Tags

  • Published on

    ICMLG Conference: Day 2 Keynote

    Johan Segergren, Google: Fostering creativity and innovation internally

    Technology companies are compelled to innovate. Typically, time is the only hurdle before a competitor emerges and surpasses the incumbent. Segergren spoke about Google’s response to this reality, as it strives to foster innovation and maintain its market-leading position. Responses include:
    • Innovation, not instant perfection (fast, iterative development cycles)
    • Share everything you can (small teams, high levels of transparency)
    • You're brilliant, we're hiring (set the bar high, resist "good enough")
    • A license to pursue dreams (personal projects, 20% of your time)
    • Ideas come from anywhere (anywhere, anytime, top-down, bottom-up)
    • Fuel intuition with insights (data beats opinion, test constantly)
    • Creativity loves constraints (set clear boundaries for exploration)
    • Never fail to fail (continuous innovation failures failure)
    • Focus on users, not competition (innovations start with user experience)

    Reflecting on these responses, the common linking threads are culture and passion. This is refreshing. While Google is well beyond the tipping point, the responses give hope for the rest of us. They mean any company or any group can innovate and sustain innovation—if it wants to.
  • Published on

    ICMLG Conference: Half way point

    The sun is about the rise over Bangkok, Thailand, which means Day 2 of the ICMLG conference is upon us.

    Day 1 proved to be very interesting. I spent most of the day in the governance stream, picking up as much knowledge as I could, as background for my doctoral research. Helpfully, the conference proceedings were distributed at the welcome function, so it was possible to pre-read some papers and make more informed decisions about which speakers to listen to. During the day there were several very good governance papers presented, and lots of stimulating discussion between sessions.

    My paper seemed to be well received, with several very good questions after I spoke and some interesting conversations over lunch and coffee later in the day. It seems the relationship between governance and performance is highly topical, which is a nice confidence boost for my doctoral research. 

    The themes for Day 2 centre move on from governance, IT management and public sector topics, to gender, cultural and ethical issues, value creation and wider leadership matters. I'm looking forward to hearing Philip Dover (Babson College, Mass) explore Are Solutions the Solution to Adding Customer Value? I hear the phrase "our solution" often, so it will be good to get a research perspective to ground future conversations and discussions.
    Image description
  • Published on

    ICMLG Conference: Reflections #4

    Conferences Performance Research
    BI-based organisations: new possibilities

    Celina Olszak (University of Economics, Katowice, Poland) spoke about the use of business intelligence (BI) in organisations. Using Gartner's maturity model, she analysed the responses from detailed interviews conducted with executives of 20 family-owned firms (all of whom were making use of BI tools), to assess the impact of business intelligence tools on business success. Interestingly, Olszak found that the mature use of BI-tools seems to be associated with increased business success. However, her research was limited to a specific segment of the business population. Further work is required to determine whether the reported use–success correlations can be generalised to wider populations, particularly larger organisations where the pervasive adoption of tools and processes to institutionalise knowledge and realise tangible value is perhaps more difficult to achieve.
  • Published on

    ICMLG Conference: Reflections #3

    Conferences Governance Management Research Strategy

    Management attitudes toward currency hedging in a dynamic environment

    Worasinchai (Bangkok University, Thailand) investigated the relationship between management attitudes and hedging risks in foreign exchange transactions. She analysed data gathered from semi-structured interviews, and presented an interesting theoretical model created to inform best practice to assist firms, trading partners and central government trading with Thai firms.

    Worasinchai concluded—for large Thai firms and firms trading with Thai firms at least—that management attitude has an important impact on the strategic choices that a firm makes when considering currency hedging. She found that more conservative attitudes seem to be associated with a longer-term planning horizon. When asked about risk and subsequent performance, Worasinchai acknowledged this work is yet to be undertaken. If progress can be made in this area, and relationships and correlations between hedging, risk and subsequent company performance identified, then the prospect for a more stable global trading environment may well await.

  • Published on

    ICMLG Conference: Reflections #2

    Conferences Governance Research

    Intellectual Capital and knowledge sourcing in a governance context

    Ingley and Mowbray (AUT, New Zealand) described research conducted to understand how the collective and individual ability of directors add value to organisational performance occurs. They reported that performance was enhanced when the Board and management worked together, and that effective knowledge sharing and intellectual capital appeared to be important contributing factors. They introduced the notion of a “third team”, whereby the Board and management (who normally work separately) work together in some way on particular matters. The work of the third team is defined by something Ingley and Mowbray termed “behavioural governance”. They asserted that new insights will come from an increased understanding of a complex mix of (primarily behaviourial) governance characteristics, rather than continued pursuit of individual characteristics.

    Aspects of this study are consistent with prior literature that suggests behavioural characteristics are more important than structural characteristics. The study provided a useful basis for future research into the import of behaviourial and knowledge sharing factors, particularly of larger samples of company data. However, a working model or theoretical framework of the so-called third team may continue to be problematic, given the complex and dynamic nature of governance, and the (often) transient balance of power and divisions of labour that are often present in governance environments. Notwithstanding this, the research and addressed raised some very good possibilities for future research.

  • Published on

    ICMLG Conference: Keynote address

    Conferences Governance Research Societal Wellbeing Strategy

    The keynote address was delivered by Richard Hames, a corporate philosopher. Notes and observations from Hames' address:

    Leadership is changing and needing to change—in response to a major transition occurring in the world. We are moving from industrial economism (which has sustained the world for the last 300 years) and a new world order. Population growth is putting huge pressure on “life critical” systems, systems initially created to sustain order in our society. These included the economy, trade, production and distribution of food, cleaning drinking water, education, and the law.

    The occidental lens, through which most world systems have been developed, is no longer valid. Systems are beginning to fail. Extreme events (weather, for example) are fundamentally changing life on the planet. The pressures being exerted and the emergent failures are now creating opportunities for change, particularly in the leadership arena.

    The emergent change is that we are starting to exit the CEO (competitive business achiever) meme, and to enter a “community” meme, where shared purpose (collaboration) will begin to prevail over the accumulation mindset. Hames said the vehicle to lead through this transition are the “the five literacies of leadership”.

    Hames’ talk was interesting, and the five literacies coherent. However, the talk seemed to assume that the CEO meme is inherently flawed (ie: selfish and subject to corrupt practice) and must be replaced. This troubles me. Cannot CEO and community memes co-exist?