Tags

  • Published on

    Strategy & Thought-leadership: take #2

    Governance Management Phd Research Strategy

    The motivation for my blogpost on 24 October—in which I asked where thought-leadership for strategy should lie—was to gather feedback to test a couple of ideas lurking in the depths of my PhD considerations. Several people have since contacted me directly to share their thoughts, which has been very helpful. Thank you to those people!

    I also posted the same question on the Boards & Advisors Group over at LinkedIn, in an effort to broaden the pool of people who might like to comment. Many have, and a great conversation has emerged. I suggest you have a look there if you are interested in this topic, because a solid discourse is unfolding right now...

  • Published on

    Available for meetings in Australia or South-east Asia (Feb '13)

    Complexity Governance Research Strategy Sustainability

    As mentioned last week, I will be presenting a paper at the ICMLG Conference in Bangkok, Thailand. The conference dates are 7–8 February 2013.

    If you require any assistance with strategy, governance or related topics, and would like to take advantage of me being in the region, please let me know. I have time available immediately before and after the conference—and am happy to meet with Boards, CEOs or any leadership group in Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Hong Kong or Australia, if required.

    Please contact me directly if you have a requirement.

  • Published on

    Innovations, panaceas and fads

    Leadership Risk Societal Wellbeing Sustainability

    According to a survey commissioned by accounting software firm MYOB and conducted by Colmar Brunton, New Zealand firms are slow adopters of technology. A newspaper article which summarises the research report was published today. The report contains statistics about the digital world, including cloud-computing uptake and website presence. The article suggests that NZ businesses are "off the pace", and goes on to imply that the NZ economy is weaker as a result of slow technology adoption.

    Gosh, this is heady stuff. The Internet has changed the way we live and work, and no doubt will continue to do so. But to say that an economy is weaker because uptake of the latest iterations of computing capability is slow is a big call. Businesses need to get clear about their motivations and choices. I know many SME firms that operate well (ie. very profitably) using so-called legacy computing systems. They have not embraced cloud computing (for example) because the financials and or security risks simply do not stack up for them.

    Finding new and more efficient ways of doing things is an important element in the business mix. In fact, the pursuit of sustained competitive advantage demands that we continue this quest. However, jumping on-board with a new development because everyone else is seemingly doing so is not a sufficient justification. We need to be careful to avoid the trap of seeing all innovations as panaceas. We have much to learn from history in this regard. While some innovations will prevail, many of today's so-called innovations will be re-labeled as "fads" in the future, just as we have re-labeled earlier developments. Let's keep our eyes open and our brain engaged when looking at new innovations. I suspect the economy will be better for it.

    *Declaration. I happily use a mix of cloud- and local-computing tools on a daily basis.

  • Published on

    Where should thought-leadership for strategy lie?

    Governance Management Phd Research Strategy

    The development of strategy and strategic decision-making have emerged as core themes in my doctoral research in recent weeks. Regular readers will know I am investigating the governance–performance relationship, in an effort to explain the impact boards have on company performance (because we currently don't know).

    When one considers strategy and strategic decision-making, the question "Where should thought-leadership for strategy lie?" raises its head. One commonly-cited view is that the board should set vision and goals, management should develop strategy (for the board to approve), and then management should implement the approved strategy. Others say the board should drive everything and management should simply implement the board's wishes.

    Forming a view on this question is central to my research. So, what do you think? I'd value contributions from anyone with a story to tell!

  • Published on

    Paper selected for ICMLG Conference: Bangkok 2013

    Governance Phd Research
    I'm thrilled to announce that a paper summarising my post-graduate research project has been selected for presentation at the International Conference on Management Leadership and Governance (ICMLG), to be held in Bangkok in February 2013. I'm looking forward to sharing my findings, and to discussing governance with other researchers and practitioners. The full title of my paper is:

    "The impact of governance on the performance of a high-growth company: an exemplar case study".

    Papers cannot be published prior to the conference, however a copy of the abstract is available here. The full paper will be published on my Research page following the conference. If you'd prefer me to send you a copy, please let me know!
  • Published on

    Armstrong's fall from grace

    Societal Wellbeing
    Grahan Dunbar summarised the views of many this morning with this directly worded piece:

    Forget the seven Tour de France victories. Forget the yellow jersey celebrations on the Champs Elysees. Forget the name that dominated the sport of cycling for so many years. As far as cycling's governing body is concerned, Lance Armstrong never existed. Once considered the greatest rider in Tour history, the American was cast out on Monday by his own sport, formally stripped of his seven titles and banned for life for his involvement in a massive doping programme that tainted all of cycling and his own reputation. "Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling and he deserves to be forgotten in cycling," said Pat McQuaid, the president of cycling's governing body. "This is a landmark day for cycling."

    Initially, I sidled with those who were slow to condemn Lance Armstrong, primarily because no direct evidence (a positive drugs test) had ever been reported. Other drugs cheats had either been caught red-handed (blooded!) with a positive test, or admitted their guilt. Not Armstrong. Either he was clean throughout, or dirty but one step ahead of the testers. I wanted to give the man the benefit of the doubt. However, on the weight of much evidence, including many affidavits from teammates who broke the code (of silence), USADA and UCI have determined Armstrong cheated. I too am now convinced. Irrespective of the politics and personal motivations (and payments?) to speak out, the circumstantial evidence provided is compelling. Armstrong cheated. Now he must face the consequences.

    But tomorrow will dawn a new day. We must move on. My hope and prayer is that professional cyclists, their minders and the sport's administrators learn from this sorry case. There is no room in any sport for cheats. Man has much to gain from competing, but only when the competition is clean and fair.