Tags

  • Published on

    ECMLG'13: IT governance and technology topics

    Conferences Management Performance Research
    The ECMLG programme this year includes several papers on IT governance and related technology topics, which indicates an increasing level of interest amongst management, leadership and governance researchers. Some of the papers I attended and/or read include:
    • IT governance, decision-making and IT capabilities
    • Information technology leadership on electronic records management: The Malaysian experience
    • A framework for business–IT fusion
    • Business–IT fusion: developing a shared world view


    Amongst these, an encouraging theme—of linking IT priorities with corporate business objectives—became apparent. This is heartening because, in my experience, many IT aficionados have been more interested in the evangelism of capability and particular methods and processes.
  • Published on

    ECMLG'13: Moving boards from agency to performance

    Conferences Governance Performance Research
    James Lockhart (Massey University, New Zealand) presented a paper which challenged the underlying foundation that has supported the majority of the governance research and practice over the last four decades. Lockhart opened by contending that the focus that many boards have on compliance has produced a generation of defensive, reputation-protecting boards, as opposed to boards that focus on business performance. Lockhart asserted that governance attention needs to change, away from compliance and towards factors that effect performance:
    • Division of labour: A clear division of labour, between boards and managers (cf. the often ambiguous roles of governance and management) is crucial to deciding who does what (efficiency and effectiveness)
    • Power: Hubris in the boardroom tends to determine what gets discussed, and therefore, what gets implemented. In contrast, humility and a commitment to cooperation should be conducive to refocussing attention on collegial efforts to discover, agree and work together towards the corporate objective.
    • The role of the owner: In many governance situations, the role of the owner has been forgotten or ignored. This should not be a surprise, because the governance legislation in many countries requires the board to act in the best interest of the company (cf. the owner). If the role of the owner is reasserted, boards' attention should move to the making of decisions that affect the goals and strategies of the owners/shareholders.

    These points provide a useful basis for future governance research, and for practice. However, they assume that directors and boards have the competence and inclination to change their behaviours and embrace them—an assumption which, unfortunately, cannot be taken for granted.
  • Published on

    ECMLG'13: Culture and conflict in MNCs

    Conferences Performance Research Societal Wellbeing
    Selected views on the organisational culture of multinational corporiations

    Alena Safrova Drasilova (Masaryk University, Czech Republic) presented her research on conflict and culture in multinational corporations (MNCs). Drasilova surveyed people from 2509 branches of 335 MNCs, in an effort to understand the influence of headquarters culture on the culture of branches located  in the Czech Republic. The preliminary results indicated that MNCs headquartered in Europe displayed less conflict at the branch level than companies headquartered elsewhere.

    The discussion that followed the paper was extensive—clearly the paper stimulated the interest of the audience. One aspect of the discussion explored the notion of cultural alignment in a category Drasilova described as global (companies that identified themselves as not having a national head office—Bosch being German, or IKEA being Swedish, for example—but rather a pervasive culture in which the characteristics of the brand itself prevails over the location of the country—McDonalds, for example)

    It would be very interesting to understand if any linkages between culture/conflict and performance exist, particularly whether the presence or absence of conflict makes any difference. Drasilova said that no work had been undertaken yet, but that this is the next step in the research. I look forward to reading this next phase of work, because I suspect the approach she plans to take may well have parallels to my own work.
  • Published on

    ECMLG'13: Opening keynote address

    Conferences Governance Management Performance Research
    The 9th European Conference on Management Leadership and Governance was held at Alpin-Adria University, Klagenfurt, Austria.

    The opening address, by Julia Sloan of the USA, explored the topic of learning to think strategically, and the importance of such thinking to sustainable business performance. Sloan drew a clear demarcation between strategic thinking, strategic planning and strategic implementation. She asserted that most organisational leaders have reasonably well-developed planning and implementation skills, but poorly developed thinking skills.

    Whereas strategic planning tends to be linear, tidy, convergent, clean and aims to solve problems, strategic thinking tends to be non-linear, iterative, messy and aims to suspend problem solving while the nature of the problem is more clearly understood. Sloan suggested that leaders need to become skilled in strategic thinking and strategic planning. Otherwise, if leaders can only but plan in detail—without asking questions of context—and, as a result, expose their organisations to the very real chance of getting it wrong.

    Sloan's thesis is as compelling as it is self-evident—which begs the question: Why do so many leaders ignore the strategic thinking element? Is it too hard, too complex, or is it simply a case of leaders not knowing what they don't know? Perhaps more importantly, how can this gap be bridged? Our business schools probably have an important responsibility in addressing these questions. They need to take stock of Sloan's thesis, with a view to adjusting their curricula, to emphasise the cognitive skills that are so obviously missing from the graduates emerging from their programmes.

    Readers wanting to more should read Sloan's book "Learning to think strategically", the second edition of which has just been published.
  • Published on

    ECMLG'13: Observations and insights

    Conferences Governance Management Performance Phd Research Strategy
    Later this week—on Thu 14 and Fri 15 November—I will be speaking at the 9th European Conference on Management, Leadership and Governance in Klagenfurt, Austria. I'm looking forward to renewing acquaintances and making some new connections; to presenting a paper to an international audience which will include some of the world's leading governance scholars; to testing some emergent ideas; and, to learning from others throughout the two days. 

    I plan to post reflections here during the conference, so check back if you'd like to hear about the latest developments in management, leadership and governance research and practice.
  • Published on

    How much time do you spend in your board role?

    Governance Performance Strategy Time Management
    The National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD) has just published its 2013–2014 Public Company Governance Survey. The news release and several top-line findings are available here. A copy of the full survey report is available from the NACD bookstore.

    The report makes for interesting reading. One metric that caught my attention was the average amount of time that board members commit to their work. Respondents claimed their annual time commitment was 235 hours per board. Using an 8-hour day as the basis, this means that directors of public companies in America commit, on average, 2.5 days per month to each board of which they are a director. Does this sound like a lot of time, or not much? By way of comparison, most boards of public companies in New Zealand meet ten or eleven times per year, and board meetings typically last between four and seven hours. Even taking the generous end of these ranges, and doubling the figure to account for committee work and pre-reading, the figure for a New Zealand director is about 154 hours, or roughly two-thirds of the American figure.

    What amount of time is reasonable? Clearly, boards and companies are complex, socially dynamic, and subject to the vagaries of markets and many internal and external factors, so every situation is different. However, I would have thought that a figure closer to 400–450 hours per year would be necessary, if a director is to understand the business of the business well (this being a prerequisite to making an effective contribution to the development of strategy and the making of informed strategic decisions), and monitor performance well. Could the lower levels of commitment that seem to be typical be material to the various failures of governance that have come to light in recent years?