Tags

  • Published on

    When the penny drops and the fog lifts...the view is great

    Governance Phd Research
    Image description
    Have you experienced the pure delight, the visual symphony, of looking to the horizon after reaching the pinnacle on a seemingly unending trek? When the view changes from the near detail of the next step to the overall context? Yesterday, I had exactly this experience with my research. After spending several weeks wading through a great pile of weighty tomes, academic articles and handwritten notes, feeling somewhat daunted by the seeming lack of progress, a penny dropped and the fog that'd been masking my view lifted.

    All new knowledge needs to be built on a worldview (technically, an ontology and an epistemology). In my case, discovering the most suitable starting point for my governance research. I've been struggling with this, because the theory of knowledge doesn't come naturally to me at all. Much of the governance research to this point has employed positivist (financial analyses), post-positivist (structure and composition research) or constructionism (boardroom behaviour) worldviews. Unfortunately, much of the research to date has revealed very little about the impact boards have on performance. Therefore, my work needed to look at the problem quite differently if any progress was to be made. The new lens finally became clear during a meeting with my Supervisor yesterday, when we explored a couple of seemingly left-field ideas that I'd been investigating in recent days. An intense 30-minute discussion around the whiteboard was all it took. The path forward became clear. And in case you're interested, the worldview is pragmatism, supported by a multiple-case study design and grounded theory.

    With the launching point now clear (in my mind, at least!), it's time to pause for a coffee and admire the view, before heading onward and upward again to face the next challenge. Thank you to everyone who has encouraged me in recent weeks, I (now) appreciate it.
  • Published on

    On matching strategy to the competitive environment...

    Management Research Strategy
    How well do you understand the competitive environment your business operates in? Most strategic planners and executives know that matching their strategies to their environment is crucial. Further, most claim to have a good understanding of their environment. However, recent research conducted by BCG and published in HBR indicates that the majority of firms misread their environment. Consequently, they run the very real risk of adopting an inappropriate strategic style and/or developing flawed strategies.

    Helpfully, there are many good tools available (a quick Google search will get you started) to help planners and executives read their environment more accurately. It is my experience that firms that use these tools, and engage a skilled facilitator to challenge assumptions, tend to create strategies that are more well suited to their environments. And that's got to be good for business in these tough economic times, don't you think?
  • Published on

    Reading: On making sentences do something

    Phd Readings Research
    As a reasonably pragmatic type, my starting point when writing is function. Every sentence should have a purpose—it is more important to communicate the message fluently and eloquently than to dress the message in what some describe as "flowery language". Unlike many fiction writers, my default setting is to prioritise function over form.

    Yet when I read this article, I found myself thinking about my as yet unwritten thesis. Doctoral theses are limited to 100,000 words (about 270–300 pages), with an expectation that a robust argument will probably require 75,000–85,000 words. Gosh that seems like a lot. Why so long? Bulk for bulk's sake is never going to make the grade. Clearly a balance needs to be struck between function and form though, to ensure the expectations of the academic community are satisfied and that the essence of one's thesis is clearly communicated. But where does one draw the line between function and form?
  • Published on

    Three high-growth companies needed, for PhD research

    Governance Phd Research
    The first (planning) phase of my doctorate journey is drawing to a close. In the next few weeks I expect to finalise my research proposal and defend it in front of the University Confirmation Panel. Assuming that goes well, I can start the research proper, by selecting three companies to participate in the research. I have one already, but need at least two more. Here are the parameters:
    • A record of high-growth over at least three years (revenue growth at least 20% pa compounding)
    • A mature governance structure in place (a formal board that meets regularly, with reports and minutes)
    • Formal records available (annual reports and board minutes)
    • Domiciled in New Zealand

    Would you like to participate in some ground-breaking research to explore the contribution boards make to company performance? The research will involve observation of board meetings and some interviews, and all company details will be kept 100% confidential. 

    Please contact me if your company might be willing to participate, if you know of a company I should consider, or you would like more information. Thanks in advance!
  • Published on

    Reading: Six people you need with you

    Phd Readings Research
    How well to do contribute in your work environment? Most of us rate ourselves fairly highly, but we all have blind spots. Today, Jessica Hagy offered some simple truths to help us lift our game. She suggested we all need six people around us, to challenge and encourage us to perform well.

    Thanks Jessica, your thoughts were a timely reminder for me as I continue to wrestle with my doctoral research. 
  • Published on

    It's time to hold Boards accountable

    Governance Research
    The role the judicial system plays in the governance ecosystem—dealing with fraudulent directors, company failures and company liquidations—eats me up. So much value is lost through inappropriate boardroom behaviours and decisions. And shareholders are left to pick up the pieces (and in far too many cases, bury them). Commonsense tells us that it is far better to avoid danger than pick up the pieces afterwards. But how can and should boards improve their performance to avoid fraud or failure events?

    Carly Fiorina, an experienced director and previously CEO of ICT giant HP, wrote an interesting piece today. You can read it here. She made some insightful observations:
    • Too many Board members serve too long
    • Too many board members go along to get along
    • Dominate voices and cliques can reduce decision-making quality
    • Some board members don't understand the business
    • Some board agendas are too full

    Helpfully, she also offered five antidotes:
    • Conduct self-assessments and performance reviews
    • Institute term limits
    • Make board appointment process transparent
    • Make board (and particularly decision-making) processes transparent
    • Shareholders should hold board accountable (through questions)

    While Carly's comments reflect her US-centric experience, most of the observations and antidotes are equally applicable in other countries, including New Zealand. Notice most of Carly's antidotes relate to process and behaviour, and not to director competence (competence is addressed in antidote one only). Carly's call to hold boards accountable is on the money—because boards hold the ultimate responsibility for the performance of the organisation. In my experience, the challenge most boards face in this regard is one of implementation. How does one implement an effective governance framework that improves the prospect of good company performance and holds directors accountable? The recently updated The Four Pillars of Governance Best Practice (published by the Institute of Directors in New Zealand) provides a very useful starting point. This document provides useful best practice guidance and a clear code of practice—all aimed at helping directors and boards avoid the sort of carnage (and the expensive involvement of the judicial ecosystem) that we read about far too often in the newspapers. I commend it to all directors and CEOs.