Tags

  • Published on

    On entrepreneurs, boards and influence

    Governance Leadership Management Performance
    Since Robin Williams' passing earlier this week, I've been pondering the gifted–troubled tension that many highly capable people struggle with. Williams was a gifted actor, yet he had a troubled private life. He wasn't unique in that regard: Alan Turing, John Nash (A Beautiful Mind) and many others were similarly afflicted.

    As I pondered this, something dawned on me: many entrepreneurs face the same tension. They are great optimists, yet they often harbour a darker side. They have more ideas than most of us have hot breakfasts. However, many don't listen or take guidance well. They are happy in public, but some, privately, actually lack confidence and self-esteem. Consequently, the oversight of companies led by entrepreneurs can be a big challenge for boards: one of influence. How does a board get the most out of the entrepreneur, without suppressing their optimism? How about motivation? Zach Cutler's insightful summary, of five things that happy entrepreneurs take the time to do, provides a really good starting point for boards:
    • Give money
    • Treat everyone with respect
    • Don't sweat the small stuff
    • Try to utilise the company platform to help the community
    • Display gratitude

    If boards can find ways of supporting these things that motivate entrepreneurs, then they may find it easier to focus their enthusiasm and optimism—onto the things that actually matter for the growth and development of the company, not just those things that grab the entrepreneur's attention today.
  • Published on

    Advisory boards and deemed directors: redux

    Governance Leadership Management Performance
    I've been asked to several times over the last month to explain or expand my views on advisory boards. It seems that some of the comments I've made in meetings and on this blog have set people thinking. That's not a bad thing in my view, but because boards are complex, things change, and the popular answer is not always the best answer (although it can be). The most recent discussion took place on a domestic flight last week. I happened to be seated next to a professional acquaintance. We struck up a good conversation on a range of topics. After a lull, he asked "So what have you got against advisory boards?" We had a good chat. Rather than replay that conversation here, I thought it might be helpful if I pulled up the following short piece to ponder. It was written in December 2013:
    The matter of advisory boards has become topical in recent years, particularly amongst emerging companies seeking additional help. Advisory boards are established in many cases to provide advice and oversight on some sort of ongoing basis—the motivation being to access advice without forfeiting control or passing responsibility.

    However, vital differences between boards of directors and advisors to boards are not well understood, such that advisors may be deemed to be directors (or officers) anyway. Kevin McCaffrey made this point at a symposium earlier this month (see point #4). The matter has also been discussed on the Institute of Directors' discussion page on LinkedIn.

    As a further illustration, the Employment Relations Authority has reportedly imposed maximum penalties against a business owner and her advisor in relation to an employment matter. While this case appears to involve malpractice, it highlights the point of this post—that advisors can be (and increasingly are) deemed to be accountable in the eyes of the law. Caveat emptor.
    My view on advisory boards is "be careful, be very careful". If you want advice on a specific matter, buy it. However, if you want on-going assistance to set the direction of the company, spread the decision-making risk and to drive performance, then a board can be a helpful construct. But please, don't get advisory services confused with corporate governance.
  • Published on

    Boards: talking with shareholders is not optional

    Governance Leadership Management Performance Readings
    I've been on vacation this week, in Perth, Western Australia, with my wife. One of the things that we enjoy while away is to read newspapers that we wouldn't normally see at home, especially the local newspaper. This routine gives us a different perspective on what's going on in the world at large, which serves to broaden our horizons. I try to get my hands on a print copy of the The Australian when in Australia, and often read online versions of the New York Times and The Times as well. 

    The commentary pieces and investigative articles published in major newspapers are often quite thought-provoking—particularly when one is relaxing over a coffee and a muesli breakfast. For example, this article, published in the New York Times today, caught my eye. It highlights the difficulties that investors are having in talking with the boards of the companies they own (or, more correctly, part-own). I was stunned. Why would any director who is serious about their contribution not talk to the people to whom they are responsible and accountable? It smacks of hubris. More importantly, what can be done to remedy this problem?
  • Published on

    Adapt or die: a recipe for change

    Governance Leadership Management Performance Readings Strategy
    One of the big challenges for boards, managers and business leaders in the modern business world concerns change. Many leaders seem to be able to formulate strategy reasonably well. However, far fewer are effective when it comes to making organisational change happen. I was discussing this topic with a colleague this week—the context being the board's role in overseeing change—when they referred me to this short article published on the London Business School – Business Strategy Review website. The article took me about five minutes to read. However, as I pondered the ideas that author Therese Kinal mentions, the significance of her recipe started to dawn on me so I thought I'd share it with you. Kinal suggests that successful organisational change requires six ingredients:
    • A real, pressing and complex business problem
    • A diverse team with the right mix of skills and influence
    • Learning through action
    • Going through a battle
    • Synergistic co-operation
    • The coach

    Kinal offers some wonderful and highly pragmatic insights, based on a model she calls Unleashing. I won't repeat the detail of the article here, other than to say the recipe is people-centric (surprise, surprise), that none of the ingredients are optional and there are no shortcuts. If you are a company director, or an executive manager, I recommend you click on the link and read the article. I doubt you'll be disappointed. 
  • Published on

    How does [strategic] thinking differ from planning?

    Leadership Management Performance Strategy
    The leaders of two different companies contacted me this week to ask if I could facilitate a corporate strategy session for their organisations. Both are both respected, long-standing participants in their respective sectors. One is currently updating its strategy, and the other has some concerns over the performance of an important business unit:
    • Derry*: The board and CEO have recently reviewed business performance, conducted an environment scan, identified options and developed a draft strategy. The request from the CEO is to facilitate a joint board/management session to challenge the assumptions; test linkages between purpose, strategic priorities and action plans; and, help the board reach the point of deciding whether to approve the proposed strategy or not.
    • Terra*: The CEO is concerned about a steady decline in the fortunes of a business unit over several years. "We do good work, and customers like us, but we struggle to win new business. We seem to lack a differentiator." I asked about the purpose of the business as a whole, because steady decline over several years can be an indicator of a bigger problem. The CEO said that the rest of the business was doing well—the implication being that the corporate strategy is correct. It was his view that the problem is purely one of execution within the business unit.

    While these two situations were quite different, they highlight an important dichotomy that seems to catch more than a few people out—the vital difference between strategic thinking and strategic planning, and the importance of doing both:
    • Strategic thinking is the process of finding options. It's about the big picture, casting the net wide, to discover possibilities. It's not about solving problems or picking a winner.
    • Strategic planning is the process of narrowing down options, of selecting the preferred one to achieve the business' goal, and of creating action plans. It's exactly about solving problems.

    Derry has been through the thinking process and the planning process. Therefore, the discussion with the board and the CEO should be a real pleasure, because they have a context against which to conduct the debate. In contrast, the Terra CEO seems to have treated the troubled business unit in isolation from the rest of the company, and jumped to the conclusion that something is wrong within the unit. It could be, but I wonder whether the company has a bigger problem: whether the corporate strategy has some holes in it. Why has business declined? Is the once-strong market for the business unit's services still there? What part does/should the business unit play in the wider corporate strategy? The world may have moved on, so fixing a unit without grounding it in reality can be a waste of time and money. 

    The process of thinking about the wider context, the market within which a business operates is vital. The temptation is to go straight into problem solving mode is powerful—everyone likes the satisfaction of having created a plan to solve a problem. However, this is rarely the best first step. My fear for Terra that any work on the business unit will simply paper over a bigger problem. I've suggested some questions for the CEO to ponder before he goes too much further. The next conversation will be very interesting. In the meantime, the Derry workshop is booked.

    * Usual story: the company names have been changed, to protect the parties involved.
  • Published on

    Actual performance trumps promises, actually

    Management Performance Strategy
    Newly-listed Gentrack provided recent and aspiring IPOs with a salutary message yesterday. The investment community prefers solid profitable companies with growth potential. Surprise, surprise.

    In the last year, several companies—including some who are yet to record a sustainable profit—have sought and gained a listing on the New Zealand stock market. The headlong rush to list seems to have been dominated by promises of huge growth and, therefore, good rewards at some point in the future. Some, who entered early, have had an amazing ride but are now getting a reality check, as I mused recently. However, many IPO companies carry a burden of debt into the IPO, which means some of the new capital is needed to tidy up the balance sheet.

    In contrast, Gentrack has been operating for many years, has many customers, and is a proven performer with a track record of profits. It also has a credible plan and has signalled an intent to pay a dividend within twelve months. The company received a warm welcome when it listed yesterday.

    Is the aura surrounding the high-tech sector and hype of stellar returns starting to lose its lustre? Maybe. However, I'm confident that the invisible hand of the market will redress any imbalances that have occurred as a result of the current lemming-like rush to list. It will be very interesting to see which companies come through the current gold rush fever well.

    (Disclosure: I do not hold any shares in any of the companies mentioned in this muse.)