Research - Peter Crow | Helping boards govern with impact

Published on: 16 November 2013

ECMLG'13: reflections from day 2

The ECMLG conference is over again for another year. The second day saw another twenty papers (approximately) delivered, by some very capable scholars. As happened on the first day, most of the presentations on day 2 were well received, with some very good questions and discussions during question time.

The following bullet points are my summary reflections, having just returned to my hotel room after an end-of-conference dinner with six other delegates:

The ACPI people ran a good conference. They do 18–20 conferences per year, so it would be relatively easy to just go through the motions. Not ACPI. They seem to genuinely care about delivering a great conference package.
The highlight of the whole conference—for me at least—was Vlado Dimovski's keynote on the second morning.
Some presenters (including some who had written simply outstanding papers) suffered the indignity of addressing very small audiences. It would appear that a group of the delegates chose to bypass sessions in favour of tourist activities. While one can't compel delegates to attend, the organisers may want to look at ways to stimulate "fringe" delegates to remain engaged throughout.
The majority of the papers were delivered by European scholars, which is perhaps not surprising given the regional orientation of the conference. However, the topics of management leadership and governance have global reach and import, so it would have been nice to see more papers from North American and Asian scholars. I think it would have enriched the discussion.

As with other similar conferences, I met some amazing people, and was welcomed into the community of leadership and governance scholars with open arms. This included opportunities to test ideas and get some feedback to inform the next stages of my own research, which I deeply appreciated.

Looking ahead to next year, the 10th European Conference on Management Leadership and Governance will be held in Zagreb, Croatia, in October 2014. I have already pencilled the conference in my diary, with a view to presenting my final thesis findings to the world.

Published on: 15 November 2013

ECMLG'13: Keynote address day 2

Prof Vlado Dimovski (University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, and formerly a Minister in the Slovenian government) spoke on the topic of advanced approaches to leadership, from the perspective of his experience in Central and Eastern Europe.

After providing a summary of leadership in socialist Yugoslavia (where leadership was not discussed—indeed it was suppressed), Dimovski caught the audience's attention when he answered the classic question Are leaders born or made? with "Yes". In so doing he introduced the concepts of holistic leadership and complexity. He went on to challenge the superman leadership paradigm which dominates western thought and practice. Rather than criticising Western thought and practice outright—and promoting Eastern philosophies as "better"—Dimovski challenged the audience to consider the possibility that effective leadership might best be built on a "both–and" model. He then suggested three frameworks that may be helpful to leadership practice in the future:

Authentic leadership: Leadership without masks, related to values, the "true you".
Daoist leadership: Leadership is not intrusive (as it is in Western models) but inclusive and based on a deep reality, that nothing is exactly as it first seems.
Neuroleadership: Connects neuroscientific knowledge with leadership practice. Suggests that leadership potential can be fulfilled through a better understanding of how the brain functions and cognition.

Dimovski's paper was well received by the audience, some of whom said to me beforehand that they were expecting to hear from a "socialist evangelist". However this was not the case. We need to hear more from people like Dimovski.

Published on: 15 November 2013

ECMLG'13: Reflections from Day 1

The first day of the 9th European Conference on Management Leadership and Governance is over. During the course of the day, some 29 peer-reviewed research papers were presented, in addition to Sloan's keynote at the beginning of the day. Some of the highlights and reflections from day 1 are listed below:

We have much to learn from each other. For example, I sat with a Professor from Neapolis University (Pafos, Cyprus) over dinner. We had a great, wide-ranging conversation, which included the sharing of some stories about the demands of tertiary education, and especially the challenges of securing a place in undergraduate programmes in highly-regarded universities around the world. I concluded that New Zealand students have it easy, especially when compared to the demands of entry at places like Imperial College in London (mind you, it is one of the top five rated engineering schools in the world).
We have much to learn from each other #2. In a side conversation between sessions, I was told that an Australian-based doctoral candidate had recently completed a multi-year case study of leadership in several organisations, using direct observation as a key data collection method. This is the first time I have heard of any study (anywhere) that has attempted the same sort of design as I am using. Hopefully, when more details are available in the next week or two, I'll be able to assess the correspondence between their study and mine, with a view to securing a meeting to learn more—especially to discover what learning might be applicable to my own work.
Many of the papers from Eastern European contributors followed a predictable pattern, of the statistical analysis of a set of quantitative data gathered from publicly available records. Some of the conclusions presented were a little tenuous, which is not surprising given the difficulties reporting generalisations about social phenomena from statistical data. Notwithstanding this, it was great to hear from enthusiastic researchers from a part of the world that I know little about, apart from what I have been exposed to in books and television programmes.
My own paper seemed to be well-received, despite a small audience. I appreciated the opportunity to summarise my work; to field questions from the floor; and, defend the philosophical and methodological approach that underpins my work. I am looking forward to more conversations on day 2 and beyond.
The conference dinner was held at Schloss Maria Loretto, on the shores of Wothersee. This beautiful castle that dates back to 1700s. The schloss is a short 8-minute walk from the conference hotel, so many of the delegates took a "walking bus" to get there. The food and service was outstanding. It was raining when we left, so many of us "enjoyed" the stroll back to the hotel in the gentle rain. My day ended damp but happy.

Published on: 15 November 2013

ECMLG'13: IT governance and technology topics

The ECMLG programme this year includes several papers on IT governance and related technology topics, which indicates an increasing level of interest amongst management, leadership and governance researchers. Some of the papers I attended and/or read include:

IT governance, decision-making and IT capabilities
Information technology leadership on electronic records management: The Malaysian experience
A framework for business–IT fusion
Business–IT fusion: developing a shared world view

Amongst these, an encouraging theme—of linking IT priorities with corporate business objectives—became apparent. This is heartening because, in my experience, many IT aficionados have been more interested in the evangelism of capability and particular methods and processes.

Published on: 15 November 2013

ECMLG'13: Moving boards from agency to performance

James Lockhart (Massey University, New Zealand) presented a paper which challenged the underlying foundation that has supported the majority of the governance research and practice over the last four decades. Lockhart opened by contending that the focus that many boards have on compliance has produced a generation of defensive, reputation-protecting boards, as opposed to boards that focus on business performance. Lockhart asserted that governance attention needs to change, away from compliance and towards factors that effect performance:

Division of labour: A clear division of labour, between boards and managers (cf. the often ambiguous roles of governance and management) is crucial to deciding who does what (efficiency and effectiveness)
Power: Hubris in the boardroom tends to determine what gets discussed, and therefore, what gets implemented. In contrast, humility and a commitment to cooperation should be conducive to refocussing attention on collegial efforts to discover, agree and work together towards the corporate objective.
The role of the owner: In many governance situations, the role of the owner has been forgotten or ignored. This should not be a surprise, because the governance legislation in many countries requires the board to act in the best interest of the company (cf. the owner). If the role of the owner is reasserted, boards' attention should move to the making of decisions that affect the goals and strategies of the owners/shareholders.

These points provide a useful basis for future governance research, and for practice. However, they assume that directors and boards have the competence and inclination to change their behaviours and embrace them—an assumption which, unfortunately, cannot be taken for granted.

Published on: 15 November 2013

ECMLG'13: Culture and conflict in MNCs

Selected views on the organisational culture of multinational corporiations

Alena Safrova Drasilova (Masaryk University, Czech Republic) presented her research on conflict and culture in multinational corporations (MNCs). Drasilova surveyed people from 2509 branches of 335 MNCs, in an effort to understand the influence of headquarters culture on the culture of branches located in the Czech Republic. The preliminary results indicated that MNCs headquartered in Europe displayed less conflict at the branch level than companies headquartered elsewhere.

The discussion that followed the paper was extensive—clearly the paper stimulated the interest of the audience. One aspect of the discussion explored the notion of cultural alignment in a category Drasilova described as global (companies that identified themselves as not having a national head office—Bosch being German, or IKEA being Swedish, for example—but rather a pervasive culture in which the characteristics of the brand itself prevails over the location of the country—McDonalds, for example)

It would be very interesting to understand if any linkages between culture/conflict and performance exist, particularly whether the presence or absence of conflict makes any difference. Drasilova said that no work had been undertaken yet, but that this is the next step in the research. I look forward to reading this next phase of work, because I suspect the approach she plans to take may well have parallels to my own work.

Tags