Tags

  • Published on

    Do you have a 'heads-up' habit?

    Leadership Management Performance
    One habit that has served me well for many years is the 'heads-up' habit. It's really simple. Every week, I pause and look ahead, as follows:
    • Every Saturday morning—before breakfast—I look ahead at least four weeks. The motivation is to identify big tasks (typically international trips and major events) loaded into my diary: the objective being to make sure sufficient preparation time is allocated to think, write speeches, build slide decks or prepare well. It gets me thinking—early—about the main points of scheduled talks or important meetings. It has the added benefit of highlighting gaps in trip schedules and, therefore, opportunities to request additional meetings or activities well in advance. I also check trip logistics, especially travel time, accommodation and transport. There's nothing worse than realising at the last minute that an important connection or hotel booking has not been made! This part of the heads-up habit helps me avoid last minute rushes.
    • Every Sunday evening—after dinner—I look ahead seven days. I do this with my wife. We walk through our respective calendars to see what activities we need to plan for, and whether either of us will be home late from a commitment or away overnight (a seemingly simple but incredibly important thing, especially when it comes to planning the evening meal!). This part of the habit helps me manage important relationships.
    In the past, I sometimes lost sight of important upcoming activities (and ended up suffering late into the night trying to make up—the results of which were never that great). However, last-minute rushes have become a rarity since I embraced the heads-up habit. If you don't have a habit to stay of top of your commitments, you might like to try this one. It made my life easier and I seem to be more productive. Also, my wife says that I'm easier to live with!
    Most people I know live fairly busy lives. Western culture and the 'always on' society we live in has done that to us. However, some—by my assessment anyway—have become a bit too busy for their own good. Societal norms seem to reward busyness and excellence, yet cracks start to appear when we get very busy for long periods. We get tired and make mistakes. Our commitment to do things with excellence suffers. How do you cope in such situations? Do you plan well ahead; or, do you manage your commitments on a daily basis; or, do you simply back yourself to keep up with what work and life serves up? 
  • Published on

    Boards: ask different questions, and delight in the possible

    Accountability Governance Leadership Management Performance Strategy
    We live in a paradoxical world. Rates of change are increasing, yet we want certainty. Times to market are reducing, yet we still want instant gratification. Zafer Achi and Jennifer Garvey Berger explored these paradoxes recently. They acknowledged that searches for certainty are "only natural", and that managers spend much of their time "managing the probable". However, the world is a social place. People make choices and things change, often unexpectedly. Consequently, the best laid plans can fail completely, leaving managers exposed and potentially out of a job. Achi and Berger suggest that the frame of reference used by most managers, of managing the probable, is a big part of the problem. Rather than managing the probable, they suggest that managers need to "lead the possible". They offered three recommendations to help managers make the change (see article for details):
    • Ask different questions
    • Take multiple perspectives
    • See systems
    These recommendations have the potential to change the way managers think, make decisions and lead. While reading the article, I couldn't help but think that the recommendations also have application in the boardroom. However, the adoption of 'possibility' thinking would up-end board practices in many cases. Boards that spend most of their time monitoring past performance and controlling the activities of the chief executive would probably be quite uncomfortable, even though the recommendations are neither earth-shattering nor inconsistent with the role and responsibility of the board (to maximise performance in accordance with the wishes of shareholders). Maybe its time for directors to take stock.
  • Published on

    ICMLG'15: Conference wrap-up

    Conferences Governance Leadership Management Research
    The annual International Conference on Management, Leadership and Governance is over for another year. The third edition of the conference, in Auckland New Zealand, built on the earlier editions. The two keynote speakers, Phil O'Reilly and Andrea Thompson, were well received. They set the scene for each day nicely. Three strong themes emerged during the conference, as follows:
    • While business researchers are making a contribution, progress is painfully slow—akin to plodding. The gap (probably best described as a chasm) between the academic research community and the business community is far wider than it should be or needs to be. While researchers need to stand somewhat apart from praxis in order to conceptualise new understandings, they need to avoid standing so far away that their work lacks relevance. Pace and relevance appear to be crucial—if research outputs are to be appreciated by the business community.
    • The research emphasis needs to change, from standing outside the subject of interest (the board, the leader, the management situation) and counting things (typically secondary attributes based on pubic data or interview/survey responses), to getting close to the subject in action. This change demands more qualitative research, in search of deep understanding and meaning. While the theme has become increasingly apparent at conferences in the last year, several delegates voiced opinions that a tipping point might be tantalisingly close.
    • Building on this last comment, researchers need to open the black box (of the board, the management team, the organisational situation) and learn what is actually going on. However, this introduces a new challenge, of discernment. Perhaps business researchers need to take the lead shown by the medical and engineering communities (amongst others). Research-capable doctors do medical research and engineers do engineering research. Has the time come for business research to be performed by researchers with real-world business experience as opposed to researchers who have never been inside a boardroom or managed a commercial entity? Many at the conference thought so.
    Some further reflections:
    • The organiser (Academic Conferences and Publishing, based in the UK) and hosts (AUT and Massey) did a wonderful job. Thank you to Louise, Pat, Coral and James, in particular.
    • The quality of the papers presented, and the author presentations seemed to be higher than the two previous conferences. Perhaps the review process worked better, or researchers are self-selecting such that only those with meaningful research submit papers. 
    • The dinner cruise, on Auckland Harbour, was the social highlight of the conference. Delegates from the Middle East and Europe (especially) were effusive in their comments. That Auckland turned on a wonderful evening sealed the deal!
    • In future, ACP may want to consider organising a programme for partners. Around 20 percent of the delegates brought their spouses with them to New Zealand and there was nothing organised for them.
    So, there you have it. The 3rd International Conference on Management Leadership and Governance is over. I look forward to the 4th edition in twelve months' time. The venue should be announced in the next month or two.
  • Published on

    ICMLG'15: Day one wrap

    Conferences Ethics Governance Language Leadership Management Performance Research
    The first day of ICMLG2015 has been completed, with a very pleasant dinner cruise on Auckland Harbour. The three-hour cruise gave delegates time to enjoy the view back to the city across one of the world's great harbours; to get to know each other better; and, to reflect on the conference to date. The conversations were upbeat—both for the venue and logistics (thanks AUT and Massey) and the topical nature of the presentations and discussion on Day 1. The following points provide the tiniest of glimpses into some of the conversations and thinking so far:
    • Is 'good enough' actually good enough? Many academic researchers pursue high degrees of precision, whereas most consumers (business leaders and boards in this case) are happy to gain insights and a general sense. Several of the delegates, encouraged by Phil O'Reilly's keynote, have openly questioned whether business schools should come down from their ivory towers. Good stuff!
    • Can we go faster? Research needs to change gear, to get ahead of the curve. Instead of reporting what has occurred, researchers need to provide guidance for leaders and for board practice, to explain what can happen to business performance if certain activities or events occur.
    • Does the researcher have a role 'within' the research? Much quantitative/positivist research has the researcher as an external bystander, whereas qualitative/interpretivist research approaches often expect the researcher to position themselves 'within the research'. The risks of the latter are many, but the relevance of much of the research produced by the former is questionable. the research agenda needs to move beyond simply counting things or describing things. I think a middle ground exists. However, explanatory research inspired by realism is not well understood in business schools—yet.
    • The chasm between business and research simply must be bridged. That many businesses do not think of contacting business schools to commission research is an indictment on business schools, not business. Business researchers need to possess business experience and acumen, so they know what they are looking at when they investigate business phenomena. More work—much more—is needed on this score.
    • Are business researchers tantalisingly close to a breakthrough? Thomas Kuhn (The structure of scientific revolutions) spoke about this decades ago. Much research simply builds, incrementally, on what has gone before. Assumptions are reinforced, myths perpetrated and are mistakes legitimised. However, every so often, a step-change occurs. Kuhn called it a paradigm shift. Several of the delegates think that business research—and board and governance research in particular—is on the cusp of such a paradigm shift.
    In addition, many new relationships were formed, ideas for collegial working groups were discussed and several invitations were issued for cross-border and multinational cooperation. (Gosh, that sounds like the OECD or the United Nations!) I'm looking forward to seeing and hearing how the discussion builds and develops on Day 2, starting with Andrea Thompson's keynote.
  • Published on

    What can we learn from the HSBC scandal?

    Accountability Governance Leadership Management
    News of the HSBC scandal has been plastered over major daily newspapers and news websites for several days now. Twitter and other social media platforms have been abuzz as well. That the leaders of an esteemed bank could have allowed such practices to occur is a travesty of leadership and good business practice. 
    In the years to come, the HSBC scandal will make a great case study for students of business and human behaviour. However, in the meantime, the compelling questions are of corporate governance and leadership. What has been going on at HSBC? Why has the group chairman at the time (Lord Green) now gone quiet? Was the board aware of the practices? If so, why did it allow them to occur? If not, why didn't the board know?
    Ignorance is an unacceptable defence. Nor is silence. When will shareholders and others in the marketplace call time on this type of behaviour? Thankfully, some commentators are looking to the future. Dina Medland's opinion piece hits the mark. It's all about accountability.
  • Published on

    Who should control your business, and who actually does?

    Accountability Governance Management Performance Strategy
    Have you ever pondered the question of who actually controls your business on a day-to-day basis? Many chief executives have told me that they do. They say they have a large hand in the strategy; the culture; and, the policies and procedures, and that these things determine what the business is and what it does. But do they? Does this view match the reality?
    I've long held the view that businesses should be controlled by just two things. The first is strategy, the expression of how the overall objective of the business is to be achieved and against which all effort is aligned. In most businesses, strategy is expressed in commercial terms, based on whatever purpose the shareholders have laid out. The second controlling influence is the customer, or it should be. Customers are crucial because they "feed" the top line, without which the business has no future.
    The challenge for boards and chief executives is to ensure that all of the resources at their disposal (people, systems, product and service portfolio, finances) are aligned in pursuit of the agreed strategy. The benefits of doing so are almost self-evident, so much so that you would think all businesses would operate in this manner. But sadly, many don't.
    If you will allow me to relate an actual experience—one that probably happens more often than most chief executives and company directors realise. Recently, having opened a managed funds account with a large provider, my wife and I found ourselves with the frustrating problem of being forced to change the password to gain access to the on-line system. Here's the exchange with the financial services advisor:
    Me: We have discovered an annoying “feature” of the ABC programme: the “forced change” on user passwords. To be forced to change your password every few months is jolly annoying, to the point of arrogance on the part of ABC company. We are not forced to change our password with the bank. We can see no justification to impose such a regime on a look-only user account. Can you please talk to your people and get this setting changed. 
    Advisor: This is a feature determined by the provider of the on-line platform; and it is across all client accounts. ABC company has been approached on this several times but their IT security people are unable to make exceptions at the individual customer level.
    Another client logs in only rarely and has the same frustration. I suggested that I diarise to generate the account summary at around the same time it’s being system-generated, and email it through. What do you think of that as a work-around? I agree it’s irritating; I log in several times a day so the password refresh isn’t the same issue for me, as it is when you’re logging in maybe only every few weeks or in response to a system-generated prompt.
    M: Thank you for chasing our question through to an answer. It’s disappointing when “IT security people” get to drive the business and the customer experience eh! Your suggested work around is fine with us, on the proviso that it does not cause you any untoward extra work or hassle. One report per quarter will be fine. Is that OK?
    A: Hi, that sounds fine.
    FYI, I had the same thought about who drives the business: we have new printers with card swipes to unlock the print queue, for “security” and cost savings purposes, and also “print anywhere” capability. OK, I suppose, up to a point; but some IT person decided that the tray for standard white copy paper will be tray 3 (second-lowest) not tray 1 (highest, as it’s always been – and easiest to reach down to), and locked it into the printer in a way we can’t alter the settings locally. Letterhead and continuation paper (used in much lower quantities) are in trays 1 and 2, not trays 2 and 3 which would make more practical sense. So we are all (apart from the IT person, who thinks this is very orderly but who never uses our printer) inconvenienced both in terms of having to reach down all the time to replenish tray 3, but also having to go through and reconfigure many standard documents that will otherwise print on the wrong paper. I imagine that when the next printer comes along, there will be a new IT person and we’ll now be squatting down to replenish tray 4!
    The message is stark: that faceless people in back rooms often have more influence over business performance and perception than what executives and boards realise. They make decisions that seem reasonable. However, most of these decisions are made in isolation, without reference to customer or strategy. The consequences of decisions that detract from the customer experience and are inconsistent with the corporate strategy can be quite damaging. If customers start walking away, where does that leave the business?