The keynote address was delivered by Richard Hames, a corporate philosopher. Notes and observations from Hames' address:

Leadership is changing and needing to change—in response to a major transition occurring in the world. We are moving from industrial economism (which has sustained the world for the last 300 years) and a new world order. Population growth is putting huge pressure on “life critical” systems, systems initially created to sustain order in our society. These included the economy, trade, production and distribution of food, cleaning drinking water, education, and the law.

The occidental lens, through which most world systems have been developed, is no longer valid. Systems are beginning to fail. Extreme events (weather, for example) are fundamentally changing life on the planet. The pressures being exerted and the emergent failures are now creating opportunities for change, particularly in the leadership arena.

The emergent change is that we are starting to exit the CEO (competitive business achiever) meme, and to enter a “community” meme, where shared purpose (collaboration) will begin to prevail over the accumulation mindset. Hames said the vehicle to lead through this transition are the “the five literacies of leadership”.

Hames’ talk was interesting, and the five literacies coherent. However, the talk seemed to assume that the CEO meme is inherently flawed (ie: selfish and subject to corrupt practice) and must be replaced. This troubles me. Cannot CEO and community memes co-exist? 

Later this week—on Thu 7 and Fri 8 February—I will be speaking at the International Conference on Management, Leadership and Governance in Bangkok, Thailand. I'm looking forward to the challenge of speaking to a learned international audience, and to learning from other speakers and researchers throughout the two days.

I plan to share session summaries, observations and insights here during the conference, so check back if you'd like to hear about current developments in the fields of management, leadership and governance.

I can't remember how many times I've heard company leaders, directors and, to a lesser extent, owners say they don't formulate strategy nor have a strategic plan "because everything is changing so quickly, any plan would be out of date". Statements like this are akin to saying we are too busy running (the company) to look where we are going or plan where we might head. Is this smart or is this dumb? I think the latter.

The problem with simply responding as the environment around you emerges—with not planning for the future—is that a competitor may do something that catches you completely off guard. To be caught flatfooted like this could spell disaster for your business.

A reasonable middle ground between a long, highly detailed strategic plan that probably won't get read or actioned, and no plan at all, is a succinct plan. I'll call it a smart strategy. A smart strategy has several defining characteristics:

• A smart strategy ties directly and explicitly to your company's core purpose. (If you don't have or can't describe your company's core purpose, sort that out first.)
• A smart strategy is succinct—no more than 3–5 pages in length. It should contain the company's core purpose, the strategies to achieve the purpose, objective measures (so progress can be monitored) and high-level actions required to achieve the strategies.
• A smart strategy takes a medium-term view. Five years is too long, too much can change (and probably will). Three is better. One year is too short (too tactical and operational).
• A smart strategy is built with the input of several key groups of stakeholders. The Board and management and selected customers and selected industry experts should work together. No one person or one group has all the answers. However, by working together, robust debate can take place and strategic options can be subjected to vigorous challenge.
• A smart strategy should not contain pages of SWOT tables, competitor positioning, product detail, organisational structure and names of key staff. This detail should be recorded elsewhere. It is input to the strategy, not the strategy itself.
• A smart strategy is read and reviewed regularly. The Board and management should sit down, together, and review the strategy every six months—to identify what's changed and what changes are needed. Flexibility is crucial—particularly in fast-paced, high-change environments.

I've seen this approach work well in many different organisations. If you'd like to explore how it might work for you, please contact me.

For decades now, researchers have been searching for the link between governance and performance that supposedly exists. Most of the research has investigated isolated attributes of governance—things like Board size, gender diversity, the inside/outside director balance, and CEO/Chair duality. The results have been mixed. Some researchers have suggested correlations. Others have disagreed. Despite considerable effort—over an extended period—researchers seem to have reached an impasse.

I was thinking about this while watching a motor racing programme on television yesterday, and concluded we've been looking at the wrong things.

Do cars go faster because they have a male driver or red paint, (for example)? Of course not. Rather, they go faster because of the way they are prepared and what happens on the race track. Racing drivers win because of what they do (techniques, decision-making), not who or what they are (gender, fitness levels, red car). 

We have much to learn from this analogy. If a link between governance and company performance exists (as several well-regarded scholars have postulated), it will, in all likelihood, be due to the activities of the Board as a whole—what they talk about, the decisions they make, the way they monitor performance. If progress towards exposing the elusive link between governance and performance is to be made, the research agenda needs to change—from attributes to activities. Does this sound plausible to you?

This is one of the perennial questions of governance. It just keeps coming up. Almost every month I am asked to comment on the "best model" of governance. 

Governance is hard to grasp as a concept. What's more, it is a complex and socially dynamic phenomenon. Governance has lots of moving parts, and things change, depending on context. Indeed, no universally accepted definition for "corporate governance", "IT governance", "policy governance", or even "governance" itself seems to exist. The OECD definition of corporate governance, written in 2004, is widely recognised and generally accepted, however many directors and owners of smaller companies question how it fits their circumstances.

Back to the question. The research literature is fairly clear: the pursuit of a one-size-fits-all governance model—or an optimal Board structure for that matter—does not appear to be practical, feasible or even desirable. Just as different organisational structures and operating policies make sense in different settings (who'd apply Fortune 500 structures in a SME?), different governance models also make sense in different settings. So, the answer is "no"—but that begs another question: how should one go about implementing effective governance in an organisational setting? Well (you're not going to like this), it depends.

Clearly, working out how to implement an effective governance framework is important, because the question keeps coming up. I've decided to try to tackle this question over the coming weeks. I'll share what I learn through Musings. Watch this space!

According to the calendar on my desk, today is 4 January 2013. However, in my mind's eye, today is "day two" of 2013—because yesterday was the first day back at my desk since about 18 December.

The two-week break has been refreshing. I spent a lot of time on the three 'R's: reading, riding, relaxing (with family and friends). However, now it's time to "get stuck in" again—to what is shaping up to be a huge year of data collection, analysis and (hopefully) writing. 

I spent the morning reviewing my doctoral journey to date, and sorting out the priority items that need most attention over the coming weeks. Here's what emerged:

• sity's Ethics Committee (all research involving human participants must be approved before it can proceed).
• Recruit three companies to participate as cases in the research.
• Review and rewrite the literature review I conducted last year.

So, hello 2013. As I proceed, I'll draw strength from Isaiah 40:31.