• Published on

    ANZAM'13: CEO replacement decisions

    The replacement of a poor performing CEO is an important but challenging task of boards. Young Kim's (University of New South Wales) summarised recent research into factors which contribute to the speed with which boards make CEO dismissal decisions. Her quantitative study, using data from 348 publicly-listed US firms, explored the relationship between external signals of declining performance (analyst downgrades), the board's interpretation of any signalled decline, and the time to any subsequent dismissal of the CEO. The results revealed that three factors seem to be significant to the speed with which the board makes any CEO dismissal decision. According to Kim, boards made dismissal decisions more quickly when:
    • The magnitude of performance drops were high/strong (gross failure to achieve performance targets)
    • The performance drop represented a large variation from a previously consistent pattern of performance
    • The performance drop was more extreme than prevailing industry patterns

    These results were encouraging. They confirmed my intuition that most boards tend to react only when large changes or variations from forecast occur, and that the response they turn to first is to dismiss the CEO. In so doing, the larger problem—of boards operating as the "ambulance at the base of the cliff"—is brought into stark relief. The continuing failure of boards to understand the operational context within which the company operates, and to monitor performance against strategy adequately, amazes me. Kim's study provides a useful launch pad for further research, perhaps using qualitative methodology, to understand the motivations of boards, and the changes needed to move boards into the role of the top of the cliff. I intend to chat with Kim about this, because I suspect there are synergies between her work and mine.
  • Published on

    ANZAM'13: The importance of organisational leadership systems to leader sense-giving

    Peter McKiernan (Murdoch University, Western Australia) presented research which explored the effect of organisational leadership systems (OLS) on leader sense-giving. This paper caught my eye because it offered a different perspective—sense-giving, not sense-making. The possible effects of contextual factors in the leadership process are not well understood. McKiernan's longitudinal study sought to address this gap in the knowledge, by analysing qualitative data collected from interviews with leaders in 37 multinational firms, in order to discover whether the OLS is a trigger, enabler or barrier to leader sense-giving. The results showed that a degree of inherent complexity and ambiguity are triggers for sense-giving, and that objective (external) factors appears to have the biggest impact.

    I asked the "so what?" question after the talk, and McKiernan said that this is the next step in his work. To understand implications for practice. I look forward to seeing the fruits of this work, because it is likely to be helpful to enhance leadership effectiveness in high change environments.
  • Published on

    ANZAM'13: Streams of knowledge and learning

    The 27th Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management conference starts this morning, in Hobart, Australia. If the registration process and pack is any indication, the three day conference will be a well-run, high quality affair. This year, papers have been categorised into 15 subject streams:
    • Managing on the Edge
    • Critical Management Studies
    • Entrepreneurship, Small Business and Family Enterprise
    • Gender, Diversity and Indigeneity
    • Human Resource Management
    • International Management
    • Leadership and Governance
    • Management Education and Development
    • Marketing and Communication
    • Organisational Behaviour
    • Organisational Change and Development
    • Health, Public Sector and Not-for-profit
    • Strategic Management
    • Sustainability and Social Issues in Management
    • Technology, Innovation and Supply Chain Management

    With about 340 papers on the programme, and several plenary keynotes, the logistics exercise of paper and stream selection has not been without challenge. Today, I'll be concentrating my attention on two streams: Leadership and Governance, and Strategic Management. I will post reflections and comments as time and wi-fi access permits. 
  • Published on

    ANZAM Conference: Observations and insights

    I will be attending the 27th Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM) Conference, in Hobart, Australia, next week. The three-day gathering, from Wed 4 to Fri 6 December, is the premier conference for management scholars and practitioners in this part of the world, with over 340 research papers and several keynote presentations on the programme! Papers have been grouped into 15 topic areas, with up to eight streams of papers being presented at any one time. Consequently, delegates have the challenging task of deciding what papers they want to hear—a not insignificant logistics exercise for sure.

    While I will not be presenting a paper this year, I will be sharing observations and insights during the conference, as I have done with other conferences. Please check back here later next week if you like to hear about the latest developments in the management field.
  • Published on

    US trip: March 2014

    I will be visiting the USA in March, to present a paper at the International Conference on Management Leadership and Governance, at Babson College, Mass., on 20–21 March. Currently, I have up to three days available (Fri 14, Mon 17, Tue 18) for meetings in or near San Francisco or Boston (my travel route) to provide assistance with, or speak into, any corporate strategy or governance matter that may be of interest to you or your organisation.

    If you would like to take advantage of this, to have me speak, consult or provide some other contribution, please contact me to let me know how I can help.
  • Published on

    Angel investments: Philanthropy, guile or gambling?

    Angel investors are an interesting lot. They typically invest in start-up or early-stage companies, but such investments can be risky. Folklore suggests that, for every ten investments that an Angel makes, four will fail to provide any return, three will return the original investment, two will do reasonably well (2–5 times return), and one will do very well (5–10 times return). Sometimes this approach works (in terms of providing a positive overall return over a five to ten year period), and sometimes it doesn't.

    Without wishing to sound cynical in any way, what motivates an angel? Generally speaking, they are wealthy individuals who have worked hard to build a capital base. Why would they risk eroding their base by making risky investments? I suspect many Angels are adrenalin junkies—gamblers even—where the possibility (and thrill) of high returns are simply too great to ignore. However this is not the case for all Angels. Some see their investments as philanthropic donations, to assist the next generation of entrepreneurs. Others are well-informed, astute and shrewd. Regardless of their motivation, Angels provide a much-needed source of capital for entrepreneurs—to test their ideas and try to get them off the ground. Bill Gates, Rod Drury and Sam Morgan are all beneficiaries, and look at them now!