Tags

  • Published on

    Global Peter Drucker Forum: Day 1 observations

    Accountability Conferences Entrepreneur Leadership Management Research Strategy
    Picture
    The 2018 edition of the Global Peter Drucker Forum, the tenth annual gathering of leaders, philosophers and students of management was convened in Vienna, Austria this week, at the Hofburg, the Imperial Palace. The location was a wonderful, historical backdrop for two full days of discussions and debates on topical issues directly relevant to managers and leaders around the world.
    Overall, the purpose of the Forum is to share expertise and build capability in line with Peter Drucker's philosophies. This year, the theme was management . the human dimension. It was the second time I have attended the Forum. The decision to do so was relatively straightforward; made soon after I had the opportunity to stand amongst giants in November 2017. As was the case then, the programme followed a reasonably conventional format dominated by panel-based discussions and plenaries. One major difference from last year though was the scale of the event. Some 500 people attended in 2017. The tenth anniversary edition took a step up, to enable 1000 people to join the conversation. This led to some quite different dynamics at a personal level (notably that it was much more difficult to find people or to access the speakers). As a consequence, some intimacy was lost. But this is a minor point, especially when viewed in the context of a very well-run event.
    The following three summaries, presented in no particular order, provide a glimpse of the ideas shared and learnings from the first day. (If you would like to know more, please get in touch.)
    Business and society:​ Four panelists including Jean-Dominique Senard, CEO of Michelin Group, and Yves Doz, Emeritus Professor of Strategic Management at INSEAD, shared their thoughts on the importance of holding business and society together (the implication being that business and society have, or are at risk of, drifting apart). Key takeaways:
    • Whereas the people challenge during the industrial revolution was to manage staff (think, human resources), the challenge of our time as we proceed through the knowledge revolution is how to inspire staff (think, people).
    • Organisational purpose and underlying values are core to motivation and behaviour. These must be clearly established and inculcated throughout the firm (and even beyond), starting with the board of directors. If either purpose or values are ambiguous, or if people don't buy into them, the natural response is that people will offer their effort (at best), not their hearts and minds. The resultant firm performance can only be mediocrity. 
    • Collaboration, both within the firm and with others (think, ecosystem) is necessary if a firm is to scale quickly.
    • Most established businesses know they need to put people in the middle—but they struggle to implement the change needed to put this into practice.
    • Perhaps counterintuitively, 'legacy' businesses are often much more able to 'win', despite startups having greater mindshare and seeming to be better funded (Hyundai and BMW v. Tesla, for example).
    • Change is a constant now. Therefore, chief executives must operate from the perspective of leadership, not management.
    • Economic liberalism needs to be refined (to end the excesses of self-centred capitalism). If it is not, expect government intervention, through taxation and regulation. 
    Human questions, machine answers: Hal Gregersen kicked off this session with some stark predictions:
    • 15% of the jobs currently available will be removed in the future, due to automation
    • 60% of the jobs currently available will be substantially altered by technology
    The insight from the first of these numbers is that predictions of cataclysmic job-loss and unemployment are little more than scaremongering. However, the second number demonstrates that the impact of technology on work will continue to be very significant into the future. But we need to get past the numbers for focus on what actually matters: it is people.
    People everywhere need to become more adept at using computers, especially for menial and repetitive tasks, and, even more importantly, people need to be taught to be some computers can never be: humans; empathetic, curious, social beings. As humans, our ability to thrive in a world seemingly falling head-long into the embrace of AI is to ensure we ask the 'right questions', many of which will be social, ethical and spiritual.
    Other speakers added that capabilities need to prevail over skills. This might sound like semantics, but the difference between the two is both significant and important. Curiosity, situational awareness, contextual understanding and creativity are far more important than operational or tactical skills, for example. Such capabilities need to be nurtured and exercised, lest they become like unused muscles—atrophied.
    Re-engaging the humanities: The aim of this fascinating session was to argue the merit of re-connecting humans with the humanities. The starting point for the discussion was an assertion that humanity's adoption of technology has come at a great cost: mankind is rapidly losing touch with what makes him distinct from other species. Simply, the pursuit of technological 'solutions' has seen many lose sight of the meaning of life. 
    Humans are social beings, and meaning is revealed through interaction and insight. Unlike molecules that behave in a consistent manner when they are heated (cooled) or put under pressure, humans do not. As a consequence, if organisations are to thrive in the future, conceptions need to change. Rather than using deterministic and mechanistic models to understand and explain organisations and performance, a biological 'ecosystem' may provide a more instructive. In this context, the term 'ecosystem' means a community of organisms that interact contingently and their physical environment. While such communities have defining characteristics, 'success' is dependent on many factors, and it is neither predictable or guaranteed.
    A summary of observations and insights from second day is available here.
  • Published on

    Notes from a nomad in Europe

    Accountability Conferences Corporate Governance Governance Leadership Research Strategy
    Picture
    My speaking and advisory tour of several European cities got off to a great start on Sunday evening. The first port of call was Stockholm. Liselotte Hägertz Engstam, an established director and board chair in the Nordics, hosted a seminar at Tändstickspalatset; a great venue. The theme was [the] Board's role in innovation strategy and governing new digital business models. ​Some 35–40 directors and board chairs with just over 100 board mandates between them, gathered to hear two speakers, namely, Stephanie Woerner and yours truly. The following paragraphs tell the story.
    Digital business model and board contributions
    Stephanie Woerner, a Research scientist at Sloan School of Management in Boston, explored value creation in the digital economy. She observed that many (most?) corporations were somewhat lumberous, offered rather average customer service and, tellingly, were ill-equipped to take advantage of emerging 'digital opportunities'. As such, they are at risk of losing out to younger, more nimble businesses. Woerner identified six questions that companies need to resolve if they are to compete effectively in the digital economy:
    • What is your digital threat?
    • What business model is best for your enterprise's future?
    • What is your digital competitive advantage?
    • How will you connect with your prospective clients?
    • What capabilities are needed to reinvent the enterprise?
    • Do you have the leadership to make it happen?
    Then, Woerner spoke about digital savviness, making two points along the way. First, 62% of directors claim to be 'digital savvy' (and, presumably, ready to tackle emergent challenges), but only 24% are indeed savvy. Second, the presence of three digital savvy directors is sufficient to drive improved [financial] performance outcomes. With that, I sat up. How might a quantitative analysis be a reliable predictor of a contingent outcome? A person at the table I was seated at was similarly exercised. She interjected, asking what the term 'digital savvy' meant. "Great question. We used the experience and qualifications of board members as a proxy." Woerner went on the explain how this has been arrived at: a keyword analysis of resumés (searching for words such as technology, CIO, disruption, software). The presence of such words on a resumé was deemed sufficient to categorise someone as being digitally savvy. You could have heard a pin drop.
    While Woerner's assertion (that boards need to be knowledgeable of emerging technology trends) is intuitively reasonable, the underpinning research appeared to be flawed. Others seemed to agree, suggesting it is more important for directors to have a curious mind, read widely and ask probing questions. Notwithstanding this, Woerner's core point was on the money: boards need to get up to speed with technological innovations and the opportunities they present.
    ​Making a difference, from the boardroom
    I spoke second, the task being to both build on Woerner's comments and add some insights of my own. I started by acknowledging today's reality, that change seems to be the only constant. Woerner set a great platform so there was no need to labour the point, except to say that directors need to work hard to keep up. Importantly,  contemporary recommendations including so-called 'best practices' provide little assurance of better board practice much less improved firm performance.
    An important duty of all boards is ensure the future performance of the governed company. If boards are to make a difference, they need to make informed decisions about the future direction of the company, and verify whether desired performance outcomes are actually being achieved or not. Four crucial questions that boards need to ask were tabled, these being:
    • Are we doing the right things? (explores context, purpose and strategy)
    • Is strategy being actioned as expected? (explores implementation)
    • Are expected benefits being achieved? (verifies performance by way of outcomes, not just effort)
    • Are we making good decisions? (tests efficacy of board's decision-making)
    After suggesting some practical considerations, I introduced the strategic governance framework, an option for more effective contributions (as revealed from my doctoral research and subsequently lauded by both practicing directors and scholars around the world).
    Picture
    ​Insights
    The seminar presented two perspectives, namely, that directors need to become a lot more digital savvy if they are to contribute effectively in the boardroom, and that effectiveness is a function of director capability, board activity and underlying behavioural characteristics of directors, not what they look like.
    Board readiness to lead well in the emerging 'digital' world is a concern—made worse given boards tend to pay much more attention to historical performance than wrestling with the [largely unknown] future. This is the elephant in the room. 'Digital' is but a symptom, I suspect. If boards are to have any hope of influencing firm performance, what they do in the boardroom (i.e., corporate governance) needs to change.
  • Published on

    Upcoming European speaking and advisory tour

    Conferences Corporate Governance Decision Making Governance Performance Research Research Update Speaking Engagements
    Picture
    In a couple of weeks, I'll be in England and Europe, for the third and final time this year. The schedule includes attendance at two conferences, delivery of two keynotes and a bevy of meetings, as follows:
    Sun 25 Nov
    ​
    Mon 26 Nov
    Tue 27 Nov
    Wed 28 Nov
    Thu 29 Nov
    Fri 30 Nov
    Sat 1 Dec
    Sun 2 Dec
    Mon 3 Dec
    Tue 4 Dec
    Wed 5 Dec
    ​
    ​Thu 6 Dec
    Stockholm: Deliver keynote at event organised by Digoshen (Topic: Outlook on international corporate governance and board practices).
    ​Stockholm & London: advisory meetings.
    Transfer to Vienna.
    Vienna: Global Peter Drucker Forum, pre-conference workshops.
    Vienna: Global Peter Drucker Forum, main conference (day 1).
    Vienna: Global Peter Drucker Forum, main conference (day 2).
    Vienna: post-GPDF review; transfer to London.
    Free day in London.
    London: advisory meetings.
    London: ICGN Global Stewardship Forum. 
    Henley: ​Share research insights with faculty & doctoral students (Henley Business School Governance Seminar); explore future research opportunities.
    London: ​advisory meetings.
    While the schedule is fairly full, some gaps remain for additional meetings (in London).
    If you would like to meet, please get in touch. I'd be glad to discuss any aspect of boards, corporate governance or effective board practice; explore a research idea; or respond to (future) speaking or advisory enquiries.
  • Published on

    Picking up the #corpgov & #boardpractice discussion

    Accountability Corporate Governance Governance Leadership Research
    Picture
    After a longish hiatus—nearly four months—Musings is back. Thank you to regular readers and supporters who have asked about the radio silence. The explanation is straightforward: a busy period of speaking and advisory engagements, research and board work left precious little time to ponder.
    ​But that is history now. My intention is to pick up where I left off in early August, by posting on topical matters and emerging trends; challenging orthodoxy and, importantly, exploring how boards might become more effective in their pursuit of high firm performance and sustainable wealth creation. 
    Thank you for your interest in Musings. Your feedback and commentary is appreciated.
  • Published on

    Towards a better understanding of corporate governance

    Accountability Corporate Governance Director Development Research
    Picture
    Research is a funny thing. On one hand, experience can be greatly helpful: knowing what one is looking for or expecting to see is a boon. On the other, experience can be a hinderance: knowledge often resulting in bias and  preconception, and the very real possibility of missing vital clues. This is one of the great dilemmas for board and governance research.
    Some forty years have now passed since researchers started investigating boards in earnest. That an answer to the question of the role of the board and how they influence firm performance (i.e., what corporate governance is and how it is practiced) remains elusive is an indictment on the research community. Directors and boards need clear and well-founded guidance so they can become effective in role.
    Medical research is conducted by medics; cultural research is conducted by anthropologists; and, engineering research is conducted by engineers, so why is board research typically conducted by academics with little if any business experience? How might a researcher who has never been inside a boardroom hope to recognise the normative practices of board meetings? Or that a subtle interaction between two directors might actually be material to a pending decision?
    ​That most board and governance researchers have never been in a boardroom or served as a director is alarming. Yes, gaining access to observe boards directly is difficult to achieve. But to restrict board and governance research to counting isolated attributes of boards from outside the boardroom is folly. To be useful, recommendations need to account for the socially-dynamic nature of boards and the behaviours of directors (both of which can only be reliably discerned through direct observation).
    If the question of explaining how boards influence firm performance is to be answered, three things are needed: 
    • Researchers need to get inside boardrooms, to observe boards in action. (What directors actually do can be quite different from what they say they do when interviewed.)
    • Research needs to be conducted through the lens of experience.
    • Recommendations need to be holistic, accounting for both the activities of boards (what they do) and behaviours of directors (individually and collectively). That the structure and composition of boards is, relatively speaking, far less important.
  • Published on

    Embracing a brave new world

    Accountability Corporate Governance Governance Performance Research
    Picture
    Netflix has been in the news a bit lately, aided no doubt by public interest in its rapidly increasing 'reach', meteoric rise in its stock price and membership of a new generation of behemoth—the FAANG club. Now, the actions of the board of directors have seen Netflix become even more newsworthy, principally a consequence of this article published in Harvard Business Review. ​The board of directors operates quite differently from many others and, indeed, conventional wisdom. Could this be a contributing factor in Netflix's success?
    Conventional wisdom, supported by both agency theory and 'best practice' recommendations of directors' institutes (in the western world, at least), suggests that 'distance' (a clear separation between the board and management) is important if boards are to objective in decision-making. The listing rules of most stock exchanges specify that at least two directors must satisfy established independence criteria at all times. Independence is de rigeuer, even though no consistent link between director independence and firm performance has ever been identified!
    Back to Netflix. Two researchers, David Larcker and Brian Tayan of Stanford University, gained permission to investigate how the Netflix board keeps up to date and informed, a prerequisite of effective decisions. They found that the Netflix board does not embrace conventional wisdom. The full research report, from which the HBR article was derived, is available on the SSRN website.
    The Netflix approach is based on proximity not distance. The approach has been adopted to help directors resolve a fatal flaw present in most boards: Five out of every six directors do not have a comprehensive understanding of the business being governed. Specific measures in place at Netflix include:
    • Governance by walking about: Directors are actively encouraged to view the company "in the wild". This includes attending executive meetings (albeit in silence, as an observer), and the freedom to wander around the office, chatting and asking questions (but not offering guidance nor providing instruction).
    • Pragmatic reports: Memos are both brief and insightful. They must be less than 30 pages long and, in addition to providing links to detailed information, they provide open access to all relevant data on the company's systems.
    The combined effect of these measures has been profound: directors are much more well-informed than they would have otherwise been. The handicaps of lack of transparency or hard-to-assess information are removed. The perennial problem of information asymmetry that besets boards globally has been, it seems, solved—in Netflix's case at least.
    Standing back a little from the Netflix case, several learnings are available for boards, as follows:
    • Proximity trumps distance: If boards are to govern effectively, directors need to  be adequately knowledgeable of the business and the wider operating context including emerging trends and technologies. Information needs to be elicited from multiple sources. Barton and Wiseman's report highlights this. But the Netflix case goes further; boards need to get a lot closer to managers, to establish and maintain a strong relationship founded on trust and expedite the flow of high quality and relevant information. My own research (here and here) provides supporting evidence. But don't be deluded, the recommendation comes with a warning: high levels of maturity are  required, to discern the appropriate proximity, and to minimise the chance of directors becoming 'captured' by managers.
    • Real knowledge takes time to acquire: Conventional wisdom, supported by recommendations emanating from many consultants and directors' institutes, suggests that directors should allocate two hours in preparation for every one hour of board meeting time. Yet the evidence suggests that this is probably insufficient. Real, relevant knowledge (read: deep understanding, wisdom even) takes time to acquire. The Netflix case adds weight to this argument. And knowledge needs to extend beyond the business and ecosystem, to include emerging trends and technologies, and theoretical perspectives as well. Together, this demands that directors invest considerably more time than the two-to-one rule-of-thumb if they are to be well-informed and make meaningful contributions. When asked, I propose five hours for every one hour of board meeting time, and double for the Chair. Established directors, including those who happily describe themselves as 'professional directors' often baulk at this, saying they don't have time. This is not an adequate defence. 
    Many boards and directors do take their role and responsibility very seriously. But, sadly, a significant number do not display appropriate levels of commitment. If boards are to become more consistently committed to the cause—the pursuit of high firm performance and longer-term value creation—they could do a lot worse than take a page from the Netflix playbook and the advice shared here. If you want to learn more, including scheduling a discrete briefing to explore how a mechanism-based understanding of corporate governance can contribute to improved board effectiveness, please get in touch.