Tags

  • Published on

    On leadership: there is no silver bullet

    Leadership Management Performance Readings Research
    The production of silver bullets—panaceas—is a growth industry. New books, all claiming to contain "the" answer, appear in the bookstores almost daily. Sadly, many are far more self-indulgent than helpful to the reader. Yet we lap them up, as we search for ways to be more effective in our professional and personal lives.

    I've become a bit jaundiced by the self-help gravy-train of late, however one of the books from my summer reading list has restored my faith somewhat: History Lessons: what business and management can learn from the great leaders of history. Jonathan Gifford, the author, asserts that there is no one model leadership model or kind of leader that can hope to be effective in all situations. Leadership is a complex phenomenon, and different attributes need to come to the fore in different situations. What a breath of fresh air.

    Gifford identifies eight skills and abilities that represent many of the essential things that any leader should be able to do and—ideally—be good at. He uses great leaders from history (not all of whom will be well known in the Western world) to illustrate his points.
    • Changing the mood
    • Boldness of vision
    • Doing the planning
    • Leading from the front
    • Bringing people with you
    • Making thing happen
    • Taking the offensive
    • Creating opportunities

    The book is easy to read. I commend it as a great investment, to aspiring and established leaders. But be warmed: it will make you think about your current leadership situation.
  • Published on

    How is a researcher different from a consultant?

    Governance Leadership Performance Research
    Last week, I explored the difference between an advisor and a consultant. The question stimulated a strong response (thank you!), thus this encore. The difference between a researcher and a consultant might seem to be more clear cut. Most of us think of researchers as those boffins that inhabit our learning institutions, whereas consultants are typically suited and found in business environments. Does that make them completely different beasts? Consider this:
    • A researcher defines problems and tries to solve them. So does a consultant.
    • A researcher is a knowledge worker. A consultant is as well.
    • Researchers tend to work alone. Many consultants do as well.

    At this level, the roles appear to be very similar, so are the two terms simply two different names for a very similar activity? Possibly, but I don't think so. A key difference between the roles is emphasis. A consultant is most interested in practice, and good consultants use theory to contribute to their work. In contrast, a researcher is most interested in theory (be it testing theories or developing new ones), and good researchers use data from practice to inform their work (testing theories or developing new theory).

    The roles are different, but they are closely coupled. Given this, why do so many consultants look down their noses at academic researchers (and vice versa)?
  • Published on

    Governance, by looking backward

    Governance Leadership Performance Research Strategy
    The NACD's annual missive, of the burning issues likely to light up the corporate governance firmament in 2014, has just been published. The article, which claims to provide a comprehensive assessment of what's on the board director's horizon, makes interesting reading—as much for its omissions as its inclusions. Sadly, the reportedly burning issues, which were "gleaned from interviews with directors and corporate governance leaders", are historical, defensive or operational in nature.

    I have no doubt the reported issues are the ones that were on the top of director's minds when they were interviewed. They are important, and need to be dealt with. However, the omission of issues that can make a difference to company performance is very revealing. Boards are responsible for optimising company performance in accordance with the shareholder's wishes. If the published list is any indicator, few boards will spend much time actually looking ahead in 2014 to issues that matter, like strategy, boardroom performance and accountability.

    The question that drops out of this discussion is a tough one: Why do shareholders continue to appoint directors and accept boards that spend the bulk of their time looking backward?
  • Published on

    What research can we accept then?

    Phd Readings Research Teaching
    I had a fantastic meeting with my PhD supervisor earlier this week, to review my approach to the research methodology chapter of my thesis. When we stopped for some lunch and a walk outside, James showed me two articles from the 19 October 2013 issue of The Economist. They blew my mind. Entitled How science goes wrong and Trouble at the lab, the articles outlined how much of the so-called scientific research conducted by academics is actually a load of rubbish. For example:
    • Last year researchers at one biotech firm, Amgen, found they could reproduce just six of 53 'landmark' studies in cancer research.
    • A leading computer scientist frets that three-quarters of papers in his subfield are bunk.
    • In 2000–10 roughly 80,000 patients took part in clinical trials based on research that was later retracted because of mistakes or improprieties.

    The examples and supporting narrative floored me—it was sobering reading. The points about how research is conducted, how research articles are reviewed and, most importantly, how research is funded (the funding mechanisms drives the behaviours) were enlightening. The lingering question in my mind, having dwelt on these articles over the last two days, is this: just what research can we accept then? The answer probably lies in the maxim recorded in the first sentence of the 'goes wrong' article: 'trust, but verify'.

    The exercise was a timely and helpful wakeup call for my own efforts, to ensure my work is 'good science'. Thank you James.
  • Published on

    2014: A big year ahead...

    Conferences Phd Research
    The first couple of weeks of January are usually a fairly laid-back affair in New Zealand. As a population, we tend to 'get away' after the hustle and bustle of Christmas. We camp, we get out on the water, we hike, we read, and we share each other's company over food and drink. Corporate offices and factories are usually fairly quiet, with skeletal staff keeping things ticking over until things get underway again, usually in the second or third week or the year.

    One of my habits during the summer break is to think about the year ahead, to get a sense of where my priorities should lie. When I get back to my desk (6 January this year), I write my ideas down, make some choices and load important dates and deadlines into my diary.

    This year the decision process was easy: my doctorate is the priority. Here's a snapshot of how my year is shaping up at this stage:
    • January: write methodology chapter for thesis; quick personal visit to Sydney
    • February: write paper for British Academy of Management conference; continue boardroom observations; finalise methodology chapter
    • March: speak at International Conference on Management, Leadership and Governance (Babson, Mass); continue boardroom observations; commence analysis of data
    • April: update literature review chapter; continue boardroom observations; continue data analysis
    • May: final boardroom observation; continue data analysis
    • June: continue data analysis; second round CEO & Chair interviews; finalise literature review chapter
    • July: complete data analysis; write paper for European Conference on Management, Leadership and Governance; short winter break
    • August: thesis writing in earnest; think about conclusions
    • September: speak at British Academy of Management (Belfast, Northern Ireland); thesis writing; assemble first substantive draft of thesis
    • October: finalise first substantive draft for review by supervisors 
    • November: update thesis based on feedback from supervisors; speak at European Conference on Management, Leadership and Governance (Zagreb, Croatia)
    • December: complete final draft of thesis; submit thesis! 

    What does 2014 hold for you?
  • Published on

    Do you remember the Cadbury Report (1992)?

    Governance Leadership Management Performance Research Strategy
    Christmas 2013 is now history, which means 2014—and all the rituals associated with New Year—is nigh. For many people, the act of hanging a new calendar on the office wall in the last few days of December carries far more significance than simply closing off one year and opening the next. It stirs thoughts of the future, of what lies ahead, of one's dreams, hopes and aspirations. I am amongst those that think about the future and what lies ahead when the new calendar is hung. However, this year, I'd like to briefly look back before looking forward, lest an important anniversary in the world of corporate governance is overlooked.

    The Cadbury Report has just turned 21 years old. Do you remember the Cadbury Report and the recommendations it contained? The so-called Cadbury Report was actually the Report of the Committee on the Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance. An archive containing copies of Sir Adrian Cadbury's speeches, the report itself, and other related matters is now available online. The Report was commissioned following several scandals and company collapses, and the damage to investor confidence that ensued. It provided several recommendations to improve corporate governance. Amongst other items, these included:
    • that the roles of Chair and CEO be separated and held by two different people
    • that the majority of the board be outside directors
    • that an Audit committee, comprised of outside directors, be appointed

    The goal was to improve trust, transparency and performance. Subsequent to the Report, many companies have adopted the recommendations (motivated perhaps by the London Stock Exchanges "comply or explain" requirement), although not without resistance and reluctance in some quarters.

    The question to be asked on the occasion of the Report's 21st birthday is whether the recommendations have improved corporate governance and, perhaps more importantly, company performance. Sadly, the evidence is mixed, very mixed. History shows that the structural provisions, including those contained in the Cadbury Report, were insufficient to prevent the high-profile failures of the early 2000s (Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, et al), the global financial crisis of 2007–2008, and some more recent failures in New Zealand and elsewhere as well. But that should not be a surprise to anyone, because the purpose of rules and structures is to provide boundaries. Rules and structures cannot ensure or predict any level of future performance. The human condition; ethics; and, the propensity to act in good faith (or otherwise) need to be factored in, if a performance orientation is to be pursued.