Tags

  • Published on

    What is going on with New Zealand's largest company?

    Accountability Decision Making Ethics Governance Leadership Management Performance Strategy
    Picture
    After several years of paying high milk prices to its farmer-suppliers, Fonterra has hit hard times. International demand for milk products has slumped. On the supply side, prices paid to farmer-suppliers have tumbled. Some have said the problem is primarily related to changing demand especially in China, whereas others have suggested that Fonterra is complicit having stimulated supply to 'feed' its massive processing plants. To make matters worse, Fonterra has started losing farmer-suppliers to its competitors and it seems to be exercising "considerable discretion" with payment terms as well. 
    The latest commentary, an interview on Paul Henry's breakfast show today, lay out some of the challenges in plain English. Click here to watch the video clip. (disclosure:  James Lockhart is my doctoral supervisor, but had no prior knowledge of this interview.)
    The situation, which has been brewing for a several years, is messy to say the least. Other companies including Tatua and Open Country Dairy seem to coping much better. This begs several questions including whether the Fonterra board and management are actually in control; whether the corporate strategy is sound or not; and, whether the company has the financial and managerial resources to respond effectively. While I'm nowhere near close enough answer these questions, the old saying "where there's smoke there's fire" seems to apply.
  • Published on

    Would you like to learn more about #corpgov and board effectiveness?

    Conferences Decision Making Governance Leadership Performance Research Speaking Engagements Strategy
    Are you based in or near London or Paris? Do you want to learn more about board effectiveness, corporate governance and how boards can exert influence from and beyond the boardroom?​ ​If so, please read on.
    In a few weeks I will be visiting London (24–31 May) and Paris (1–4 June) to speak with directors and trust board members about board practices, board effectiveness and emerging trends in corporate governance; share the results of my latest research; attend meetings; and, to present a paper at the EURAM conference.
    ​If you have a question (perhaps along the lines of these ones below) or a request and would like to take advantage of my proximity, please get in touch. I'd be delighted to hear from you and to schedule a meeting. ​
    • Do you want to increase the effectiveness of your board?
    • Would you like to know about my latest research on boards and firm performance?
    • Do you have a question about boards, board practice, corporate governance or a related topic?
    • Do you want to explore how to apply some of the suggestions I've shared on Musings?
    • Are you looking for a speaker to address an event or conference sometime in the next 12 months?
    If you've answered 'yes' to any of these questions...you know what to do. I am at your service.
  • Published on

    Beyond 'unique' and 'different': Is your strategy impactful?

    Decision Making Governance Performance Strategy
    About 25 years ago, I remember seeing, for first time, a rather compelling video on competitive strategy. Michael E Porter, a Harvard professor, spoke about competitive strategy and sustainable competitive advantage. He said that competitive advantage (and, therefore, business success) was largely a matter of deciding whether to pursue a cost (price) or differentiation strategy. More recently, others have suggested that every product/service/company needs to have a unique selling proposition (USP) or a point of difference.
    Fast forward to 2016. Is this pathway still viable? In a crowded world, new entrants come and go, all the time. Barriers to entry for new products and services are getting lower. In this environment, how realistic is it to think that any USP might actually be unique, let alone sustainably so? Also, a product that is different or cheaper is of little consequence if no one buys it.
    Difference is important, but not in the way most people think (unique features &c.). Difference works only until someone copies you. Then you are the same. Your difference, your USP, is no longer unique. Further, at a population level, product or service success doesn't depend on price or feature set. ​Most customers don't care what products or services do. They do care about the what difference it will make to them.
    This challenge is arguably even more important at a company level (i.e., corporate strategy). So, next time your board and management team convenes a strategic thinking workshop, as part of a strategy development process, change the playing field. Ask you facilitator to write these two questions on the whiteboard—and to keep coming back to them throughout the session.
    You might be surprised at the result.
    ​
  • Published on

    What does the Age of 'self(ie)' mean for business?

    Decision Making Governance Leadership Performance Strategy
    One Saturday morning, about fifteen years ago, my elderly father-in-law and I sat in the morning sun, sharing a few stories over a cup of tea. He was asking about my then burgeoning advisory business and family life. I was interested in hearing him reflect on his experiences in business, particularly his career-long journey with the same employer—from a junior staff member to, eventually, chief executive.
    As he spoke, Bill reminded me that he only ever had one employer, and that although he had been blessed to contribute at many levels he had only ever completed one job interview, that being when he first got a job. He went on to talk about the power of team over individual, and of loyalty to both your employer and your own principles. Much has changed since he retired in 1984, not the least of which has been the erosion of the values that served as Bill's North Star throughout his career.
    Today, most things are negotiable. For many, the motivation has changed, from providing service (to the employer) to self-service. Never has this been more apparent in the everyday behaviours of staff, particularly the younger generation. If we don't get want we want, or if we get a better offer elsewhere, we act. That staff and customers are more interested in self(ie) has huge implications for productivity and value creation in the longer-term. While team productivity is a matter for the chief executive, value creation is the responsibility of the board on behalf of the shareholder. How is your board wrestling with this? Does your board regularly allocate time to understand the changing environment, consider strategic options and make strategic decisions? Companies that expect to thrive in the future need to address the emergent challenge of 'self(ie)'. 
    The best place to start the discussion is in the boardroom.
  • Published on

    Directors: Are you alert and active, or snoozing at the wheel?

    Accountability Decision Making Governance Performance
    Picture
    The recent collapse of one of Stonewood Homes' franchisors has placed the conduct of directors squarely in the spotlight once again. The company collapsed owing about $15 million. This article makes the issues plain, and it serves as a warning for other directors. 
    The Companies Act 1993 specifies the duties of directors, including that they must act in the best interests of the company and not allow the company to trade recklessly. That a company collapsed owing such large debt suggests that the company may have been trading near, at or beyond its means for some time. Whether the directors of the collapsed company were negligent or not will be determined in due course, I'm sure.
    The role of a director carries much responsibility. If you are a director, you must know and understand your duties and responsibilities under the Act, and whether you are discharging them correctly. If you have any doubt, discuss the matter at your next board meeting and seek independent advice from a competent lawyer. Don't forget to ask about related legislation—you may have responsibilities under other pieces of legislation and you may not realise it. An independent governance review, to review the operation of the board as a whole might also be in order, to assess the board's performance especially in relation to value creation. Another consideration is professional development, to ensure all directors are adequately trained and knowledgeable.
  • Published on

    Board size and composition: the Goldilocks effect

    Decision Making Diversity Governance Management Performance Research
    Board diversity and board size are common topics of conversation in governance circles these days. Hardly a week goes by without one or both topics being mentioned. Most commonly people ask about board diversity and the relationship with firm performance, and the 'perfect' board size. Typically, my responses have been "Yes, diversity is good" and "No, there is no such thing as a perfect board size". Beyond that, context kicks in because every board, governance situation and even every decision is, to some extent at least, unique.  
    I have happily shared these responses and offered other supporting commentaries to all who ask—until now. What's changed? This article has set me thinking. Here are some insights that bear further consideration:
    • On team (read, board) size: Many boards of directors have five to fifteen members (the largest board I have advised had eighteen members—what group dynamics disaster). Contrast that with the research cited in the article and elsewhere, which suggests that six is pretty close to optimal. Beyond six, cliques emerge and the likelihood of free riding increases. Have you seen any of these characteristics? It might be time to review the size of your board.
    • On diversity: Diversity has been heavily promoted amongst the governance community in recent years. While diversity can be great for ideation, it can also be bad for cohesion. That's because the board needs to operate as a team. The research suggests that some similarity is good (i.e., shared understandings not same physical attributes) because it enhances effectiveness in performing complex and unpredictable tasks (like board decisions!). The point here is that sameness is good in some ways (operating basis and purpose) and diversity is better in others (ideation and debate). Striking the balance takes maturity.
    So, food for thought. The article was published by the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania—not by some backyard consultant or agency trying to sell services. This means we can rely on the commentary. While it may or may not be 'right', it certainly has substance. I would love to hear what you think about these matters after you have read the article and pondered the ideas and suggestions.