Tags

  • Published on

    On leadership: there is no silver bullet

    Leadership Management Performance Readings Research
    The production of silver bullets—panaceas—is a growth industry. New books, all claiming to contain "the" answer, appear in the bookstores almost daily. Sadly, many are far more self-indulgent than helpful to the reader. Yet we lap them up, as we search for ways to be more effective in our professional and personal lives.

    I've become a bit jaundiced by the self-help gravy-train of late, however one of the books from my summer reading list has restored my faith somewhat: History Lessons: what business and management can learn from the great leaders of history. Jonathan Gifford, the author, asserts that there is no one model leadership model or kind of leader that can hope to be effective in all situations. Leadership is a complex phenomenon, and different attributes need to come to the fore in different situations. What a breath of fresh air.

    Gifford identifies eight skills and abilities that represent many of the essential things that any leader should be able to do and—ideally—be good at. He uses great leaders from history (not all of whom will be well known in the Western world) to illustrate his points.
    • Changing the mood
    • Boldness of vision
    • Doing the planning
    • Leading from the front
    • Bringing people with you
    • Making thing happen
    • Taking the offensive
    • Creating opportunities

    The book is easy to read. I commend it as a great investment, to aspiring and established leaders. But be warmed: it will make you think about your current leadership situation.
  • Published on

    Are you an Advisor or a Consultant?

    Governance Leadership Management Performance Societal Wellbeing Teaching
    Periodically, I'm asked whether I'm an advisor or a consultant. For many years now, the answer I've provided has been 'advisor', often in an effort to avoid the stigma commonly associated with 'consultant'. (Consultants are the guys that borrow your watch to tell you the time, right?) However, as I've studied the English language more closely in the last couple of years, I've become much more comfortable with the term 'consultant', because it most accurately describes who I am and what I do. Let me explain.

    Generally speaking (although perhaps somewhat simplistically):
    • A consultant is a problem-solver, a simplifier. They are someone you call on to find a way forward, when you have a problem in need of a solution. At their best, consultants provide answers, or at least recommendations. They may or may not actually do the work to implement any solution you choose to pursue.
    • An advisor is a problem-definer. They are someone you call on as an impartial sounding board, to stimulate your thinking and to test ideas. At their best, advisors help survey the horizon and bring the future into focus. They may well recommend the names of others (consultants!) to help solve a problem once it is more clearly defined.

    While my priority as a pracademic is to think broadly about corporate governance and strategy in order to discover possibilities and pursue options, my clients are most interested in solutions to problems they face today – recommendations and answers – which fits nicely with my instinct to understand and solve problems.

    Now your turn: Are you an advisor or a consultant?
  • Published on

    New Years Honours: where is the consistency?

    Governance Leadership Management Performance
    I'm confused. The New Years honours list has just been announced, and it appears some odd choices have been made. Two recipients of high honour are Dame Alison Paterson and Sir Robert (Bob) Parker, both of whom are well-known in governance circles. When one looks at the credentials of Dame Alison, it's easy to see why she was nominated and supported. However with Sir Bob, the picture is less clear.
    • Dame Alison has served as a company director and board chair for four decades. She was a pioneer in terms of female directors, and most of the companies she has been associated with have performed well. Dame Alison is widely respected.
    • Sir Bob is a well-known media personality and former mayor of Christchurch. While he was the 'face' of the Christchurch earthquake response, he has also been associated with several failures of governance, including a CEO pay debacle and the Council losing the right to issue building permits. His knighthood has polarised opinion.

    On the surface, one recipient has served consistently, with distinction, over a long period. In contrast, the other has been a mediocre contributor, save a high-profile media role following a natural disaster. The credibility of the honours system, particularly the bestowing of knighthoods, is dependent on the consistent application of demanding criteria, lest it be reduced to 'gongs for mates'. 

    Have I missed something, or are there a few inconsistencies in play this time around?
  • Published on

    When are advisors deemed directors?

    Governance Management
    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.
  • Published on

    Do you remember the Cadbury Report (1992)?

    Governance Leadership Management Performance Research Strategy
    Christmas 2013 is now history, which means 2014—and all the rituals associated with New Year—is nigh. For many people, the act of hanging a new calendar on the office wall in the last few days of December carries far more significance than simply closing off one year and opening the next. It stirs thoughts of the future, of what lies ahead, of one's dreams, hopes and aspirations. I am amongst those that think about the future and what lies ahead when the new calendar is hung. However, this year, I'd like to briefly look back before looking forward, lest an important anniversary in the world of corporate governance is overlooked.

    The Cadbury Report has just turned 21 years old. Do you remember the Cadbury Report and the recommendations it contained? The so-called Cadbury Report was actually the Report of the Committee on the Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance. An archive containing copies of Sir Adrian Cadbury's speeches, the report itself, and other related matters is now available online. The Report was commissioned following several scandals and company collapses, and the damage to investor confidence that ensued. It provided several recommendations to improve corporate governance. Amongst other items, these included:
    • that the roles of Chair and CEO be separated and held by two different people
    • that the majority of the board be outside directors
    • that an Audit committee, comprised of outside directors, be appointed

    The goal was to improve trust, transparency and performance. Subsequent to the Report, many companies have adopted the recommendations (motivated perhaps by the London Stock Exchanges "comply or explain" requirement), although not without resistance and reluctance in some quarters.

    The question to be asked on the occasion of the Report's 21st birthday is whether the recommendations have improved corporate governance and, perhaps more importantly, company performance. Sadly, the evidence is mixed, very mixed. History shows that the structural provisions, including those contained in the Cadbury Report, were insufficient to prevent the high-profile failures of the early 2000s (Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, et al), the global financial crisis of 2007–2008, and some more recent failures in New Zealand and elsewhere as well. But that should not be a surprise to anyone, because the purpose of rules and structures is to provide boundaries. Rules and structures cannot ensure or predict any level of future performance. The human condition; ethics; and, the propensity to act in good faith (or otherwise) need to be factored in, if a performance orientation is to be pursued.
  • Published on

    On shareholder primacy, groupthink and hubris

    Governance Leadership Management Performance Research Strategy
    I spent much of the day yesterday in the company of my doctoral supervisor, an outstanding Masters candidate and a very capable governance consultant. The purpose of the meeting was to tackle some interesting—and rather challenging—questions to do with the practices of governance, hubris and groupthink, collective decision-making and cognitive biases. In addition to being topical (read further down this blog), these topics seem to be important building blocks towards gaining a robust understanding of governance in practice. Others appear to be exploring similar topics as well.

    We made good progress, but a long list of questions and opportunities to dig deeper remain. While I'm not at liberty to discuss what emerged, several seemingly separate strands of thought, research and practice appear to be coalescing. Normally when I come away from such sessions, I listen to a podcast to clear my mind. However my mind was in overdrive yesterday as I drove home. Could a grand theory of governance, so long ruled out by many, be possible after all?