Tags

  • Published on

    On the aspirations of women in business

    Management Performance Research Societal Wellbeing
    The topic of gender diversity has been a popular theme in the popular press and academic literature in the last couple of years. Awareness groups have been formed to speak into the diversity debate, and to promote the interests of women in business. Research reports have identified a correlation between women and performance, in that the presence of women in Boardrooms and executive suites seems to enhance company performance. However, the research is not conclusive, and a sound causal explanation is yet to emerge.

    With all this interest and activity, you would think women would be actively pursuing executive positions, particularly the C-suite. I thought this as well—until I read McKinsey's report entitled Unlocking the full potential of women at work. The most intriguing insight was that, despite their career success, 59% of women said they did not aspire to the C-suite. The main reasons for the reluctance? Structural obstacles, lifestyle choices, and corporate politics in the C-suite. While the market seems to be keen to provide opportunities for women to participate in all levels of the business community (which I applaud), it seems that for some roles at least, women just aren't interested.
  • Published on

    On vision, core purpose and related matters

    Management Performance Research Strategy
    What role does "vision" have in the modern organisation? Is such a thing still relevant and, if so, who should "own" it? The question of vision has been a bit of a hobby-horse of mine for over a decade now, particularly when I've been asked to help with strategic planning. A discussion on the Institute of Directors group page over at LinkedIn brought the issue to the surface again this week.
     
    I must admit to being a doubter when the wave of books, seminars, consulting engagements promoting the vision and mission statements first flowed across the business community in the 1990s. While considerable money and effort was expended on the creation of some quite wonderful statements, many of which were printed and displayed for all to see, the gains in productivity and business performance were questionable in most cases.

    Vision is typically expressed as some aspirational sense of what an organisation seeks to achieve (a big goal, if you will). It addresses "what", a key question that all stakeholders need answered. But people don't get behind things or targets, they get behind causes. It should come as no surprise therefore that vision "leaks", and that staff are naturally sceptical, particularly when vision statements are too ambitious as many are. 

    Vision alone is not sufficient however. For sustained effort, people need to know "what" and "why". Core purpose is much better, because it addresses both questions. Core purpose incorporates the vision (what) and the underlying driver/cause (why). A good statement of core purpose is succinct, self-evident and realistic. It should be developed by the Board because, ultimately, the Board is responsible for the purpose of the organisation, on behalf of the shareholders. The core purpose should be owned by everyone. Notwithstanding this, the challenge of motivating the people and aligning their effort to move the organisation towards the core purpose is no easy task. I guess that's one reason why good CEOs are paid so much! 
  • Published on

    Boards of directors: is form or function more important?

    Governance Management Performance Research Societal Wellbeing Strategy
    Much has been made in the business press in recent weeks of the possibility of splitting the Board Chair and CEO roles at JP Morgan. Arguments for and against have been made, and now a non-binding shareholder vote is imminent. I can't help but feel disappointed by all this rhetoric, because arguments about Board form (structure) miss the point.

    For the last 40 years or more, researchers and practitioners have searched for "the ideal Board structure" through which high performance will occur. Despite considerable effort, attempts to produce an ideal structure, or explain how Boards contribute to business performance, have failed to produce definitive results. If we pause and reflect, this lack of clarity should not be a surprise. Governance is a complex, socially dynamic phenomena, not a predictable closed system or a mass of separable attributes. As such, empirical knowledge (of the past, or of form) cannot be used to credibly predict future performance.

    Rather than continue to argue over form (that is, argue over structural variables including Chair/CEO duality, gender diversity, non-executive directors), attention needs to move to the holistic consideration of governance itself, and what Boards do (how they function). Then, and probably only then, will we start to gain a clear understanding of how Boards actually contribute to business performance. But is that asking too much of the JP Morgan Board and other Boards? I guess time will tell.
  • Published on

    Company directors: what are your real responsibilities?

    Governance Management Performance Readings Research Societal Wellbeing
    Two posts on corpgov.net have caught my eye this week:

    Together, these articles present a significant challenge to the corporate governance community, and company directors in particular. To most Boards, the purpose of the company is to achieve growth and to maximise shareholder value, period. But is this narrow focus appropriate? Does it help society, or does it add to its burdens?

    As I read the articles, I found myself thinking about the relationship between economic growth and societal wellbeing. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that a narrow focus on profit or growth is a rather selfish win/lose strategy. Shareholders win and the rest of us lose. Is that fair? Perhaps Boards should be compelled to take account of wider societal factors as they fulfil their important role. What do you think?
  • Published on

    Does conflict and governance go together?

    Governance Management Performance Readings Research Strategy
    Earlier today, I read an interesting article posted on the HBR blog site about conflict and governance. The author, Solange Charas, described two kinds of conflict: cognitive (task-oriented) and affective (emotionally-oriented) in her article. She asserted that cognitive conflict is essential in creating value, whereas affective conflict erodes value. Charas' research is consistent with other research which reports that cohesiveness, vigorous debate and creative interaction are hallmarks of a good strategy development process (refs: Levrau & Van den Burghe, 2007; Kerr & Werther, 2008). 

    My point in raising the topic of conflict/debate in the boardroom? Many of the boards that I'm familiar with or have been privileged to observe are devoid of cognitive conflict, despite directors themselves telling researchers that vigorous debate leads to improved decision quality. Discussions tend to be "nice", lest someone offends someone else. But are such genteel behaviours good for company performance? 

    Can I suggest directors need to put their reputations and any affective behaviours to one side, and focus their attention on what they were appointed to do: explore strategic options and make strategic decisions (some of which may be quite contentious), and maximise performance (through the CEO). Perhaps if they do so, and adopt cognitive conflict practices, then we will start to see some serious value being created from the boardroom.
  • Published on

    Is it time for our business schools to get closer to business?

    Management Performance Research Societal Wellbeing Teaching
    Acclaimed businessman, Rob Fyfe (formerly CEO of Air New Zealand), was reported this week as saying that business students don't understand leadership in the real world, and that universities should take a more authentic approach to leadership study. I agree.

    Over the last two years, I have been immersed in post-graduate study—initially a post-graduate certificate in business, and subsequently doctoral study. In so doing, I have observed some rather interesting behaviours and patterns that, quite frankly, trouble me.
    • A large percentage (perhaps the majority, even) of the academic researchers and tutors I have come in to contact with seem to have a very relaxed attitude towards time. The importance of time that pervades business is not apparent in academia. 
    • Many of the students I've met (both under-graduate and post-graduate) seem to lack any real appreciation of how business is conducted. Consequently, their ability to appreciate management concepts and theories, and think about them critically, is compromised.

    The consequences of these behaviours and patterns appear in the assignment submissions, theses and research reports produced by students and faculty. Much of the material is technically correct but either hard to understand or lacking in any applicability to real-world situations. It's almost as if the "so what?" question has never been posed, let alone wrestled with.

    In my opinion, all aspiring business students should be required to undertake at least five years practical experience in a relevant field before they are accepted into any post-graduate programme. Also, faculty should be required to do a significant period of field work on at least a sabbatical basis (every seven years). This type of requirement would ensure students and staff have at least a basic understanding of business in the real-world. Such a model may well be threatening to some faculty who sit comfortably in their learned environment. However, I suspect the quality and practical usefulness of the research produced, and calibre of graduates re-entering the workforce, would increase markedly.

    What do you think?