Tags

  • Published on

    How to keep strategy alive in the boardroom

    Accountability Governance Performance Strategy
    A couple of weeks ago I had the privilege and pleasure of working with 20 company directors on the strategy day of the Institute of Directors' Company Directors Course. Several delegates had a particular interest in how to keep strategy 'alive' in the boardroom. In their experience, boards start with good intentions but they quickly return to what they know best, monitoring and controlling. They agreed that boards are responsible for company performance (which means boards need to make decisions about the future of the business), so boards need to take strategy seriously. But many don't, which suggests that an important questions remains unanswered. How can boards keep the important matter of strategy alive?
    I put the question to the group and we had a great discussion. After about 20 minutes of to-ing and fro-ing, the group seemed to settle on four main suggestions, as follows:
    • To tip the agenda on its head. Rather than discuss action items, the risk register and performance reports (typically the chief executive's report and the financial report) first, the group thought strategic items should be discussed first, particularly if some major items were expected to need considerable time and careful attention.
    • To ensure that reports were aligned directly with strategy. If the company was working to (say) four strategic priorities, then the chief executive's report should have a business performance overview followed by four sections, to demonstrate progress against each strategic imperative. The reports should also comment on the results actually being achieved vis-a-vis expected results.
    • To ensure that a major element of strategy (one of the strategic priorities, for example) was tabled at every second meeting (to allow space for annual reporting, budget cycles and other compliance oriented matters that also need attention at other meetings). The purpose of the agenda item is to debate progress, explore environmental and contextual matters pertaining to the strategic priority.
    • To create space for new information—particularly emerging trends and competitor news—and then to check whether the extant priorities were still valid and appropriate, or whether adjustments might be required.
    These are great suggestions, and they are consistent with my research and experience. They appear to have 'reach' as well, from smaller companies just starting out with boards, right up to publicly-list enterprises. What was most heartening though was the reality check that came at the end of the discussion: many of the delegates agreed that the 'urgent' can and often does get in the way of the 'important'. Consequently, business-as-usual (monitoring and compliance items) can supplant strategy. A strong and vibrant relationship between the chairman and chief executive was thought to be vital, to ensure that the agenda was appropriate; that the reporting was at the right level; and, that the chief executive had the resources to execute on that which they were expected to deliver upon. Notwithstanding such efforts, individual directors need to make a commitment—to themselves and each other—to keep the conversation focussed on strategy, for the sake of the future performance on the company.
  • Published on

    HSBC's big call: an external chairman

    Accountability Governance Leadership Performance
    Reports emerged today that the next chairman of troubled banker HSBC will be an outsider. If this is what "completely overhauled" means, then HSBC might have just made an inspired decision. However, it is not a slam-dunk. The decision is the first of many that will be required to get the organisation back on the rails and to re-establish much-needed credibility in the marketplace. 
    Another word of caution: an external chairman is no guarantee of success. Boards needs to be led well, and a high-performance culture and an effective strategy are also crucial elements. But to make the move away from appointing a chairman from amongst the executive team is a very big step in the right direction.
    Well done for taking an important step HSBC.
  • Published on

    Might the potential liabilities of cyber risk change the face of business as we know it?

    Governance Performance Societal Wellbeing Strategy
    Stephen Catlin, head of the largest Lloyd's insurer Catlin Group, delivered a stark message to the business and the insurance communities this week. He said that the potential liabilities following a cyber attack are too large for insurers to cover.
    Wow. Most company directors and executives have a general awareness of cyber risk: that attacks can have drastic impact on business. However, many directors and executives have probably felt that their insurances and risk plans have been sufficient. Until now perhaps. 
    What might Catlin's comments mean for business? Could the uber-connected world and the seemingly headlong thrust towards the Internet of Things have some nasty side-effects that we are only just becoming apparent? For example, if companies cannot secure adequate insurance cover (either outright or at a reasonable cost), might they be faced with the challenge of reviewing their business models? Progress rarely occurs without consequences. Perhaps some of the so-called old ways that many have rushed to consign to history—like walking into a store and buying groceries and other goods in person—might not be so bad after all. Is your board prepared to wrestle with this issue, or will it simply walk away?
  • Published on

    HSBC: Should the directors and executives be "banished from the City"?

    Accountability Societal Wellbeing
    In issuing an apology letter and statement that HSBC has been completely overhauled, Stuart Gulliver, chief executive, has put a stake in the ground. He wants to move on. Some may argue that more needs to be done because accountability and consequence are important foils to anarchy and chaos. However, the sentiment underpinning Gulliver's message is an important foundation of civil society: that sooner or later communities need to respond to scandals, make adjustments, and then consign them to history.
    With this in mind, should the directors and executives of HSBC be "banished from the City"?
  • Published on

    More on the HSBC debacle: What does "completely overhauled" actually mean?

    Accountability Leadership Performance
    The debacle that has become known as #HSBCleaks continues to simmer. Stuart Gulliver, chief executive, went public today with a full-page letter in several Sunday papers. The letter offers an apology for the debacle, and it seeks to provide some assurances to both customers and the general public. 
    Statements that the bank has "completely overhauled" and "fundamentally changed" its operation sound good, albeit historical. But what of the executives and directors who were not monitoring business operations properly? Are they still happily drawing benefits without further consequence? Does accountability stop short of the executive suite and the boardroom? That Lord Green is the only head to have rolled so far raises more questions than it answers, including what "completely overhauled" actually means.
    HSBC and the wider business community must learn from this scandal.
  • Published on

    ICMLG'15: Conference wrap-up

    Conferences Governance Leadership Management Research
    The annual International Conference on Management, Leadership and Governance is over for another year. The third edition of the conference, in Auckland New Zealand, built on the earlier editions. The two keynote speakers, Phil O'Reilly and Andrea Thompson, were well received. They set the scene for each day nicely. Three strong themes emerged during the conference, as follows:
    • While business researchers are making a contribution, progress is painfully slow—akin to plodding. The gap (probably best described as a chasm) between the academic research community and the business community is far wider than it should be or needs to be. While researchers need to stand somewhat apart from praxis in order to conceptualise new understandings, they need to avoid standing so far away that their work lacks relevance. Pace and relevance appear to be crucial—if research outputs are to be appreciated by the business community.
    • The research emphasis needs to change, from standing outside the subject of interest (the board, the leader, the management situation) and counting things (typically secondary attributes based on pubic data or interview/survey responses), to getting close to the subject in action. This change demands more qualitative research, in search of deep understanding and meaning. While the theme has become increasingly apparent at conferences in the last year, several delegates voiced opinions that a tipping point might be tantalisingly close.
    • Building on this last comment, researchers need to open the black box (of the board, the management team, the organisational situation) and learn what is actually going on. However, this introduces a new challenge, of discernment. Perhaps business researchers need to take the lead shown by the medical and engineering communities (amongst others). Research-capable doctors do medical research and engineers do engineering research. Has the time come for business research to be performed by researchers with real-world business experience as opposed to researchers who have never been inside a boardroom or managed a commercial entity? Many at the conference thought so.
    Some further reflections:
    • The organiser (Academic Conferences and Publishing, based in the UK) and hosts (AUT and Massey) did a wonderful job. Thank you to Louise, Pat, Coral and James, in particular.
    • The quality of the papers presented, and the author presentations seemed to be higher than the two previous conferences. Perhaps the review process worked better, or researchers are self-selecting such that only those with meaningful research submit papers. 
    • The dinner cruise, on Auckland Harbour, was the social highlight of the conference. Delegates from the Middle East and Europe (especially) were effusive in their comments. That Auckland turned on a wonderful evening sealed the deal!
    • In future, ACP may want to consider organising a programme for partners. Around 20 percent of the delegates brought their spouses with them to New Zealand and there was nothing organised for them.
    So, there you have it. The 3rd International Conference on Management Leadership and Governance is over. I look forward to the 4th edition in twelve months' time. The venue should be announced in the next month or two.