Tags

  • Published on

    Change is in the air: Do you want to take advantage of the opportunity?

    Conferences Governance Speaking Engagements Strategy
    What is it with the equinox? In the six days that have passed since the equinox announced the changing of the seasons, my phone and email box have been running hot. A stream of enquiries and requests from business leaders in Australasia, the UK, Western Europe, South-east Asia and the Middle East have arrived. I have been asked to speak at conferences and major events, provide guidance to boards and management groups, discuss the findings from latest research, facilitate strategy workshops, and to lead director development workshops. That some many people have decided to reach out is truly an honour. Thank you. 
    Several visits to major cities around the world have now been scheduled to fulfil commitments, as follows:
    18–21 May
    24–31 May
    ​1–3 June
    late June
    late July
    ​mid September
    Brisbane, Australia (keynote speaker at Family Business events)
    London, England (plus elsewhere in UK or Western Europe if required)
    Paris, France (speaking at EURAM conference)
    Sydney and Melbourne, Australia
    Singapore and Hong Kong (tbc)
    London, ​England and Berlin, Germany
    If you have an interest in corporate governance, strategic management or a related topic and want to take advantage of my proximity(*), please contact me. I would be delighted to hear from you to understand your situation and to arrange to meet you in person or to schedule an event.
    ​(*) If you would like to schedule a meeting or an event but the venues and dates listed do not fit your timetable, please reach out anyway, so that we can discuss an alternate arrangement that does suit your requirements.
  • Published on

    Beyond 'unique' and 'different': Is your strategy impactful?

    Decision Making Governance Performance Strategy
    About 25 years ago, I remember seeing, for first time, a rather compelling video on competitive strategy. Michael E Porter, a Harvard professor, spoke about competitive strategy and sustainable competitive advantage. He said that competitive advantage (and, therefore, business success) was largely a matter of deciding whether to pursue a cost (price) or differentiation strategy. More recently, others have suggested that every product/service/company needs to have a unique selling proposition (USP) or a point of difference.
    Fast forward to 2016. Is this pathway still viable? In a crowded world, new entrants come and go, all the time. Barriers to entry for new products and services are getting lower. In this environment, how realistic is it to think that any USP might actually be unique, let alone sustainably so? Also, a product that is different or cheaper is of little consequence if no one buys it.
    Difference is important, but not in the way most people think (unique features &c.). Difference works only until someone copies you. Then you are the same. Your difference, your USP, is no longer unique. Further, at a population level, product or service success doesn't depend on price or feature set. ​Most customers don't care what products or services do. They do care about the what difference it will make to them.
    This challenge is arguably even more important at a company level (i.e., corporate strategy). So, next time your board and management team convenes a strategic thinking workshop, as part of a strategy development process, change the playing field. Ask you facilitator to write these two questions on the whiteboard—and to keep coming back to them throughout the session.
    You might be surprised at the result.
    ​
  • Published on

    Keynote speaker: Governance evolution and future trends

    Conferences Governance Performance Research Speaking Engagements Strategy
    Earlier this year, Lloyd Russell of TCB Solutions and Deb Coren of AMPLIFI Governance contacted me to discuss an event they were planning in their home town of Brisbane, Australia. They wanted me to deliver some talks and share some insights on the evolution of governance—with a specific focus on family-owned businesses. After learning more about their plans I was thrilled to accept the invitation. With that, planning got underway.
    Two events have now been scheduled on Thu 19 May, one in the morning and the other in the evening. ​
    ​If you are a family or private business owner; or an independent director, advisor or partner, then this event may be of interest. Click on the image for more information and to register (a new browser page will open).
  • Published on

    What does the Age of 'self(ie)' mean for business?

    Decision Making Governance Leadership Performance Strategy
    One Saturday morning, about fifteen years ago, my elderly father-in-law and I sat in the morning sun, sharing a few stories over a cup of tea. He was asking about my then burgeoning advisory business and family life. I was interested in hearing him reflect on his experiences in business, particularly his career-long journey with the same employer—from a junior staff member to, eventually, chief executive.
    As he spoke, Bill reminded me that he only ever had one employer, and that although he had been blessed to contribute at many levels he had only ever completed one job interview, that being when he first got a job. He went on to talk about the power of team over individual, and of loyalty to both your employer and your own principles. Much has changed since he retired in 1984, not the least of which has been the erosion of the values that served as Bill's North Star throughout his career.
    Today, most things are negotiable. For many, the motivation has changed, from providing service (to the employer) to self-service. Never has this been more apparent in the everyday behaviours of staff, particularly the younger generation. If we don't get want we want, or if we get a better offer elsewhere, we act. That staff and customers are more interested in self(ie) has huge implications for productivity and value creation in the longer-term. While team productivity is a matter for the chief executive, value creation is the responsibility of the board on behalf of the shareholder. How is your board wrestling with this? Does your board regularly allocate time to understand the changing environment, consider strategic options and make strategic decisions? Companies that expect to thrive in the future need to address the emergent challenge of 'self(ie)'. 
    The best place to start the discussion is in the boardroom.
  • Published on

    Directors: Are you alert and active, or snoozing at the wheel?

    Accountability Decision Making Governance Performance
    Picture
    The recent collapse of one of Stonewood Homes' franchisors has placed the conduct of directors squarely in the spotlight once again. The company collapsed owing about $15 million. This article makes the issues plain, and it serves as a warning for other directors. 
    The Companies Act 1993 specifies the duties of directors, including that they must act in the best interests of the company and not allow the company to trade recklessly. That a company collapsed owing such large debt suggests that the company may have been trading near, at or beyond its means for some time. Whether the directors of the collapsed company were negligent or not will be determined in due course, I'm sure.
    The role of a director carries much responsibility. If you are a director, you must know and understand your duties and responsibilities under the Act, and whether you are discharging them correctly. If you have any doubt, discuss the matter at your next board meeting and seek independent advice from a competent lawyer. Don't forget to ask about related legislation—you may have responsibilities under other pieces of legislation and you may not realise it. An independent governance review, to review the operation of the board as a whole might also be in order, to assess the board's performance especially in relation to value creation. Another consideration is professional development, to ensure all directors are adequately trained and knowledgeable.
  • Published on

    Board size and composition: the Goldilocks effect

    Decision Making Diversity Governance Management Performance Research
    Board diversity and board size are common topics of conversation in governance circles these days. Hardly a week goes by without one or both topics being mentioned. Most commonly people ask about board diversity and the relationship with firm performance, and the 'perfect' board size. Typically, my responses have been "Yes, diversity is good" and "No, there is no such thing as a perfect board size". Beyond that, context kicks in because every board, governance situation and even every decision is, to some extent at least, unique.  
    I have happily shared these responses and offered other supporting commentaries to all who ask—until now. What's changed? This article has set me thinking. Here are some insights that bear further consideration:
    • On team (read, board) size: Many boards of directors have five to fifteen members (the largest board I have advised had eighteen members—what group dynamics disaster). Contrast that with the research cited in the article and elsewhere, which suggests that six is pretty close to optimal. Beyond six, cliques emerge and the likelihood of free riding increases. Have you seen any of these characteristics? It might be time to review the size of your board.
    • On diversity: Diversity has been heavily promoted amongst the governance community in recent years. While diversity can be great for ideation, it can also be bad for cohesion. That's because the board needs to operate as a team. The research suggests that some similarity is good (i.e., shared understandings not same physical attributes) because it enhances effectiveness in performing complex and unpredictable tasks (like board decisions!). The point here is that sameness is good in some ways (operating basis and purpose) and diversity is better in others (ideation and debate). Striking the balance takes maturity.
    So, food for thought. The article was published by the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania—not by some backyard consultant or agency trying to sell services. This means we can rely on the commentary. While it may or may not be 'right', it certainly has substance. I would love to hear what you think about these matters after you have read the article and pondered the ideas and suggestions.