Tags

  • Published on

    ICMLG'14: Governance in founder-controlled companies

    Conferences Governance Performance
    Maria Aluchna, of the Warsaw School of Economics, Poland, presented an interesting paper on the effectiveness of corporate governance in founder-controlled companies, using a sample of 100 listed on the Warsaw stock exchange. Some 62% of companies listed on the Warsaw exchange are controlled by founders, which was much higher than I would have guessed.

    Aluchna's analysis confirmed research that has been previously reported elsewhere: that founder-controlled companies tend to have a lower number of shareholders in total, less effective corporate governance and higher degrees of active involvement—some would say interference—in the day-to-day management and operation of the company. The "less effective" presented no real surprise, as strong-willed founders can (and often do) exert higher levels of influence (including the overriding of board decisions and CEO priorities in more extreme cases). While the research is a helpful addition to the discourse, an important question was not tackled. Are higher degrees of involvement by founders (who are not executives) good or is the bad? Aluchna's indicated that research is underway to try to answer this question. I look forward to reading the results of her work.
  • Published on

    ICMLG'14: Opening keynote

    Conferences Leadership Management Performance Research
    The opening keynote speaker at the International Conference on Management Leadership and Governance (ICMLG) was Dr Dan Isenberg. His topic was A Critical Path to Entrepreneurial Ecosystems. Isenberg described entrepreneurship, challenged a few folklore beliefs and introduced a concept he called an entrepreneurial ecosystem.

    Many scholars, business leaders, community leaders—and much of the popular press—would have us believe that the Google, Facebook, LinkedIn perspective of entrepreneurship is somehow the normal model to be pursued. (This being the rapid growth from nothing towards an IPO event 6–8 years later.) Isenberg challenged this view, and did so very strongly. He cited many examples of successful entrepreneurial businesses that are not necessarily startups or innovative or youthful or owners of small businesses. The data shows that many startups simply don't grow. Further, entrepreneurial businesses are far more likely to come from ideas that are written off as dumb or worthless by 'experts'. In contrast, entrepreneurial businesses are more commonly found in older, basic industries, and that they achieve sporadic growth over time.

    According to Isenberg's research (and experience from several working examples), some of the critical characteristics of successful entrepreneurial ecosystems are actually quite different from those that are commonly regarded as being crucial:
    • a few local success stories which are highly visible
    • a high quality of life, such that talented people desire to stay
    • there is a plethora of usable assets (people, finance, supportive large companies)
    • an anxiety, sense of urgency and fear of the future exists in the culture

    Those characteristics that are commonly regarded as being desirable, but are actually much less important in reality include:
    • having lots of startups in an incubator or cluster context
    • the presence of economic development agencies
    • tax incentive frameworks and supportive government policies

    Isenberg's comments will unsettle many folk, particularly those with an involvement or association with incubators, clusters, angel clubs or local EDAs. However, the evidence is compelling (and not dissimilar to the thoughts on innovation that Dr Bob Brown shared at ANZAM in Dec'13). Folk associated with these groups could do far worse than to take stock, because the current approaches aren't working. 

    Isenberg's talk set an expectant tone for the conference. It challenged much conventional wisdom, and was a breath of fresh air.
  • Published on

    ICMLG'14: programme published

    Conferences
    The final version of the ICMLG programme is now available on the conference website. This year, over 40 peer-reviewed papers will be presented on March 20–21, on the wide range of topics below. If you are interested in a particular session or paper, please let me know. I will do my best to attend that session and report back.
    • Leadership and leaders
    • Leading strategy execution
    • The regulation and enforcement of governance across multiple jurisdictions
    • Management relationships
    • Corporate governance
    • Business level strategy and sustainability
    • Trends in corporate competitiveness
    • Leadership and entrepreneurship
    • Leadership behaviours across cultures
    • Teams and IT management
    • Leadership education
    • Takeovers, supply chain and procurement

    In addition to the paper presentations, there will be a welcome reception; two keynote speakers; PhD and Masters colloquia; a visit to the MIT Cambridge Innovation Center; and, a conference dinner (of course!). Delegates are in for a busy two days.
  • Published on

    On entrepreneurial thought and action: getting the low down

    Conferences Governance Leadership Management Performance Research
    Delegates at the International Conference on Management Leadership and Governance are in for a treat next week. Dr Leonard Schlesinger, Professor of Business Administration at Harvard and leading company director (including Forbes and Demandware), is the keynote speaker on Fri March 21. He'll be talking about the entrepreneurial thought process and the conversion of thinking into action.

    Dr Schlesinger is highly regarded in the business and academic communities, and I'm looking forward to hearing what he has to say. I'll post a summary of his talk here, as part of my commitment to provide reflections and comments throughout the ICMLG'14 conference, for the benefit of those that can't attend.
  • Published on

    ICMLG'14: just around the corner

    Conferences Governance Leadership Management Phd Research
    The International Conference on Management Leadership and Governance (ICMLG) is only a week away. This year, the conference is being held at Babson College, just outside Boston. The programme looks really interesting. I'll post reflections and comments here during the conference, so please check back if you are interested.

    I leave home on Mon 17 on the Air New Zealand evening flight to San Francisco, to meet a United flight across to Boston. The conference dates are 20–21 March, so I will have some time beforehand to reacquaint myself with a city that I last visited 20 years ago, and to attend meetings with some highly regarded governance advisors who are based in Boston. My paper will be presented on the first day of the conference, and I will chair a session the second morning.

    Immediately after the conference, I fly out to northern Minnesota, to visit the family I lived with as an exchange student 35 years ago. It'll be my first trip back since 1990, and possibly the last time I see my now elderly host parents. While the schedule is tight, I am looking forward to this trip very much. I'll keep you informed.
  • Published on

    Do unto others as you would want done to you...

    Conferences Governance
    An email arrived from the convenors of the upcoming British Academy of Management conference a couple of days ago. It contained a request to review submissions from two different authors hoping to have their papers accepted onto the conference programme. The review process is a double-blind affair, meaning I don't know the author's identity and they don't know who reviewed their paper. My membership on the review panel is a consequence of submitting a paper myself. Submitters are asked to review other papers, which is fair enough.

    I printed both of the papers today (I review documents the old fashioned way—with a pen in hand). On first glance, one of the papers appears to be well-written and the other less so. As I skimmed through the less well written paper (ahead of a comprehensive review in the next week or so), my mind wandered towards thoughts of quality, acceptance threshold and the reputation of the conference. Superficially, the paper is marginal in terms of acceptability. When I read the paper thoroughly, I must form an opinion about the paper: should it be rejected or should it be accepted albeit with robust feedback? Without wishing to preempt the review process, my instinct suggests the provision of robust feedback is probably the better choice, because it creates a learning opportunity. It's simple really. My paper is going through the same process. How would I like to be treated? Some carefully crafted statements will probably be required, so that any biases I might have in terms of the topic, the way the paper has been written, or from my first impressions are kept in check. Fortunately, I have a couple of weeks to complete the review and decide how to respond.