What were your first impressions on joining the supervisory board of a municipally owned company, and what surprised you most?
Somehow, I always seem to end up in places that others tend to avoid. That was exactly the case with the municipal companies in Riga in 2019 and 2020. At first, it felt like everything was very complicated and slow. For example, at that time, “Rīgas satiksme” faced serious corruption issues, which created a great deal of distrust and made any changes difficult. At the same time, it was clear that many people didn’t want to take responsibility and were afraid of making mistakes. The company’s reputation was terrible, and initially, there was little hope that changes would happen quickly. What surprised me the most was how deeply fear of responsibility can take root and how heavy the burden of reputation can be.
What was the biggest difference when you moved from operational management to a board role?
The transition from an operational manager to a board member was a very significant change for me. In a board, the main role is to ask the right questions and guide thinking, rather than provide all the answers yourself. After 25 years in operational management, I had to get used to the fact that my task was to support the company strategically, not to get involved in day-to-day processes.
This is especially noticeable in municipal companies, where hierarchical culture is strong — often, what a board member says is perceived as the absolute truth. This can be risky because people may start relying too much on the board’s opinion and avoid making independent decisions. This dynamic was one of the most important differences I had to recognise and learn to navigate.
Did your experience on the board of Rīgas satiksme make it easier to serve on the board of Rīgas namu pārvaldnieks?
Yes, my experience on the board of “Rīgas satiksme” definitely helped, but the board of “Rīgas namu pārvaldnieks” also had its own specific challenges. In the public sector overall, there is more bureaucracy and almost any decision can trigger resistance or wider discussion. Unlike in the private sector, where decisions can be made more quickly and purposefully, in the public sector, it is often necessary to provide very detailed explanations and take into account public and media interest. This requires a different approach and greater patience.
What qualities are essential for a good chair of a publicly owned company?
A board chairman must always remember that their primary task is to represent the company’s interests and assess whether the decisions being made are truly in the company’s best interest. Another important aspect is that board members are appointed by the owner, so the chairman has to work with a team they did not choose. This requires the ability to adapt to different people and lead effectively even in situations where team dynamics are not ideal.
Personally, I have been fortunate to work on boards that were not toxic, but I know such environments exist. That is why a board chairman needs high tolerance, strong collaboration skills and professional competence in order to foster constructive work together — even when the team is very diverse.
Have you encountered any myths or assumptions about state- or municipally-owned companies?
Myths about state- and municipally-owned companies often arise from how society has experienced the company or how it has been portrayed in the public domain. For example, for many years, “Rīgas satiksme” had a very negative reputation — the public perception was that the company had widespread corruption issues. These myths persisted because people tend to remember the negative aspects.
However, in recent years, the situation has changed significantly: the company now operates in a much more organised, transparent and professional way. It took time for the old perceptions to fade, but today it can be said that the reality no longer corresponds to the myths that once existed. It has become a completely different company with a significantly better reputation.
What are your biggest work challenges, and do you feel political or public pressure?
One of the biggest challenges in working in the public sector is that professional processes can often become part of political debates. Recently, the opposition in the Riga City Council included a discussion on the agenda about dismissing the board and management of “Rīgas namu pārvaldnieks,” even though the council has no legal authority to do so. This turned into a public event, where questions were raised that were not related to a professional evaluation of the company’s operations.
Because the event was filmed and broadcast, the public could develop a misleading impression that there were problems or corruption in the company, even though this was not the case. Such situations undermine the company’s reputation and create unnecessary tension within the organisation.
In my view, these situations are usually driven by political considerations rather than the company’s actual performance. From a good governance perspective, such actions are harmful — they create uncertainty, reduce trust and make professional work more difficult.
Some say boards are unnecessary today. What’s your view?
I believe that boards are essential, especially in large companies. When everything is going well, it may seem that the board’s role is not so critical. However, when a company faces difficulties, the board provides a strategic perspective, helps avoid mistakes and creates stability.
For smaller companies, a board may not be as necessary, but in large organizations, it serves as an important, independent, strategic partner to management. The board helps maintain focus, transparency and long-term thinking — things that daily management may not always have the capacity for.
How do you see the future of municipally owned companies in ten years?
Looking ahead to the next decade, I believe that municipally owned companies will need to evolve alongside the economic realities. Latvia is a small market, and given the demographic trends, economic growth will increasingly depend on exports and efficiency. This means that public sector companies will need to focus on areas where state involvement is truly necessary and adds value.
I think over time it will become clear that there are industries where private capital can operate more efficiently, and there is no need for the public sector to compete or maintain companies just out of habit. In Latvia, there is still relatively high state control over companies and in the future, it would be valuable to assess where privatisation or a mixed-model approach could deliver better results for both the economy and society.
What advice would you give your younger self?
If I could go back to the beginning of my career, I would advise myself to be bolder. It’s normal to be afraid of making mistakes and these fears have often held me back — sometimes I didn’t do enough simply because I was afraid to express my opinion clearly, not knowing how it would be received.
Now, I understand that courage comes with experience and that unnecessary arrogance is not needed. However, I would definitely tell myself: don’t be afraid to speak openly, make mistakes and learn from them. Confidence develops over time, but it would have been good if I had allowed it to develop faster.
Summary
In a sector where every decision is visible and every mistake amplified, strong boards are not a luxury — they are a safeguard. The experience of working in publicly owned companies shows that real progress depends on professional governance, courage to take responsibility and the ability to stay focused on long-term value despite political noise. When boards work well, they strengthen trust, stability and ultimately the quality of public services.
