the 2020 HR@Moore Survey of Chief HR Officers

The COVID crisis impacted just about every aspect of how firms do business. We have explored through Zoom meetings and a survey of Chief HR Officers how the crisis has impacted a variety of components of executive succession. We find that the crisis caused many firms to develop business continuity plans separate from their ongoing and emergency succession plans. Going through this process may encourage firms to look more broadly and deeply into the people and roles in their ongoing succession processes. The crisis also revealed more positive than negative characteristics in their leaders. CHROs noted that the crisis has increased the use of virtual technologies for both initial interviews of ELT candidate, and for the entire hiring process, and the vast majority suggested that the use of technology throughout the hiring process will continue to see substantial increases after the crisis ends. Finally, the crisis required board meetings to be held virtually. While CHROs do not expect this to be predominant in the future, they did indicate that approximately one quarter of board meetings will be held virtually after the crisis has passed. We discuss the implications of these findings

ESG Trends: Results of the 2022 HR@Moore Survey of CHROs

There has been incredible momentum in recent years for the expectation that major companies should be attentive to and deliver results on Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) issues. For their part, companies and their executive leadership teams (ELTs) seem responsive to these expectations, developing ESG strategies and devoting resources to making progress in these areas. Perhaps the most notable commitment along these lines came in 2019, when the Business Roundtable (BRT) issued a statement to “redefine the purpose of a corporation” to focus on all stakeholders rather than be predominantly centered on shareholders. Much of the conversation around corporations in the years since, through the pandemic, George Floyd’s murder, growing climate concerns, and more, has only accelerated the focus on ESG. Given these developments, we asked CHROs a series of ESG-related questions intended to gather insight into how their ELTs’ time and attention devoted to stakeholder issues is changing and on what activities they are spending that time. The majority of CHROs report an increase in their ELT’s time devoted to non-shareholder stakeholders in recent years, exemplifying the principles of the BRT statement. In other words, the CHROs we heard from broadly feel, on average, as though the BRT statement is a reality in their ELTs and at their companies. Our respondents also report a substantial variety of initiatives their ELTs are currently engaged in for each of the environmental, social, and governance domains. Perhaps unsurprisingly, emissions reduction and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) dominated the responses in the environmental and social categories, respectively, with over 80% of CHROs citing their company’s efforts in these areas. But underneath those headliners was an assortment of initiatives on a wide range of ESG issues that ELTs are committed to making a positive impact. An interesting pattern of relationships emerged between these initiatives and the CHROs’ ratings of their company’s environmental, social, and employee-focused performance relative to their closest competitors. The category of environmental initiatives that was most strongly related to environmental performance was those seeking to address grand societal challenges, whereas those focused on internal capabilities and waste reduction were actually negatively related. These relationships suggest that CHROs of companies thinking (and acting) more broadly in their environmental initiatives are more optimistic about their company’s environmental impact. 4 HR@MOORE | sc.edu/moore/ces The relationships in the social domain were even more striking. Employee focused initiatives (e.g., DEI, employee engagement, safety) were only weakly related to CHRO ratings of the company’s performance in “attracting and retaining key employees” but were all negatively related to the ratings of social performance. In contrast, externally focused initiatives (e.g., community engagement, racial justice, community workforce development) were far more strongly related to CHRO ratings of company social performance and the company’s ability to attract and retain employees. These findings suggest there may be more “win-wins” created through social initiatives that seek to make an impact outside the company compared to those that are strictly focused on supporting employees. For this report, and as part of the 2022 HR@Moore Survey of Chief Human Resource Officers, we gathered information about the time and attention ELTs are paying towards ESG issues and the specific ESG initiatives occupying their time. We received responses on these items from 107 CHROs. We also asked CHROs for assessments of their company’s performance along a variety of dimensions relevant to ESG to provide further analysis on the connection between ESG initiatives and company impact

Managing High Potentials and Executives: Results of the 2022 HR@Moore Survey of Chief Human Resource Officers

Part of the 2022 HR@Moore Survey of Chief Human Resource Ofcers focused on the management of three pools of talent: high potentials, executives, and potential CEO successors. In terms of identifying high potentials, CHROs reported that the most important aspect is ensuring a diverse pool of talent. They also noted that providing access to senior executives serves as the most efective development tool for high potentials. CHROs also noted the importance of tracking retention of high potentials. In terms of executives, the survey asked a number of questions to understand turnover issues among executive-level talent. CHROs expressed a high priority for identifying and having conversations with those they suspect to be at risk of leaving. They also engage in developing individual-level and company-level action plans to reduce turnover. In contrast to popular narratives about the great resignation, CHROs report that they have not seen increases in executive turnover, turnover due to burnout, and turnover among diverse talent. The biggest factors that CHROs are using to mitigate executive turnover include compensation, development programs, visibility with senior executives, and transparent career planning discussions. The survey also explored current assessment techniques used to evaluate both insider and outsider potential CEO successor candidates. In terms of insiders, they noted the most frequent use of 360-degree appraisals, performance histories/reviews, and engagement surveys. CHROs shared that a combination of these factors was the most efective mechanism, and that 360-degree appraisals was the most frequently mentioned specifc technique. To assess outsiders, behavioral interviews and reference checks are the most frequently used and the most efective techniques. Finally, in one of the more interesting fndings CHROs noted 4 themes in how CEO candidate assessment has changed over the previous 5 years. They use broader criteria (e.g., resilience and temperament), more formal processes (as opposed to subjective reactions to presentations and dinner), more quantitative and data-driven approaches (such as 360s and personality assessments), and greater use of third parties. The COVID-19 pandemic severely disrupted organizational processes. The movement to a predominantly virtual environment during the crisis caused companies to question common practices that were assumed to be the best way to approach high potential talent, executive talent and even potential CEO successors