It might seem unorthodox to step down as the chief executive of a listed company, then take on the role of chair and demote the chair to deputy, but when it comes to Worley Parsons and John Grill it makes sense.
The country's biggest engineering company and Grill have earned the respect of the market by consistently performing, rarely getting into trouble and having a board and senior executives who are not afraid to hear criticism from staff or investors.
In the case of the board, it is one of the best in the country, and the chairman, Ron McNeilly, stepping down a rung won't change the dynamics of the board at all. If anything, it shows that he is acting in all interests, which is something more directors should do.
It is in sharp contrast to some companies operating in that sector, including Hastie - which recently collapsed due to a culture of no bad news that manifested itself as accounting irregularities to hide bad decisions - and Leighton Holdings, which has gone off the rails in the past couple of years due to a weak board, a botched succession plan and risk management systems that have been alarmingly deficient.
Given the company's solid track record since it listed this year , companies and boards should examine Worley's culture and its board and use it as a pin-up of how to better behave.
For starters, Grill, who is the co-founder of Worley and the biggest single shareholder with 10 per cent, has done what most senior executives and directors don't do enough of: put skin in the game.
Grill is valued on the BRW Rich List at $780 million and most of this is tied up in Worley Parsons, which he co-founded and has headed for 40 years.
His decision to step down from the executive ranks at the annual meeting later this year, then return as chairman next February, is something that has been expected - but dreaded - for a while. By staying on as chairman, it lessens the blow.
It also illustrates a well thought-out succession plan, with the appointment of the chief financial officer, Andrew Wood, who has an engineering background, as his heir to the throne.
Grill's decision to return to the board is not unique and is becoming a trend. The former JB Hi-Fi boss Richard Uechtritz rejoined as a director in April last year, Toll Holding's Paul Little retired and signalled he will return as a director, the IRESS founder Peter Dunai is now chairman, the QBE stalwart Frank O'Halloran announced his retirement earlier this year and then negotiated a seat on the board, while Elmer Funke Kupper, the former boss of Tabcorp, returned last month as a director of Tabcorp at the same time as running the Australian Securities Exchange.
Grill also built a culture of transparency, strong risk management systems and empowerment. It means staff stick around, ugly surprises rarely happen and employees have respect for each other, all the way up the line. A classic case of leading by example was during the global financial crisis, when senior executives decided voluntarily to take a pay cut as a gesture of tough times.
It is this culture that has allowed Grill to build the company from a small operation to a global business with 40,000 staff in more than 40 countries without having big embarrassing bombshells such as Leighton has had, including massive write-downs on projects gone wrong and more lately an investigation by the Australian Federal Police into its Iraq operations over potential corruption and bribery.
Its continuous disclosure practices also became the subject of an investigation by the corporate regulator ASIC, which resulted in a fine.
Despite this, Leighton continues to offer vague and inadequate explanations for what it is doing. It did it again on Thursday, when it failed to confirm another project was having difficulties, and when it announced it had sacked a senior executive over instances of failures to meet governance standards in respect of the proper documentation of contractual arrangements in Iraq.
This failure appears to have happened when the present boss of Leighton, Hamish Tyrwhitt, was running Asia and Leighton Offshore. It raises the question what special efforts were taken to ensure there wasn't a problem in Iraq during the contracting phase, over and above any normal processes.
As one observer said: "Commonsense would dictate that, if you are contracting in a country which in the global corruption indices is up there with North Korea and Somalia, you take extra special care." Leighton should come clean on what they did to protect shareholders from the increased risk of corruption issues in Iraq and what went wrong.
It raises an old chestnut of how companies operating in countries that have a culture of bribery and graft can reduce the risk of their employees or agents getting caught up. Worley has managed to keep its nose clean, as have others. The brutal reality is that besides the reputational damage when things go wrong, the penalties are significant.
Right now Australia is seen as weak in this area. It first introduced anti-bribery laws 12 years ago. During that period there have been 25 cases referred to the AFP - and only the Reserve Bank's Securency case has generated any arrests. AWB created no arrests. Leighton and its board need to take a leaf out of Worley Parsons's book and start being more generous with the facts.
Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…
Why is John Grill stepping down as WorleyParsons CEO and becoming chairman, and what does that mean for investors?
According to the article, John Grill will step down from the executive role at the company’s annual meeting and return as chairman the following February. For investors this is seen as sensible: Grill remains the biggest single shareholder (about 10%) and staying as chairman preserves continuity, reduces disruption and signals a managed succession rather than an abrupt exit.
What aspects of WorleyParsons’ corporate culture should everyday investors notice?
WorleyParsons is highlighted for transparency, strong risk-management systems and employee empowerment. The article says this culture helps avoid nasty surprises, retains staff, and supports long-term performance — traits investors often look for when assessing corporate governance and operational resilience.
Who is the planned successor at WorleyParsons and why does that matter for shareholders?
The company has appointed chief financial officer Andrew Wood — who has an engineering background — as Grill’s heir apparent. The article presents this as a well thought-out succession plan, which matters to shareholders because clear internal succession reduces leadership risk and supports continuity.
What governance and disclosure problems have hurt Leighton Holdings and what should investors watch?
The article points to a weak board, a botched succession plan and deficient risk-management systems at Leighton. It also mentions accounting irregularities, an ASIC probe into continuous disclosure (resulting in a fine), and an AFP investigation into Iraq operations for potential corruption. Investors should watch transparency on projects, governance improvements, and clear communication about risk and remediation.
How do corruption and bribery risks in overseas contracts affect Australian companies and investors?
Operating in countries with high corruption risk can expose companies to reputational damage, legal penalties and investigations — all of which can harm shareholder value. The article contrasts WorleyParsons’ ability to keep its operations ‘clean’ with companies that have faced probes, and stresses the importance of extra safeguards when contracting in high‑risk jurisdictions.
What happened at Hastie and what lesson does that hold for investors evaluating construction and engineering firms?
The article says Hastie collapsed after a culture of ‘no bad news’ led to accounting irregularities used to hide bad decisions. The investor takeaway is to look for corporate cultures that encourage openness, strong internal controls and independent boards — weaknesses in those areas can lead to sudden value destruction.
The article mentions several former CEOs returning to boards — why is that trend important for investors?
Several high-profile executives (examples in the article include Richard Uechtritz, Paul Little and others) returning to director or chairman roles suggests a trend of experienced leaders staying involved. For investors, this can be positive if it brings expertise and stability, but it’s important to check that such returns align with good governance and don’t hinder proper succession or independence.
How strong is Australia’s enforcement of anti-bribery laws and what should investors know?
The article notes Australia introduced anti‑bribery laws about 12 years ago and that roughly 25 cases have been referred to the AFP, with only the Securency matter leading to arrests. The piece suggests enforcement has been relatively weak historically, which means investors should pay attention to how companies manage compliance and the potential for increasing scrutiny or penalties in the future.