• Published on

    BAM2014: Reflections

    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: impact of board size and diversity on performance

    Adi Bongo and Alfred Akakpo presented updates on two oft discussed aspects of board structure and composition: board size and board diversity. 

    Bongo's paper considered data from Nigeria—his home country—to understand whether an optimal board size was apparent amongst listed companies. Previous studies have shown mixed results: some have suggested a positive correlation; some a negative correlation; and, some have shown no impact on performance. I was interested to see whether Bongo's research, which applied three different econometric methods would reveal anything new or different. The answer was no. Despite applying analysing the data in three different ways, Bongo found no evidence that board size has any impact on the financial performance of companies in Nigeria.

    Akakpo's paper explored the impact of diversity on board performance amongst companies in the retail sector in the UK. Using data from 2000–2012, Akakpo applied a range of analytical tools. His analysis showed a positive association between diversity and company performance in 46% of the companies studied, a negative association in 13% of the companies and nil or no discernible impact in the remaining 41% of the companies. Whereas other studies have suggested that diversity is generally good, Akakpo's study showed that a positive impact is certainly not automatic. 

    These studies add to the body of research that has investigated board attributes. I was hoping to hear suggestions of how or why board size or diversity might lead to increased performance, but such commentary was not forthcoming. These studies reinforce the impasse that confronts researchers; and the proposition that research methods other than the statistical analysis of quantitative data are likely to be necessary if the goal is to explain how boards influence company performance outcomes.
  • Published on

    BAM2014: Like ships in the night

    The workshop that I attended this afternoon shone the light—brightly—on a serious problem that has troubled the research community for many years: relevancy. That academic researchers want to study SMEs and SMEs want to access up-to-date research does not necessarily make for a healthy and meaningful interchange.

    Jo Lumb (Leeds University) hosted a great session which involved the lived experience of a SME business owner and a career academic. The role play (using live material) was delightful. It served to highlight the problem: that researchers and SME business owners typically talk past each other. The discussion went like this: researchers tend to be motivated by rigour, qualified statements and a drive to publish; whereas SME business owners look for quick results, clear recommendations and common sense language. Consequently, neither "side" respects the other to any great extent.

    The challenge for the delegates in the room was to identify options to address the problem. Our table thought that the primary issues were ones of communication and of achieving a common understanding of what was required. One one hand, researchers need to get off their high-horses, to produce meaningful research with clearly articulated answers to the "so what?"  question. On the other, SME owners need to accept that their businesses are not unique, and that off-the-shelf "instant" answers are unlikely to provide sustainable answers to their problems. 

    Another idea that was discussed was to ensure that researchers spend some time in the field, to get a feel for what their research subjects experience every day. Few if any of the career researchers present had spent any meaningful time at all doing this. Just imagine how reliable any medical research might be if the researcher was not a doctor or medical specialist? SME research strikes me as being no different. Perhaps the time has come for SME researchers to down their research tools to spend some time working in and amongst those that they wish to investigate. Maybe then research requirements and outcomes will have more meaning, and the two parties will no longer be as ships in the night.
  • Published on

    BAM2014: starts today

    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

    New #corpgov code in UK: Will it make any difference to company performance outcomes?

    A new corporate governance code will be introduced in the UK later this month. The CEO of the Financial Reporting Council, Stephen Haddrill, says that the code requires boards to consider and report on strategic risks that could affect the long-term viability of the business they govern. This sounds like a positive development: that measures designed to refocus the attention of the board on the long-term viability of the company can only be good for company continuity and performance. However, I'm not convinced.

    Compliance type regimes were insufficient in averting the corporate collapses of the early 2000s; the global financial crisis of 2008–2009; or some of the more recent failures of corporate governance. Statutory reforms and codes of practice, introduced in response to corporate failures and the behaviours of recalcitrant directors and boards, appear to do little to protect against failure, or improve the quality of corporate governance or company performance. Indeed, the sharp focus on monitoring and control that often occurs as a result of statutory reforms and codes may actually reduce performance and, in more extreme cases, contribute to corporate failure. Compliance-type regimes tend to do that. Will the new UK code be any different?
  • Published on

    Outsource the board? I don't think so.

    The contentious topic of board performance seems to be getting more and more attention in the popular press. The attention is great, because boards are responsible for company performance, in accordance with the wishes of owners, and they need to be held accountable. However, not all of the discussion is helpful. For example, this provocative article appeared in the Economist recently. While the article was well-written, the proposal it contained—to outsource the board—was irksome. I remember tweeting about it at the time.

    The board is a proxy for absentee owners, to represent their interests. Why any owner (shareholder) would allow a board to (re)outsource what is, in effect, an arrangement that is already outsourced is beyond me. If the board is not delivering the results the owners want it should be replaced, not outsourced. Thankfully, an influential commentator has provided this rejoinder to Schumpter's article, and in so doing reintroduced some much needed balance and a modicum of sensibility.