Tags

  • Published on

    Can strategy and execution be usefully distinguished?

    Accountability Governance Leadership Performance Strategy
    Image description
    Roger L Martin, a respected professor at Rotman School of Management and co-author of Playing to Win, has put the cat amongst the pigeons, with this commentary, itself a response to this widely circulated article. The authors of the original article reported findings from a study, which showed that only eight per cent of leaders are good at both strategy and execution. Martin contends that most leaders who are very effective at either strategy formulation are also very effective at execution. Quite a different view. Two different perspectives. Who is correct?
    As with any report involving statistics, context is crucial. If you consider all leaders (as Leinwand, Mainardi and Kleiner did), only eight per cent are "very effective" at both formulating strategy and executing strategy. However, if you only consider only those that are "very effective at strategy", fully two-thirds are also good at execution (Martin's point). Thus, both authors are 'correct'. But which commentary is more helpful to leaders and those intent on achieving business success?
    The shocking statistic is that just sixteen per cent of leaders are "very effective" at strategy formulation or execution or both. Turbulent times demand outstanding leadership, both to determine strategy and to ensure it is executed with excellence. Poor, neutral and even "effective" contributions have little chance of moving companies toward their goals if they are competing against "very effective" leaders. Consequently, 84 per cent of leaders will be found wanting (notice the Pareto Principle?). Rather than debate statistics, it may be more useful to move the discussion to discovering how to move more leaders into the "very effective" sector.
    Another perhaps more important question—for boards of directors in particular—centres on Martin's assertion that strategy and execution are the same thing. Can the two tasks can be distinguished? 
    Strategy formulation and execution are two of the four pillars of strategic management (development, approval, implementation and monitoring). My research suggests that business success is dependent on two things: having a clear sense of purpose and an effective strategy, and great execution. The former is an important task that boards and managers should work on together and the latter is the domain of management (only) once strategic decisions are made by the board. However, some flexibility is required because things change. Decisions and adjustments are required from time to time. If companies are to react and respond quickly, strong leadership is crucial to avoid mayhem. So where does that leave Martin's assertion, that formulation and execution cannot be usefully distinguished? What is your experience?
  • Published on

    On the DNA of high performing businesses

    Accountability Governance Leadership Performance
    Picture
    What makes a successful business successful? Can success be pursued, or are great outcomes largely a matter of luck? Success, it seems, is dependent on companies doing a rather small number of things consistently well. Jim Collins (Good to great), Colin Campbell-Hunt (World famous in New Zealand) and others have studied this question and produced some great insights.
    Recently, business advisory firm KPMG, added their view. The KPMG study revealed eight 'DNA traits' of high-performing enterprises, as follows (click image on right for a larger version):
    • Pivotal leadership
    • Attitude
    • Strategic anchor
    • Investment and resource allocation
    • Customer intimacy
    • Capable people
    • Connection and collaboration
    • Deployment discipline
    Picture
    This guidance is as applicable to smaller companies with big dreams as it is to more mature companies wanting to defend against competitors or push on to the next level. Did you notice that a having great product or a killer app—often lauded as being 'the crucial difference'—does not rate a mention? This point has interesting implications for strategic management, and strategy development in particular. While good products and services are important, leadership, people (customers and team), smart decisions and a sense of purpose are far more significant moderators of business success.
    If you'd like to discuss the implications of these observations for your board or your corporate strategy, please get in touch. I'd be more than happy to be a sounding board.
  • Published on

    On democracy, morals and business performance

    Accountability Ethics Governance Leadership Performance Societal Wellbeing
    Image description
    As 2015 gives way to 2016, many people will be reflecting on the past and looking to the future; thinking about what was and what might have been. I'm no different. One of the books I've been reading while pondering the past and the future this week is The Servile Mind by Kenneth Minogue. A friend recommended it—he wondered whether the commentary might be applicable to directors and boards. My response, having read half of the book so far, is an unreserved 'yes'! Here's the note on the flyleaf:
    One of the grim comedies of the twentieth century was that miserable victims of communist regimes would climb walls, sim rivers, dodge bullets, and find other desperate ways to achieve liberty  the West at the same time that progressive intellectuals would sentimentally proclaim that these very regimes were the wave of the future. A similar tragicomedy is playing out in our century: as the victims of despotism and backwardness from Third World nations pour into Western States, academic and intellectuals present Western life as a nightmare of inequality and oppression.
    In The Servile Mind: How Democracy Erodes the Moral Life,​ Kenneth Minogue explores the intelligentsia's love affair with social perfection and reveals how that idealistic dream is destroying exactly what has made the inventive Western world irresistible to the peoples of foreign lands. The Servile Mind looks at how Western morality has evolved into mere "politico-moral" posturing about admired ethical causes—from solving world poverty and creating peace to curing climate change. Today, merely making the correct noises and parading one's essential decency by having the correct opinions has become a substitute for individual moral responsibility.
    Instead, Minogue argues, we ask that our governments carry the burden of soling our social—and especially moral—problems for us. The sad and frightening irony is that the more we allow the state to determine our moral order and inner convictions, the more we need to be told how to behave and what to think.
    Humbly, I commend this book to all directors who want to govern well and make a difference in 2016.
  • Published on

    Accountability. Is it too much to ask?

    Accountability Decision Making Ethics Governance Performance
    History is littered with many stories of corporate successes and, sadly, almost as many failures. Why do some companies perform well over the long term while others become abject failures? Is it, as Jim Collins remarked in Good to great, a matter of luck, or is some other factor at play? While luck and environmental factors can be influential, I suspect there's more to it. A common thread that seems to weave its way through many of the success (Ford, GE, Johnson & Johnson, Xero, Facebook) and failure stories (Pan-Am, Enron, WorldCom, Satyam, and Toshiba, amongst many others) is captured in the title of this posting: Accountability.
    All directors hold, by law, a fiduciary responsibility. In Australia, New Zealand (where I live) and many other commonwealth countries, that responsibility is to the company. In the USA, it is to shareholders. Tellingly, it is never to self (despite some directors behaving as if it was!). If directors are to serve shareholders (who appoint them) and also the wider stakeholder community well, moral fortitude ​is a requirement, as is competence and engagement.
    The role of the director is one of service; of acting (read: considering information and making decisions) in the best interests of another party; and, ultimately, of being accountable for decisions made. Consequently, directors cannot afford to be asleep at the board table, nor be selfish in decision-making. Performance, accountability and ethics needs to take precedence over reputation and prestige.
  • Published on

    When is the best time for a board to ask probing questions? Now.

    Accountability Decision Making Governance Performance
    Image description
    As a director, where does 'risk' feature in your considerations? Is risk something that gets close attention only when a major proposal is being considered around the board table or when a significant and unforeseen problem occurs? Away from major events, is risk something associated with a register of items (that receives cursory attention)? And whose job is it to identify and manage risk in a company, anyway?
    Should boards rely on management to report both accurately and well, or do boards need to probe? If boards wait on management, as happened at the Christchurch Council a few years ago, the board is entirely dependent on the propensity of management to report risks both accurately and in a timely manner. If they do, well and good. If not, the consequences can be dire.
    Boards have a duty of care to ensure resources are applied well and that expected results are achieved. Verification is a crucial—to ensure projects are on track, that expected outcomes are being achieved, that material risks are being identified and that satisfactory mitigations are established. ​To monitor is insufficient.
    To remain silent and to rely on management reporting (only) is to abdicate one's responsibility. Take this current case, a project that has been allowed to run 100 per cent over budget. What got in the road of objective scrutiny? Hubris, ineptitude, incompetence or something more sinister? Might this problem have been avoided if hard questions were asked early on? Directors need to remember their fiduciary duty. The priority is to serve the company, not self. 
    Directors need to be as cunning as foxes, checking and probing from several angles, in case a problem lies in wait. The best time to ask probing questions is 'now', before it's too late.
  • Published on

    Are you onboard or overboard?

    Accountability Decision Making Governance Performance Strategy Tough Questions
    This muse is the second in an occasional series being written over the holiday period entitled Tough questions about boards. The first muse considered the question of board size. This one looks at board commitment, by asking the question:
    • How many directorships is it 'reasonable' for a competent director to hold at any one time?
    The number of concurrent board appointments is a touchy topic for some directors, especially those who think in terms of turning and contributing 'on-the-fly'. How any director can expect to make meaningful a contribution without reading reports and thinking critically about the matters at hand well in advance of the actual board meeting is beyond me. I've written about this before. Then, I suggested that four concurrent directorships (of mid-cap publicly-listed or privately-held companies) was a reasonable upper limit for any director that hoped to make a meaningful contribution to board discussions, decision-making and, ultimately, company performance.
    The feedback at the time suggested the commentary struck a nerve, and that change was coming. Now, two years on, I'm not so sure. A conversation with a colleague earlier this week leads me to believe not much has changed. The colleague recounted a conversation he had with a director who off-handedly said that ten boards was her working maximum. "Beyond that, things get a bit hectic", she apparently said. Imagine that: ten boards! She must have a big brain to hold the details of ten companies, and know something about time management that most of us don't. However, that director is not alone, ​if the stories in this article are any indication. 
    Why do boards and shareholders continue to ask busy people, including so-called celebrity directors, to join their boards when there are literally hundreds of highly competent director candidates (with sufficient space in their diary to learn the business well and make a meaningful contribution) available to choose from? Have they/we lost sight of why boards exist and of their role in value creation? On the evidence above, perhaps we have.