Just when you have a good idea for your next blog, someone steps in and pulls the rug from under you. At least, that's how I felt last week when last week's Pensions Week appeared on my screen.

It reported the news that elections for member nominated trustees of the Diageo Pension Scheme had been replaced with a system of selection so as to "avoid a talent drain". My idea of a little debate over the relative merits of selection versus election was scuppered by the publication of thoughtful comments from a number of respected commentators that appeared in the same edition. 

On further reflection it seemed to me that the important debate about how trustees arrive at the board table should be stretched further to consider how, once appointed, trustees contribute to the overall performance of the board in meeting its governance obligations. After all, whilst the appointment process is very important it is what trustees do once at the table that really counts. Or should I say accounts? If I have a gripe about the trustee governance model it probably rests with accountability. Or, more accurately, the lack of it. 

I'm not suggesting that trustees generally do not take their responsibilities seriously, but to whom are they accountable? Who decides if they have performed well, or otherwise? Who, when appropriate, should tap them on the shoulder and suggest it is time to move on? It is important that trustees recognise this lack of real accountability. In its absence trustees might usefully adopt the concept of self-accountability; and that only works if some pretty robust tests are established and applied.

Whatever the concern about a leakage of talent, the reality is that boards benefit from the refreshment of talent that comes with a moderate rate of turnover. If necessary it should be encouraged.

So what can be done to mitigate the concern about loss of experience that results from the intervention of an untimely election or more natural events? How can the time taken for new trustees to reach a level of effective contribution be minimised? In addition to the usual induction processes and training, a clear long-term strategic plan can be effective in mitigating the adverse impact that stems from the loss of experience. A clearly articulated long term strategy outlives the individual trustees that created it and when allied to a manageable number of complementary, shorter term, objectives should enable new trustees to contribute effectively a whole lot quicker than is typically the case. How so? Because the 'rules of the game' have not only been established but committed to paper. I am almost pathologically opposed to creating more bureaucracy, but there has to be a strong case to require trustees to articulate their strategic plan and medium term objectives in the annual report. Then trustees could account directly to themselves, their members and the scheme sponsor by publishing their track record in achieving the strategic objectives set out in their plan.

Written by Mark Hodgkinson, director, Muse Advisory