>> next on "after words",

economist dan moyle offers an insider's view on how corporate boards operate. she's interviewed biblestreet

journal reporter emily glaser . afterwards is a weekly interview program with relevant guests. interviewing nonfiction authors about their latest work . >> thank you for joining us. congratulations on your book, how boards work and how they can work better in a chaotic world. you were a number of hats. you are a board director and this is not your first book. you learn a lot in your more than a decade on corporate boards across the street and in many ways this book is a playbook for how boards work, how they are evolving and how we can adapt in the future. i want to go back to when you were 39 years old when you joined your first board and your writing emerging markets and internationalissues , really setting apart from others that have come up through corporate america read how did you learn how to

be a good board member area. >> thank you so much for the opportunity to be here and talk to you about my book "how boards work: and how they can work better in a chaotic world" but also to give you insight into the challenges as well as the opportunities are not just boards of the corporations that they lead. your question is interesting i do worry sometimes that writing this kind of a book gives the impression that it was always meant to be and it was easy and straightforward the reality is i tried more than a decade to get one unsuccessful. as you write that in terms of global complex positions, my first board was indeed sat miller and the real opportunity arose in many ways rising because i not a conventional board member. as you point out i am 39,

obviously as a woman area and raised in africa but i did not come through the traditional pool candidates. what really did set me apart as you mentioned is really coming through the perspective of much more global review. i had traveled to a very 80 countries now around the world and having the perspective of develop versus develop, versus nondemocratic economies that sarah was particularly important but we , what have i learned? there are a number of key takeaways i hope are clear, clearly outlined in the. first of all by the time you're on a board, these are very complex organizations. the board of barclays where i served as a company that's been around for 360 and if

you take back and think about the historical contextof many of these corporations they've gone through words, pandemics , good times and bad but somehow managed to stay afloat. and to me i think that requires a lot of open-mindedness. good judgment in the face of complex issues in order to steady the ship and really do the job as a fiduciary but also custodian of these very importantorganizations . the listening more than speaking i think is a key take away but also really appreciating by the time something appears on the board agenda, it means it's extremely difficult and to quote president obama, if it were easy somebody else would have done it. you need to think about these issues in their sort of more. and more sort of broad perspective and not just in a sort of ideological. there's only one answer kind

of the way. >> your thoughts break down a couple of big issues. what boards are and how they operate. the risk for the future and of course a lot of the issues that are playing out now . i want to first look at one point that you made them going to read from your book. you quote the changing times that may boards more indispensable than ever. how does that change in the last year? we're in the global pandemic. i'd love to hear what this last year changed for board members. >> it's been phenomenal in many respects but it's important to put these things in context . in my book i talk about the first board being established or at least recorded in the 1600s. in many ways if you look back several centuries the fundamental mandate of the board hasn't changed much. i would say traditionally boards have had two responsibilities.

one is providing oversight on strategy and number two is hiring and in some instances firing the ceo. but really over the last half decade, even more there's been a material shift towards the need for corporations to take on a much more social and cultural responsibility. to be good citizens if you will and that obviously was really a counterforce to milton friedman's 1970 article in which he basically planted a flag in the sand essentially suggesting that the financial privacy of shareholders were really the key sort of attributes and important role that corporations play. that can be the shareholder versus stakeholder primacy. you can't talk about it without saying how milton friedman is maybe not in the modern times. >> that's another

conversation. i do think he has been misquoted somewhat and he was very clear in that article that the nature of how corporations participate in the global economy and in society was very much driven by cultural context and i think that gives enough degrees of freedom to actually take more broadly about what the mission and role of corporations are and of course in the hundred 40 character world we basically are given the short shrift that blamed him or the financial privacy argument but that changes as you know in 2019 with the business roundtable eventually articulating a very clear broader or i should say widening aperture with respect to the responsibility of corporations to incorporate, not just financial shareholders but the whole range of shareholders but just communities, employees, regulators and society writ large.

and just to come back to your specific question what does this meanabout the changing role , there's a whole proliferation around areas such as environmental social and governance questions, est which according to j.p. morgan now presented by $45 trillion of management so hugely important. everything from climate change to racial and gender justice, concerns about worker advocacy, data privacy , worker rights, gun control. it really opened up a wide sort of array of issues, notwithstanding the fact that board members are not elected but the same time, i think the last year has reminded us that we don't only have a strategic role thinking about how companieswould evolve over time , we have to block and tackle in the here and now be able to adapt to a more tactical way to when things go awry whether it's

the pandemic or financial crisis. so i won't belabor the point but i did publish an article in the harvard business review around march or april of 2020 in which i basically talk about how as a board member we were initially and critically concerned about operations . our peoples able to log into their computers, today access tohealthcare . the financial health of the company, can this company run , do they have a lot of debt to cover their, you use their cash flow to cover their responsibilities. then you start to think about other considerations such as the broader marketplace and how we can step in the world that can be challenged if you remember was also with very little information so that's how it changed i say from runners to people to a more tactical role and that to me is part and parcel of being a

board member. >> absolutely and you write about how many people you about socks with the ceo but there are always risks that board members take on strategy around the company operations and not having just short-term thinking. part of board members role is ceo succession and we know now ceos roles have expanded quite a bit. can you tell us about how you've been involved and your succession in the past and is there a different question you're asking these days that fit into what's expected of business leadership ? >> the truth is that i think it's important that we all understand that in a sense, corporations are living organisms. they're basically a connection of human beings and human beings change. context change.

recently a border collie from a company i circle a while ago was in his 80s and he said the only thing i can guarantee is that you're always goingto be surprised . we had a pandemic and the rise of china, any matter of geopolitical america faces, etc. >> the list goes on. >> you're always going to be surprised and that's an important framework and thinking about how organizations run but also about the direction of the ceos. traditionally boards, and i have been involved in both hiring in some instances i'm afraid firing. >> it's all part of the job. >> is an unpleasant part of the job but it's part of the job nevertheless. but we've traditionally look at a ceo candidates financial acumen and their operational experience, how they manage

teams and what's their leadership style, how does their style merry with where the company is, if a company needs to restructure and reuse cost, there's does the ceo lead the charge to a difficult time, how do they think about strategic opportunities in an era that might be much more constructive so that's how we additionally approach business and i think there's likely that a big area missing which is about probing the sort of ethical compass and the moral compass ofcandidates . how do we, how have we done that? we have relied heavily on references but obviously when we're living in a world where in just 18 months, over 400 ceos and business leaders lost their jobs because of me to, it does sort of really bring much more historically important ethics.

one of the articles of discussion in the book that i really try to emphasize is that a muscle that organizations are going to have to really strengthen. not just for selecting their ceo but also for selecting board members, the organization more generally as well. the ethical question is what to move us from just thinking about opportunities . is it profitable, is illegal into the realm of the second, isit also ethical ? is this how you want to be seen organization you? >> you can't say to someone, or immoral ? it's not as simple. there's a question you ask was the worst thing you've donethis on ? >> the question is what continued on to another human being . it actually i was working with muslims and my friends saying that's a great day questionwell . but you know, emily is these

are not larger questions. not necessarily right orwrong answer . that's really trying to get at this challenge the complexity of the issues that boards have to deal with. more to say this is the right answer. he is right or wrong answer in different cultures, different ideological societies, different jurisdictions the only regulatory. it means that we always have to be very open-minded and judicious with our ideologies . >> absolutely. i'll say when i read that question myself and had the same question. was the you feel comfortable saying something or is. part of the you company strategy, direction you are

business you need to mix market and other measures. you were cautioned by an external either not track when evaluatingbusiness units, ? >> this is early in my career . it was external was that people tend to be focused on distances that was left hostile. and he cautioned me and said you should also be as vigilant in reviewing and assessing performance of businesses that seem to be doing too well. the brilliance this company is business unit is doing so wonderfully actually exactly what you should throw. what the market business to thrive? is it a monopoly, whether that be from a regulatory?

questions emerged to make sure you're not doing anything unethical or of course illegal or indeed, sort of dare i say it corrupt . so i thought that's tremendously important in the world that's incredibly complex in the sense that we have a list of the globalization, lots of issues with respect to technology and disruption and what that might lead to. it's important for us to be vigilant not just on the downside but the upside. >> i want to take a few more minutes to talk about some specific instances that you mentioned about your own board experience and how that helped you learn more from those experiences. you mentioned out of course there are all these things you just cannot plan for and sometimes you just can't anticipate it. miracles share price sprung from seven dollars to $53 while you were on the board.

what's that like as a director to have that kind of fluctuation? >> for someone like myself who was relatively new as a board member, in general and in corporate governance is quite traumatic. i think people, this is why you want people who have knowledge and savvy and have been able to navigate companies through challenging times. the thing about marigold is in particular is its price crisis taker. they are a company that relies on mining minerals such as gold and copper that are actually not priced by eric, their price by the market so you are a price sticker in many global events that can heavily influence not just your performance in terms of your operations but also the share prices the good news , we shouldn't forget is that barracks trading above $20 so that comes back to the company

board but also to the companies to be able to turn that kind of a challenging environment around . >> indeed and it's not just market fluctuation. you are on the board of miller going back to your first time joined as a director . it was bought for $100 billion in 2016 which i believe you said the largest m&a deal that year and one of the larger deals period. the board initially didn't think the company would be bought, what was going on back. >> i think this is another reason why in the book i suggest that hubris is a good thing to avoid. anything can happen. and anything can happen. so aside from that transaction i've been on boards in over a decade now, just over 10 years of serving on boards that had a chairman diane office and activists in the stock. i've had regulatory fines

that were in resilience. a company that was trading in negatively retained earnings which is when you think about quite shocking. many share prices as high as 53, as low as seven dollars and what that might mean but i do think that in terms of that transaction in particular, the board made a number of assumptions. we were the second largest beverage company often in the world and we just bought the notion that the number one company was smaller than the number twocompany . so partly because we were competing in the same areaand there was also going to be regulatory antitrust issues we thought would be hard to work through . we also totally misjudged the fact that in order to buy us this company anheuser-busch had to basically do the largest bond transaction ever , $40 billion and we thought

it was so in implausible we were sure theywouldn't do that . were we wrong but after that, i was the chairman of the risk committee at that time and not only have we assumed that the exit vote would not happen in 2016 but we thought if it were to happen there's no way people would vote for brexit. it had consequences for increasing or altering the public view of the transaction but the transaction did get done and i think that's a lesson there that anything canhappen . i also write in the book there's no company that's too big, too regulated, too powerful that could not see businesses on an accident and it's the same kind of board where we had activist shareholders comes into the stock and you think how is this possible but anything can happen. >> it fascinating to hear

about it in retrospect and all those things that needed to happen all starting to align and sometimes they do. you mentioned brexit, geopolitical changes and it's something that's so good with one more quick and i don't from your experiences on the board. you were on the barclays board as it considered drawing from africa. what was that like? >> it's for me personally quite traumatic. i was born and raised in africa. my firstbank account was in an african branch of barclays bank . at the time i wasserving on the board and had been in africa for 100 years . and in many ways i had to separate the sort of emotional personal me, someone born in africa and someone committed to africa's progress. ongoing progress in society and the world from the sort of this job of being a fiduciary and a custodian of an organization to make sure

that it can survive and thrive over the long-term. it was a very harddecision . i wanted berkeley to stay in africa but at the same time the regulatory environment that you recall was proven by the 2008 financial crisis and the barclays was what you call globally significant and systemically important company and on that basis, the regulators have increased some of the capital requirements and that made it very very challenging indeed to stay in the country that we were involved in and in the manner that we were so it's very tough but i think it's again underlines, underscores this challenge of having to do things that are antithetical to what you would like to see happen in the interest of making sure that you're seeing doing your fiduciary duty but also making sure overtime as a custodian this opening

continues to surviveand thrive and i'm happy to say barclays is very much alive and kicking . >> you mentioned p60 and as a former banking recorder for five years that just kind of showed me a little bit. i had heard that one in a while. so i want to go a little broader for a moment you write a lot about board makeup, household and even gets to be on the board and the whole kind of power structure within a board. to go really high-level for a moment, board makeup has been a topic of debate recently and i'm curious, she employees to work, senator elizabeth warren as called for and as you write about, in germany. >> me take a step back and say the following area because i've had the privilege of serving on corporate boards in different jurisdictions. the us, the uk, canada and also financial europe. i'm constantly thinking about ways for what is best practice, what can we do to enhanceboards . and i do address the specific

question about employees but also as you know in the book i talk about ways to upgrade boards and i'm sure we will get to that. but to the question about employees, it's an interesting one. the boards in germany in particular is slightly different. as you know it's a two-tiered system so there is a sense that boards, that the magisterial board as well as the supervisory one so it's different from what you might see elsewhere. i will just say before again address this the question that there is a lot of overlap in terms of the governance responsibility all these boards have on committees and they all have compensation committees in that respect i think that there's a very small margin of difference and of course this one of the employees is a different one. i recently wrote an article i do believe that two things. we are more and more in the board room able to get the viewpoints of the employee

base into the boardroom in a way that i think is really important and technology is allowing us now to move beyond the sort of company managed you got surveyed employee. >> you write about what the last door, blind. so board members are following that to try to get that true? >> we want to hear from our clients and our stakeholders and employees. tell me where we can make the best decision. so that's important we are getting the message and there will always be room for improvement but on the other hand i'vewritten a number of articles . there was something for bloomberg talking about how it's important for us to make sure there still is some responsibilities and decisions points that are made at the board room at the

managerial level because the organizational leaders tend to have a much broader view. if you are one business unit you might have a different risk tolerance from the way the company in its entirety or the enterprise should be viewed . if you want to think about something like risk. so i do sometimes and i generally made the point that i think we have to be careful about bringing people or employees or persons viewpoints into the boardroom . as powerful shareholderswe have to be careful about that . talk about large non-independent boards with strategic stake activists onto the board because you don't want them to bring a view that might be very narrow and maybe doesn't take into consideration the sort of more. picture but these are evolving debates and discussions that i think the

best boards have a time as things are changing but we do want to make sure we get that message in from the employees in particular but also more generally from society with large. >> in terms of the makeup it's a question about should the board be part of it but it's also a question of what kind of diversity the board has. you're right about major institutional shareholders, there's legislation in california and we had that proposal recently. what data do you seek out to track and monitor it comes to diversity of inclusion either on boards or general or the employee base which is something that is definitely at the forefront for many many major companies. >> absolutely. and look, this lets just take a minute here to fully appreciate that as my friend melody hobson who is now chairman of starbucks often

says the numbers don't lie. we know that the numbers tell us very clearly that boards, corporations just do better. the return of equity is far superior to the costof capital . it's not just to survive but to thrive and compete enhanced by having more diversity and in the eyesight some specific data from the kinsey reports who's done a lot of work inthis area . it's not a matter of windowdressing. it's a matter of did you want to compete in the 21stcentury ? you need to be hypersensitive to the issue of diversity. diversity of race, gender, i think it's absolutely salient for long-term success. having said that we have some levers to influence this. fortunately we talk about our ability to hire the ceo. that's a real opportunity for

us not just to hire diverse candidates but to think about whether wherever whoever is taking that seat can be a standardbearer for understanding and pushing the agenda around a more diverse society society. but also we do that through compensation and not just diversity issues issues around est broadly. it's absolutely part and parcel on a percentage basis, a considerable part of how we determine compensation certainly from the ceo as well as top management and business leaders and i think it will continue to be that. notwithstanding what i just said we don't want to be in a world where were fighting discrimination with discrimination so high performing white guys are absolutely welcoming companies and they should be encouraged to compete and succeed as much as any other group but there are clearly gaps and we've been lagging behind in terms of remedying

the shortfall in diversey and i'm pleased to say that the companies i'm involvement but more generally there's a real sense it's not just about employees and boards etc.. it's also about subcontractors, people advising us in terms of the external auditors. people who are managing the pension funds money. much more that corporations can do and of course many of these companies have large events and gatherings across the united states and across theworld . there's a lot of room for companies to say we want to know more information about would the record is in terms of education, in terms of employment, in terms of criminal justice and in terms of healthcare to their population so there's a lot more we can do that's exciting period to think about diversity beyond just sort of the narrative which i think sometimes people just

push. >> .. something quite shocking and i would love to hear you tell this story. >> sure. basically the context was i was on the board of barclays bank in written and annual general meeting. with over 1000 shareholders show up. it was post initial crisis so lots of enthusiasm in a masterful and i was the only visible minority, meaning i was only woman on the board and the only black person and in that respect already standing out.

you're right, the shareholders stood up during q&a and pointed very aggressively and means that i want to know what the credentials are of that statutory woman that she can serve on this board. thankfully i had spent almost ten years working at goldman sachs and a half of each unit economics. i felt pretty confident i could justify my existence on the board. i often say to minority candidates and the people are interested in boards that we should not be in a position where we have two lead with our race or gender. we should be leading the conversation in our abilities. we tried to work extra hard. we want to learn, we want to grow, we want to contribute. and it's not about getting any breaks or any favors. we want a fair shot at these opportunities and i think that is really was my big take away from that experience.

i will tell you when we came off the podium three of my white male colleagues said thank god they didn't ask me about that because the don't know what i would've answered here i don't think i be able to answered anything credible at the time. the good news is the world is changing. we now in the uk we have about 34% of women represented on the most important companies, more generally we find it odd and peculiar when you look at the board and you don't see diversity or women and racially, it's just odd. certainly the board's i'm on its an anathema to anything they would see now and we all are very much attuned, and it is value added, most important it is value add for competition. >> thank you for sharing that story oedipus into what you're talking about what company culture, people want to be a part of these companies and they feel included.

if you want to stay even you people bring in? two people to stick with the right how company culture is really a big part of being a board member. can you describe more about how boards get involved in crafting a companies cultural message? it feels very abstract. what is that like when you're in the weeds? >> it's a wonderful question because it's incredibly complex and very some business to business. i would call on at least one occasion where a board, we had a visitor can someone who is a cultural sort of champion and i was really struck by something he said picky said look, it's in a way easier to influence and change and pivot culture of organizations where does a risk and play can die but being on the job. to having advice on the national service in britain, advice on energy come with had an accident

picky talk about being an advisor for culture to an army. again, people will not call if they don't ascribe or follow certain cultural norms will when you how to drive culture in places where you can work in a bank, for example, and the risks are perhaps mitigated considerably mitigated of dying on the job. the way the board engages, whether they think more about process versus outcome. if you are trying to produce penicillin, , talk about this in the book, you want as few degrees as possible, degrees of freedom as possible. the penicillin tablet or vaccine i get should be pretty much identical to the one that you get. in that respect you could argue the process is really critical and everything needs to be to the nth degree the same.

that's a very, very different cultural setting for netflix, for example, where people are created. may need to come up with ideas as far-fetched or crazy as in it may seem and want them to throw it on the wall and see what can come out of it. to the degree their freedoms are much broader and, of course, in that respect the role of the board and how they checked and challenge the culture of the company will be quite different. i will just say really how we do it, and check this and make sure it's working, is an evolving, it's much more of an art that assigns. we are interested in thinking about things like knowledge, she would just knowledge employees to change her behaviors? should we penalize people, literally dock them of the bonus if they behave badly? should we send a vice people with bonuses? there so many different tools

and we're constantly looking at how these types of tools and efforts within the levers we have an powers that we have can be impactful for changing culture. it's definitely calm school is not out on this one. this is something we will continue to deal with. thankfully i don't think there's an equilibrium will he said that's the end, nothing more can be discussed. >> no more work on culture, i don't think that -- can you imagine? i think it became even more relevant during this global pandemic, many workforces went remote. question about employee well-being and employee loyalty, at the same time we have seen the sole employee activist movement or at least increasingly more vocal employs. i want to go back to this one point bullet that briefly earlier where as a board member you're saying you are not just having whatever management is presented on how employees are

feeling. you are going out to seek it and try to get information to really get the full breadth of how employees are doing. what was it like for you as a board member during the pandemic and how we try to figure that out? >> it's incredibly challenging because you're straddling a line of thinking about the here and now but also recognizing at some point these companies will have to stand up and continue to operate, and what does that new world look like? yes, absolutely you are in the here and now, blocking and tackling, try to make sure the company is in position to compete and make sure people are healthy and safe and it can operate and pay paid souders and it can do the in safeway. but at the same time you want to make sure when the company comes out, any earnings, any changes will talk about what doesn't work life balance but also what does the office look like postcode? we're trying to telegraph that.

clearly digitization, thinking that both downsize risk but upset opportunistic people are a ton. what does that mean for cyber risk backs? what disney for productivity? there's a lot of work in these areas and certainly the best boards, and i'm very proud of the work we have done in our family office but also more generally on the board's which i serve to release to that course and say we can't get navelgazing in the here and now only because at some point we got to figure out how to get back to a post covid environment. i think that balancing act is really critical. >> absolutely. you talk so much to write so much about not just having short-term thinking but being able to think about long term what happens what risks might come in the future. one more quick question i want to get some of these broader point you bring up.

investors and employees and other stakeholders have been demanding companies do more in a mental social and government factors. i don't think we're speaking for five minutes before you brought up vsg which is at the forefront of a lot right now. it's climate change, equity, you write about how companies have to consider obesity. what role does the board serve ranging from mental health, and control? can you walk us through? is a big topics i think many people may not realize where corporate boards come into play on those. >> again this is one of those areas which is quickly evolving. if i look back on my board career, the first five years, something always of a ring fence afterthought. we thought about community service for things recalled csr, corporate social responsibility. what things we did out of the foundation, things, maybe would have an employee run. i love running marathons i thank

you that i we would raise money for the commute is a which we operate but that changed so dramatically. now we are much, got through the whole narrative of thinking about risk mitigation, gosh, greenhouse gases, issued about co2 which continue to be critically important but we're moving to world where weight imminent this is good business, this is about integrated and integrating all of these aspects into how we operate on a regular basis. i mentioned already ten tens ago i was the only woman on my boards and only black person. that would be insane in 2021. i can't imagine that i live in that type of environment. there is no doubt about it, these things are complicated and there is no answer. six months ago i didn't think for certainly before the tragic death for murder of george floyd, i didn't think boards would have to opine on racial dynamics to the extent we've had to do.

i didn't expect to have to think about voting rights but guess what, we did and we do and we have to. there is no compass to say when this happens this is what you need to do. very much the environment we're in now i have to think about what in six months what might it be, and so i'm very interested, and in the book i tried to push for the thinking and efforts around these issues to make sure we are very transparent so we don't end up with a situation where asian employs a way to second we've got violence against asian employs but your were so enthusiastic and outwardly spoken to talk black lives matter, why are you not doing that for asians? would want to be transparent. we want it to be sustainable so whatever it is what to build up teeth longer term, we want -- we're looking for solutions that work in here now but are not really innovative in terms of changing the molds.

i don't think -- for so many other aspects. they have to consider a different cultures. i was ask not to long ago by a gentleman who said he identified himself as being very conservative, religious, white, instead what is the board doing for me? i don't get any consideration of my views. i was struck by that. it is about all these things and bring all those voices in but i think also most of all really understanding that we try really hard to reduce the amount of the degree of the trade-off. we don't want to leave anybody behind, answer thinking about things, i talked about racial discrimination, not fighting discrimination with discrimination and making sure everybody feels they have an opportunity in the organization but also in things like climate change, making sure we are not racing towards solutions that ignore the fact that 1.5 billion

people around the world have no access to sustainable cost effective and reliable energy. we have got to come up with scalable solutions that make sure people are not ending up with, in more dire straits. one less thing i will say that this is that i think also boards have to be highly attuned to second order effects. when people, for example, put pressure on investors to defund an energy company, we need to understand what that means and the knock on effects for not just impoverished and people around world but really changing and altering the trajectory of people's ability a special people like myself who come from the developing world, to get educated, to get access to healthcare and deliver decent life. the our second order effects. you look at the southern border of the treaded, all those types of challenges must be thought

about in a sensible and a concerted way. this is not at all to dismiss the urgency and importance of getting to real solutions. there is this nuance that needs to be appreciated as we delve through and go through these challenges. >> absolutely. we mentioned before some of your time on prior board to serve on and i should note you are now on the board's of chevron and three in such as want to note that. i want to take a piece of your book where you talk about forward-looking challenges and in particular de-globilization. what you wrote my my my. i have not even connected these dots. you write about how companies have to we questions around the supply chain, data privacy, immigration, regulation, so much more. can you set the stage for what de-globilization could mean for companies and how your thinking about that? >> yes.

absolutely. one of the challenges is that we've had a phenomenal. of growth and success. the tie between 1950-2008 in many ways mayors the gilded age. there was a lot of economic growth, globalization in terms of trade, in terms of movement of people come in terms of capital, in terms of global cooperation with institutions. but also we saw the emergence of a lot of large, important corporations that were really driving a lot of the agenda in terms of growth and partnership in government. that is a world, if you take a step back and think freedom house, their data shows we've only had liberal democracy and market capitalism for 1% of human history. if i go back and start to think

about one of the key response goes of a board a regular basis is to mitigate for risk, we need to start thinking about wait a second, so odds are we might be in a world that's much more challenge from this more ideal, idealized global environment. we have seen that. we've seen with respect to trade, we've seen the emergence of bilateral regional agreements, tpp, nafta which turned into usmca. brexit. affecting not just trade, business and services but also supply chains. as you mentioned i serve on the board of three. we've been making a lot of the masks, real issues with the dba, deferred prosecution agreement or excuse me and was dba which the president, former president trump put in place basically restricting the sale of masks

outside of the united states during covid. it's also capital flows. people who worked in financial -- you borrow cheaply in europe and london and invest in high risk adjusted returning environments like brazil and argentina but that world is very fractured now with homebuyers and investors but also how to controls. to think about immigration and how much there is a topical issue and people across the world resisting emigration, creating pockets of disorderly emigration to we've seen in europe and we're seeing it at the southern part of the u.s. that has a lot of applications from companies hire. how are you going to hire if you don't have that talent pool? you think about the splinter net and the real risk of fracturing

around technology intellectual platforms where there could be one chinese lead, when u.s.-led, what that might mean for how you run a global business. and there i say it, finally, the breakdown of cooperation as we noted from the bretton woods in 1944 were we actually had a liberal order, the world world bank, imf are now being challenged by chinese initiatives built in road, but also -- belt and road. also the allies, there are real tensions of missing that with the role of the vaccines and covid response. i have gone through a whole portfolio of issues but the bottom line is that we have to mitigate for those risks. we could wake up in a world where it is much more fractured, much more vulcanized. how do you think about running

your business in a world that's much more siloed i think it's an important question companies and boards need to think about. that is very much important thing. i will also say if i may that it's also not just about thinking about the risks and the downside. also think that where the opportunities may lie. as a mentioned you can shrink your way to growth. you've got to think about adding to the company for longer periods. >> the glass is half full if ago those are very weighty questions. lastly, we talked about this amateur you been waiting for us to go back to it, because investor, any investor base is dramatically changing. when a a new director joins ad i'm curious about the advice that you give them with dealing with investors. i'm thinking institutional investors demanding more, passive investors have aligned themselves and, of course, activist investors becoming the norm. how do you even advise on that

front? >> the most important thing is to read out on them motivations and the angles that investors may take. we tend to think about large powerful investors, or that they are an activist for passive investor as being out there to cause trouble. that sometimes people take that approach and to think that's not an ideal approach. we are actually all on the same side but perhaps there is a delta or a goal of information we might have as board members and sort of insiders -- golf -- said think there's a lot of utility in talking to an engaging with the shareholders. it simple for them to also understand that as a fiduciary it's not just my responsibility to cater to the date and the powerful. we need to think about mom and pop who bought a few shares and it kept him from generation to

generation. retail investors should matter equally to the more powerful investors. it's also really important to think about the in assets owner, not just asset managers, the asset owner because very often they are very aligned goals for the long-term they are not looking for shorter-term returns or the next quarter. they are interested in were talked about pension funds, talking about pensioners and people invest in these large organizations to manage, whose money is been managed. they want to his investment n education and the infrastructure. i would hazard a guess they would like us to look through this quarterly sort of machinations and think more strategically about what are we doing for society, how are we helping society to progress and not just thinking about what the returns are in the short term.

it's a complex web because there are many different types of shareholders. now we have to think about the stakeholders and whether we need to prioritize the ranking system, what metrics matter to them. a lot of work the best institutional investors are doing because before what used to happen is we would have two people show up from the same organization, one of them would be box checking in terms of whether we meeting esq carbons and the other would think about traditional financial returns. that message needs to be married as well. a lot of work going on. i'm optimistic. i think we're all on the same side for human progress and society and really economic development and a functioning global economy and world, and in that respect i think we have got more in common than we might want to believe. >> i think that's an optimistic note to wrap up on. doctor dambisa moyo thank you so much. this book really lays out what a board member does, how they operate, focus areas and all of

the really raw topics you need to think about and getting into the nugugughter .

find the most recent book or visit booktv.org. now look atslavery's legacy and how it impacted our history . >> welcome and good evening. my name is mel pepper and on behalf of harvard bookstore i am thrilled to introduce this virtual event with clint smith presenting his new book "how the word is passed: a reckoning with the history of slavery across america" . which debuted at number one on the new york times bestseller list and tonight he is in conversation with trent. thank you so much for joining us actually through virtual