Tags

  • Published on

    On succession planning: Yes, but three years out?

    Governance Leadership Management Performance Strategy
    Acer Computer, once a strong and proud manufacturer and exporter of personal computer products, has been doing it tough lately. Record losses in the last few years, as the company has struggled to adjust its strategy to the shift from desktop computers to mobile devices, have seen the company chew through three chairmen in fairly quick succession. There have been arguments between the CEO and the board over strategy as well. What has gone wrong? Apart from missing the market shift to mobile devices, I wonder whether the company has run out of ideas and has become stale. The last three chairmen have been company stalwarts for example, steeped in the culture and history of the business. Realistically, how much fresh thinking would you expect to emerge in such environments?

    Now the founder has stepped in. A outsider CEO has been appointed, for the first time, to lead the company—and to become the chairman in three years' time. This first part of this is good; it should see the introduction of some new strategic options, but only if the founder (who has come out of retirement to occupy the chair) allows it to be so. However, the second part—of anointing a leader three years before the fact, in an industry sector characterised by rapid change and tectonic shifts, is a huge call. I would have thought it made much more sense to recruit the new CEO and then recruit a new (and probably but not necessarily independent) chairman in twelve months' time. This would give the incoming CEO time to get underway, begin to deliver on the confidence the founder has placed in him, without the additional burden of preparing to add the chairman role at the beginning of year three. What say the new CEO is no good? What say a different skills and expertise mix is required to lead the board effectively in the future? The founder has, in effect, closed off the possibility of introducing new thinking around the board table—even though this seems to have been one of his aims. 

    Complex businesses need highly capable leaders: two good heads are almost universally better than one. Keeping one's options open, to react and respond to changing market forces is smart. Painting one self into a corner is not. Notwithstanding this, the founder can exert influence as he wishes. My view—that the longer-term future of the business, and of the value to shareholders in particular, may have been better served with a succession plan that revolved around two separate appointments—probably doesn't count for much. 

    What do you think?
  • Published on

    Is competition always good and are monopolies always "bad"?

    Governance Language Performance Readings Strategy
    What a great question. Throughout my business career, of over thirty years now, the prevailing answer has been 'yes'. However, Peter Thiel reckons the answer to both parts of the question is or at least should be 'no'.

    Thiel's thesis, that competition is for losers, and this response to it will get you thinking... Boards and regulators might need to take note.
  • Published on

    BAM2014: Reflections

    Conferences Governance Research Strategy
    So, the 28th Annual British Academy of Management Conference is now over. Something approaching 800 delegates (total attendees, including late registrations) have considered over 650 papers, workshops and symposia over the last three days, on three adjacent sites centred on the Belfast Waterfront complex. Overall, the conference was well-run—although not without some interesting nuances. A few reflections, based on my experience: 
    • That the organisers successfully marshalled delegates to twenty-something meeting rooms spread across the three sites—in half-hour slots—was a sight to behold!
    • There was only one plenary session—the opening—to bring all of the delegates together and to reinforce the conference theme. Also, the opening was scheduled after lunch on day one, and there were no other plenary sessions throughout the conference. My experience at other conferences is that the opening welcome and keynote address typically occurs at the beginning of the first day, and a plenary keynote is delivered as first scheduled session each following day of the conference. It provides a very useful means of pulling people together to reinforce the conference: a sense of purpose if you will. I hope the organisers of future BAM conferences consider adopting the more traditional programme.
    • The catering was pretty good. Finger-food was the order of the day for morning and afternoon breaks and for lunch. While there weren't enough seats, the food was such that delegates could eat standing without too much difficulty.
    • While the number parallel tracks (24 from memory?) meant that delegates had a wide range of topic and paper choices at any given point, the unwanted effect (from my perspective and many others that I spoke to) as that the audiences for many papers were small. I would rather that the conference organisers set a higher bar on paper selection (select fewer, higher quality papers) and run fewer parallel tracks, but over a full three days.
    • The conference is an academic-cum-research conference. Consequently, many of the papers were quite theoretical with only tenuous practical application. This served to highlight the chasm that often exists between research and practice. One way of minimising this chasm might be to call applied research papers and case studies. In so doing, a broader audience of managers and executives might find value in attending the conference, to hear about emerging trends that they can utilise in practice in their own environment.
    • The breaks between sessions enabled much interaction between delegates. I was able to take advantage of this as well, to meet several esteemed thinkers and to bounce ideas around.

    Next year, the conference will be held in Portsmouth, on the south coast of England. I've marked my diary.
  • Published on

    BAM2014: starts today

    Conferences Governance Management Phd Research Strategy
    The 28th Annual British Academy of Management Conference starts in Belfast today. With over 700 delegates registered, 640 papers to be presented (at times over 20 parallel tracks!), the next three days promise to be very busy. My intention is to attend as many of the corporate governance papers as I can get to, strategy papers and a selection of others. I'll post reflections that various points over the next three days, and encourage those interested to follow the hashtag #BAM2014.
  • Published on

    BAM2014: Final programme published

    Conferences Governance Leadership Management Research Strategy
    The 28th Annual British Academy of Management Conference is now less than a week away. The conference is being held in Belfast, Northern Ireland, on 9–11 September, and the final version of the BAM2014 programme is now available on the conference website. I'm down to deliver my paper on Thursday morning.

    This year, over 640 full and developmental papers will be delivered over three full days. Helpfully, the wide range of topics have been grouped into 24 tracks. In addition to the papers, keynote speakers will address the delegates each morning; and there are symposia; special interest group meetings; professional development workshops; and, a gala dinner (at the Belfast Titanic Museum, no less) to attend. Delegates will be busy!

    If you are interested in a particular track or specific paper, but cannot attend, please let me know. I will do my best to attend the presentation for you and report back. Also, if you are planning to attend the conference and would like to meet up over a coffee or snack, please contact me via Twitter or email.

    PS: As has become my practice during conferences, I will provide summaries and reflections throughout BAM2014, so please check back regularly if you are interested.
  • Published on

    "Big firms fail to match growth of economy"

    Governance Leadership Performance Strategy
    Bryan Gaynor shone the light on a very important problem today—that many large firms in New Zealand simply are not growing in line with the growth of the economy. In other words, they are going backwards. Gaynor's analysis is insightful: to lose ground when the flow is good suggests that something is amiss. This raises several important follow-on questions: 
    • What have the boards of these firms been doing over the last few years?
    • Why have the boards not held the Chief Executive accountable for performance?
    • Who is actually in control and who is driving strategy? (It's unlikely to be the board, from what I can see.)
    • What changes are required to get these firms, and the economic contribution they make, back on track?

    While the issues before each firm will be unique, there are some constants:
    • The board is responsible for business performance.
    • The board needs to ensure that an appropriate corporate strategy is in place
    • The budget is not the strategy, it is a measure of progress.
    • The basis of performance should be achievement of strategy, not achievement of budgets.

    Hopefully, the boards of these firms will take stock, ask some quite tough questions, and make appropriate adjustments to get back on track. High company performance has many positive flow-on benefits beyond shareholder wealth, and these need to be realised if at all possible.