Tags

  • Published on

    ICMLG Conference: Reflection #6

    Conferences Management Performance Research Strategy
    Gender diversity: a new competitive advantage?

    Manasi Shukla (Bangkok University) and Aurilla Aurelie Arntzen (Buskerud University, Norway) presented a conceptual paper which explored gender diversity in management and systems design as an important element for competitive advantage.

    They outlined the challenges many women face, whereby many systems and products are designed by men, without any significant consideration for female cognitive or physical elements. They suggested that a woman's response to "design shortfalls" is to dismiss or avoid using a particular product.

    Shukla and Arntzen tentatively proposed a leadership practices inventory, to assist organisations design for, and accommodate, the needs of women. They asserted that organisations that take such steps have the opportunity to secure a competitive advantage in the marketplace. This is an interesting assertion—one that merits further research via the analysis of empirical data to determine if/how the practices they suggest are indeed significant. I look forward to reading more about this in the future.
  • Published on

    ICMLG Conference: Reflection #5

    Conferences Performance Research
    Are solutions the solution to adding customer value?

    Philip Dover (Babson College, Mass) started his talk by sharing data that clearly shows that businesses perceive that "solutions" are crucial to business success. But what is a solution? There are as many definitions as claimants. Dover offered a definition developed by ITSMA, and then described a solutions hierarchy which ranges from general capability through to customer-specific solutions (which is where considerable added value occurs). He went on to acknowledge that it is very difficult for a company to make the transformation from a product-oriented company to a solutions-oriented company.

    Dover and ITMSA have identified several key elements that must be addressed when companies wish to become solutions-oriented:
    • The organisation must redesigned, to allocate P&L responsibility at the business unit level, appoint a "solutions Tsar", and align effort with business partners
    • Marketing must be redefined—to events and sales literature, to a deep understanding of customer needs and the creation of value propositions
    • Move from a [standalone] product development cycle to an integrated portfolio approach (founded on an intentional solutions development process)
    • Change the measurement metrics from revenue and profit, to lifetime value of the customer
    • Change the sole of the salesperson from a single operative, to that of a coordinator ("acts like a quarterback").

    Given the commercial upside of embracing a solutions-oriented approach, should all businesses strive to adopt such an orientation? Dover's is "no". He suggested three elements must be present as pre-requisites before attempting to adopt a solutions orientation—being a large (high $$) customer and a complex requirement and relatively new technology.
  • Published on

    ICMLG Conference: Reflections #4

    Conferences Performance Research
    BI-based organisations: new possibilities

    Celina Olszak (University of Economics, Katowice, Poland) spoke about the use of business intelligence (BI) in organisations. Using Gartner's maturity model, she analysed the responses from detailed interviews conducted with executives of 20 family-owned firms (all of whom were making use of BI tools), to assess the impact of business intelligence tools on business success. Interestingly, Olszak found that the mature use of BI-tools seems to be associated with increased business success. However, her research was limited to a specific segment of the business population. Further work is required to determine whether the reported use–success correlations can be generalised to wider populations, particularly larger organisations where the pervasive adoption of tools and processes to institutionalise knowledge and realise tangible value is perhaps more difficult to achieve.
  • Published on

    ICMLG Conference: Reflections #3

    Conferences Governance Management Research Strategy
    Management attitudes toward currency hedging in a dynamic environment

    Worasinchai (Bangkok University, Thailand) investigated the relationship between management attitudes and hedging risks in foreign exchange transactions. She analysed data gathered from semi-structured interviews, and presented an interesting theoretical model created to inform best practice to assist firms, trading partners and central government trading with Thai firms.

    Worasinchai concluded—for large Thai firms and firms trading with Thai firms at least—that management attitude has an important impact on the strategic choices that a firm makes when considering currency hedging. She found that more conservative attitudes seem to be associated with a longer-term planning horizon. When asked about risk and subsequent performance, Worasinchai acknowledged this work is yet to be undertaken. If progress can be made in this area, and relationships and correlations between hedging, risk and subsequent company performance identified, then the prospect for a more stable global trading environment may well await.
  • Published on

    ICMLG Conference: Reflections #2

    Conferences Governance Research
    Intellectual Capital and knowledge sourcing in a governance context

    Ingley and Mowbray (AUT, New Zealand) described research conducted to understand how the collective and individual ability of directors add value to organisational performance occurs. They reported that performance was enhanced when the Board and management worked together, and that effective knowledge sharing and intellectual capital appeared to be important contributing factors. They introduced the notion of a “third team”, whereby the Board and management (who normally work separately) work together in some way on particular matters. The work of the third team is defined by something Ingley and Mowbray termed “behavioural governance”. They asserted that new insights will come from an increased understanding of a complex mix of (primarily behaviourial) governance characteristics, rather than continued pursuit of individual characteristics.

    Aspects of this study are consistent with prior literature that suggests behavioural characteristics are more important than structural characteristics. The study provided a useful basis for future research into the import of behaviourial and knowledge sharing factors, particularly of larger samples of company data. However, a working model or theoretical framework of the so-called third team may continue to be problematic, given the complex and dynamic nature of governance, and the (often) transient balance of power and divisions of labour that are often present in governance environments. Notwithstanding this, the research and addressed raised some very good possibilities for future research.
  • Published on

    ICMLG Conference: Keynote address

    Conferences Governance Research Societal Wellbeing Strategy
    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?