Tags

  • Published on

    ICMLG'14: Keynote presentation day 2

    Conferences Leadership Management Research
    The keynote speaker to kick off the second day of ICMLG'14 was Dr Leonard Schlesinger. Dr Schlesinger was recently appointed Baker Foundation Professor at Harvard University.

    The talk—which built on Isenberg's entrepreneurial ecosystems talk on day 1—explored entrepreneurial thought and action, the primary point being that entrepreneurs are action-oriented rather than thinking-oriented. Whereas the normal modus operandi of established companies is built on structure and linearity, entrepreneurial activity is rather messy. Further, the future cannot readily be predicted (despite the best attempts of consulting firms and mature businesses to do through through detailed and systematic planning processes). Therefore, different approaches are required. Instead of "Where to?", the question needs to be "Where to next?" As such, a degree of predictability comes through the process of taking short steps. The goal should be to map out the next few steps, and to be agile based on known resources and known landscape at that time.

    Schlesinger had much to say, more than what is reasonable to share in this post. His talk would have been quite provocative for many listeners, but I revelled in his frank commentary. They have motivated me to pause and review of some of the assumptions that underpin my doctoral research work, which is great. I'll start that process on the flight from Boston to the Midwest on Saturday morning.
  • Published on

    ICMLG'14: Accountability in cases of corporate failure

    Conferences Governance Leadership Management Performance Research Societal Wellbeing
    Dr James Lockhart, of Massey University, New Zealand, spoke to the highly topical issue of governance accountability in cases of corporate failure or fraud. After introducing the topic and comparing rules-based and principles-based systems of governance, Lockhart discussed several cases of corporate failure that have occurred in recent years, including:
    • Case #1: Approximately 70 finance companies went bust due to mismanagement, resulting in the loss of $850bn of investor's funds. Directors, CEOs and related parties were held accountable through the legal system, and several spent time in jail as a consequence of being found guilty.
    • Case #2: Twenty-nine employees and contractors were killed in a major industrial workplace accident. The CEO and some other parties were initially charged, however all charges were subsequently withdrawn, in effect removing any accountability.
    • Case #3: Hundreds of Asians became sick and six died as a result of contaminated milk products exported from New Zealand. No one, in either the affected country (China) or in New Zealand were charged.

    Lockhart's conclusion was telling: if boards and managers lose large sums of money they will be held accountable. However, if lives are lost different accountability rules will apply. The evidence analysed suggests that lives lost are accorded a lower standard of accountability. That seemed odd—tragic even—to Dr Lockhart, and to many members of the audience. 

    The question that lingered in my mind as I left the room? How long it will be (or how many more accidents will it take) before something is done about this glaring inconsistency?

    Disclosure: James Lockhart is my PhD supervisor. However, the paper he presented was entirely his work and I had no involvement in it.
  • Published on

    ICMLG'14: Opening keynote

    Conferences Leadership Management Performance Research
    The opening keynote speaker at the International Conference on Management Leadership and Governance (ICMLG) was Dr Dan Isenberg. His topic was A Critical Path to Entrepreneurial Ecosystems. Isenberg described entrepreneurship, challenged a few folklore beliefs and introduced a concept he called an entrepreneurial ecosystem.

    Many scholars, business leaders, community leaders—and much of the popular press—would have us believe that the Google, Facebook, LinkedIn perspective of entrepreneurship is somehow the normal model to be pursued. (This being the rapid growth from nothing towards an IPO event 6–8 years later.) Isenberg challenged this view, and did so very strongly. He cited many examples of successful entrepreneurial businesses that are not necessarily startups or innovative or youthful or owners of small businesses. The data shows that many startups simply don't grow. Further, entrepreneurial businesses are far more likely to come from ideas that are written off as dumb or worthless by 'experts'. In contrast, entrepreneurial businesses are more commonly found in older, basic industries, and that they achieve sporadic growth over time.

    According to Isenberg's research (and experience from several working examples), some of the critical characteristics of successful entrepreneurial ecosystems are actually quite different from those that are commonly regarded as being crucial:
    • a few local success stories which are highly visible
    • a high quality of life, such that talented people desire to stay
    • there is a plethora of usable assets (people, finance, supportive large companies)
    • an anxiety, sense of urgency and fear of the future exists in the culture

    Those characteristics that are commonly regarded as being desirable, but are actually much less important in reality include:
    • having lots of startups in an incubator or cluster context
    • the presence of economic development agencies
    • tax incentive frameworks and supportive government policies

    Isenberg's comments will unsettle many folk, particularly those with an involvement or association with incubators, clusters, angel clubs or local EDAs. However, the evidence is compelling (and not dissimilar to the thoughts on innovation that Dr Bob Brown shared at ANZAM in Dec'13). Folk associated with these groups could do far worse than to take stock, because the current approaches aren't working. 

    Isenberg's talk set an expectant tone for the conference. It challenged much conventional wisdom, and was a breath of fresh air.
  • Published on

    On entrepreneurial thought and action: getting the low down

    Conferences Governance Leadership Management Performance Research
    Delegates at the International Conference on Management Leadership and Governance are in for a treat next week. Dr Leonard Schlesinger, Professor of Business Administration at Harvard and leading company director (including Forbes and Demandware), is the keynote speaker on Fri March 21. He'll be talking about the entrepreneurial thought process and the conversion of thinking into action.

    Dr Schlesinger is highly regarded in the business and academic communities, and I'm looking forward to hearing what he has to say. I'll post a summary of his talk here, as part of my commitment to provide reflections and comments throughout the ICMLG'14 conference, for the benefit of those that can't attend.
  • Published on

    ICMLG'14: just around the corner

    Conferences Governance Leadership Management Phd Research
    The International Conference on Management Leadership and Governance (ICMLG) is only a week away. This year, the conference is being held at Babson College, just outside Boston. The programme looks really interesting. I'll post reflections and comments here during the conference, so please check back if you are interested.

    I leave home on Mon 17 on the Air New Zealand evening flight to San Francisco, to meet a United flight across to Boston. The conference dates are 20–21 March, so I will have some time beforehand to reacquaint myself with a city that I last visited 20 years ago, and to attend meetings with some highly regarded governance advisors who are based in Boston. My paper will be presented on the first day of the conference, and I will chair a session the second morning.

    Immediately after the conference, I fly out to northern Minnesota, to visit the family I lived with as an exchange student 35 years ago. It'll be my first trip back since 1990, and possibly the last time I see my now elderly host parents. While the schedule is tight, I am looking forward to this trip very much. I'll keep you informed.
  • Published on

    On women in leadership, the glass ceiling and statistics

    Governance Leadership Management Performance Research Societal Wellbeing
    The glass ceiling seems to be alive and operating well in New Zealand—or so a reporter's interpretation of a recently published report by Grant Thornton would have us believe.

    Whereas New Zealand was the first country in the world to embrace universal adult suffrage, it now ranks 15th in terms of the proportion of senior executive positions held by women (down from fourth a decade ago). The reporter seems to have used this statistic to make the glass ceiling claim. The Grant Thornton spokesman has made similar claims. However, when one reads the Grant Thornton report more carefully, the picture is actually somewhat different. The global average has also stalled. The proportion of women in senior executive positions jumped from 19% to 24% in the three years from 2004 to 2007 but has remained largely static since. (The New Zealand proportion is 31%.)

    Rather than make speculative claims, of a glass ceiling, the discussion needs to centre on why the proportion has stalled. It could be that a quarter to a third is representative of the number of effective female leaders available to contribute. Or, it could be that more are willing, but they lack the expertise to be truly effective when measured against male counterparts. Or, it could be due to a myriad of other contributing factors. Whatever the reason, business and society would be well served by finding out. Notwithstanding this, simplistic approaches (like counting things) are unhelpful. They cannot produce anything more than correlations, statements of what 'is' and emotive claims. The problem is complex, so a different research approach is required to reveal the underlying mechanisms. However, such research is typically slow and demanding, as I've discovered in my own research work. In the meantime, reporters like Mr Foreman would be well served by taking a little more care in their reporting.

    * For the record, I am a strong advocate of appointing the best and most capable person to any role, regardless of their gender or any other diversity variable.