Tags

  • Published on

    Do unto others as you would want done to you...

    Conferences Governance
    An email arrived from the convenors of the upcoming British Academy of Management conference a couple of days ago. It contained a request to review submissions from two different authors hoping to have their papers accepted onto the conference programme. The review process is a double-blind affair, meaning I don't know the author's identity and they don't know who reviewed their paper. My membership on the review panel is a consequence of submitting a paper myself. Submitters are asked to review other papers, which is fair enough.

    I printed both of the papers today (I review documents the old fashioned way—with a pen in hand). On first glance, one of the papers appears to be well-written and the other less so. As I skimmed through the less well written paper (ahead of a comprehensive review in the next week or so), my mind wandered towards thoughts of quality, acceptance threshold and the reputation of the conference. Superficially, the paper is marginal in terms of acceptability. When I read the paper thoroughly, I must form an opinion about the paper: should it be rejected or should it be accepted albeit with robust feedback? Without wishing to preempt the review process, my instinct suggests the provision of robust feedback is probably the better choice, because it creates a learning opportunity. It's simple really. My paper is going through the same process. How would I like to be treated? Some carefully crafted statements will probably be required, so that any biases I might have in terms of the topic, the way the paper has been written, or from my first impressions are kept in check. Fortunately, I have a couple of weeks to complete the review and decide how to respond. 
  • Published on

    Learning to say 'no'

    Phd Time Management
    Image description
    I have just been asked to consider a nomination to become deputy chair of the New Zealand Vintage Car Club (Wellington Branch). I've been interested in old cars for as long as I can remember—particularly Lancia, Alfa Romeo and Triumph cars from the 1950s and 1960s. (In case you are wondering, the car in the picture is our current indulgence.) We joined the VCC a few years ago, to meet others with similar interests beyond the marques we are most interested in. Now this unexpected approach has come.

    While it's an honour to be asked to contribute to the leadership of an organisation, a most important consideration is whether one has the expertise and the time to do the job well. Sometimes the best response is to decline the invitation, despite the confidence others have in you, and the organisation and role being in one's sweet spot.

    The challenge for us all is to ensure that we make excellent contributions in whatever we take on. The VCC role includes two meetings a month (committee meeting plus monthly branch meeting) and attendance at various events. It would be fun, but it would also be a diversion. In my case, the priority for the year is to complete the doctorate. Other important contributory tasks include writing and presenting papers at international conferences, facilitating professional development courses for the IoD, a tiny amount of consulting and keeping (somewhat) fit. Something would have to go if I took on the VCC role, but it can't be anything on my priority list, thus my decision. Do you face similar dilemmas?
  • Published on

    Major health and safety reforms (for the better) ahead

    Governance Management Performance Societal Wellbeing
    The New Zealand government has just announced the introduction of new health and safety legislation. It requires companies to keep their employees safe or face some stiff penalties. While many boards and senior management teams display responsible attitudes towards the safety of their employees, some have been been quite cavalier in their approach. The reforms include making directors personally liable for breeches—the penalties being fines of up to $3m (companies) and $600,000 (individuals).

    Some may see the proposal as being 'over the top'. However, it has been well signalled: new guidelines for directors were announced ten months ago, in May 2013. The proposal will be a helpful addition to the governance landscape if it drives directors towards taking greater responsibility for their decisions. Certainly, the move towards holding directors accountable for inaction will be welcomed by many. 
  • Published on

    On women in leadership, the glass ceiling and statistics

    Governance Leadership Management Performance Research Societal Wellbeing
    The glass ceiling seems to be alive and operating well in New Zealand—or so a reporter's interpretation of a recently published report by Grant Thornton would have us believe.

    Whereas New Zealand was the first country in the world to embrace universal adult suffrage, it now ranks 15th in terms of the proportion of senior executive positions held by women (down from fourth a decade ago). The reporter seems to have used this statistic to make the glass ceiling claim. The Grant Thornton spokesman has made similar claims. However, when one reads the Grant Thornton report more carefully, the picture is actually somewhat different. The global average has also stalled. The proportion of women in senior executive positions jumped from 19% to 24% in the three years from 2004 to 2007 but has remained largely static since. (The New Zealand proportion is 31%.)

    Rather than make speculative claims, of a glass ceiling, the discussion needs to centre on why the proportion has stalled. It could be that a quarter to a third is representative of the number of effective female leaders available to contribute. Or, it could be that more are willing, but they lack the expertise to be truly effective when measured against male counterparts. Or, it could be due to a myriad of other contributing factors. Whatever the reason, business and society would be well served by finding out. Notwithstanding this, simplistic approaches (like counting things) are unhelpful. They cannot produce anything more than correlations, statements of what 'is' and emotive claims. The problem is complex, so a different research approach is required to reveal the underlying mechanisms. However, such research is typically slow and demanding, as I've discovered in my own research work. In the meantime, reporters like Mr Foreman would be well served by taking a little more care in their reporting.

    * For the record, I am a strong advocate of appointing the best and most capable person to any role, regardless of their gender or any other diversity variable.
  • Published on

    Healthy team dynamics trumps individual performance

    Governance Leadership Performance
    A new piece of research, about boards and performance, confirms what many people already know: the power of 'team' is more conducive to performance than individual brilliance is. You see it all the time in team sports. Whether it's the Seattle Seahawks, Sky Procycling or the All Blacks of New Zealand, the collective power of a cohesive team, working towards a single goal, is a much stronger proposition than a team of individuals, as brilliantly capable as some of the individuals may be.

    Boards of directors are no different. Celebrity directors or notables with important political, investment or other business connections are no match for a cohesive board that works as one towards an agreed goal. Given the widespread knowledge of this principle, why do so many shareholders and activist investors continue to promote candidates that play as individuals the moment they enter the boardroom?
  • Published on

    Qantas: a corporate tragedy, or a gross failure of governance?

    Governance Leadership Performance
    Image description
    What is happening at Qantas, Australia's once great national airline? While other airlines, including Air New Zealand, are performing well and generating solid returns, Qantas has fallen off its perch. Profits are down and jobs are being axed. Many commentators have published articles in the past few days about the impending demise of Qantas, including this one published in the Sydney Morning Herald. While claims of impending demise may be impetuous, a sorry pattern of neglect is apparent. The board of directors is nowhere to be seen.

    The board has the delegation to oversee the performance of the company, in accordance with the shareholder's wishes. Yet the board has not been mentioned. It has remained remarkably silent. We don't know what its been doing. Have the directors been actively working in the back room, or have they fallen asleep at the wheel? Clearly a series of mis-steps and mishaps have beset Qantas and placed it on a downward trajectory. The job of the board is to respond. It is the board's job to set strategy, appoint a CEO to implement it and make adjustments when needed. Will CEO Alan Joyce (just 42 years old when appointed) and others be sacked? Maybe. Should they be? If Alan Joyce has failed to implement the approved strategy then possibly. However, if the board has not crafted an appropriate strategy, or if it has not made adjustments in response to unexpected situations and changing market dynamics, then the board itself is culpable.

    Clearly, there are more moves to be played out yet, including the possibility of a bailout by the government (that happened to Air New Zealand—over a decade ago now). However, we need to hear from the board, to see some leadership in what is obviously a time of crisis. After all, the accountability buck stops there.