Tags

  • Published on

    Too many irons in the fire?

    Governance Research
    Periodically I hear directors introduce themselves with "I'm a professional director". Sometimes, they add "I sit on XX Boards", where XX could be as high as eight or even ten Boards. Wow. Presumably this means all of their income comes from director fees, and somehow more Boards is better or more prestigious. Am I impressed? Not really.

    The core role of any director is to maximise the performance of the company they serve. But how can they do this effectively if they spread their time across as many as eight or ten Boards? Ten Boards means a maximum of two days per company each month. In this scenario, how can any director possibly understand the issues and strategic options sufficiently well to contribute effectively around the Board table? 

    Governing a company is demanding. It takes time to understand the issues. Can a director have too many irons in the fire? The stories starting to emerge in the media suggest the answer is a clear "yes".
  • Published on

    The power of "social"—learning together

    Governance Research
    On paper, academics and practitioners agree that governance boards have two roles: future performance (strategy) and conformance. Yet in reality most Boards seem to expend most of their energy on conformance. Twenty-four days ago, a California lawyer, Douglas Y. Park, asked why Boards do this. Park's blogpost triggered a robust discussion on a LinkedIn group. Now, 324 comments later, a new model for governance seems to be emerging.

    This might seem to be a rather minor event on the world's stage, however I think it is significant, for several reasons. I'll highlight two in particular. First, great minds from all around the world have shared their experiences and thoughts about the topic—without spending anything on travel, accommodation or conference fees. The speed of interaction and "reach" has been truly amazing. Second, in addition to purely commentating and critiquing, correspondents have worked together to create a new model. This is one of the first times I've seen an online discussion add such value.

    If this example of going beyond "sharing" to "creating" is a bellwether of future learning and knowledge creation, we are in for an exciting ride!
  • Published on

    Entrepreneurs are an important source of new jobs: implications for Boards

    Governance Research
    Prof. David Deakins, Director of the NZ Centre for SME Research at Massey University, provided some great insights this week. He rightly pointed out that small businesses can have a huge impact on the economic development of a nation. He singled out entrepreneurs as having an important role to play.

    As I see it, Boards also have a big role to play. First, they can serve as a useful foil for an entrepreneurial founder, particularly when it comes time to create plans, assess opportunities, and monitor performance objectively. Second, Board members have networks and they can (and should) access resources (funding, people, products) in ways that the entrepreneur may not be able to. No doubt there are many other ways Boards can help, but these are two that spring straight to mind. The challenge for Boards is to own this proactive role, and not to just sit back on monitor performance.

    Deakins points to the upcoming ICSB conference in June. The SME growth topic will be explored further. I've registered. If you have an interest in growing small business into the next generation of large enterprises, perhaps you should consider attending as well.
  • Published on

    Philosophy + perseverance = insight!

    Research
    A couple of months ago my PhD supervisor recommended that I read The Arch of Knowledge by David Oldroyd. The book provides a concise (if you call 400 pages concise!) history of the philosophy and methodology of science. In other words, it's about how knowledge is created. My supervisor said I should read it because doctoral students need to understand this stuff.

    When I took on this challenge, I expected to skim read the book and move on. However, after persevering with the densely packed text for a couple of weeks, the opposite has happened. Famous philosophers (Plato, Aristotle, Galileo, Hume, Popper) and their theses have slowly become real. I've been drawn in. Along the way, I've gained an insight that may well enable me to frame my research in a new way (I'll expand on this in a separate post later). If this insight has legs (I think it does), it should be good for governance research all round.

    Reading Oldroyd has provided another (unexpected) benefit. My vocabulary has been expanded—albeit mainly with Greek and Latin phrases like ex suppositione, ex ante, a priori, and a posteriori—by quite some margin. Now if I can get my wife's agreement to allow Greek and Latin alongside English, I might have half a chance of beating her at Scrabble!
  • Published on

    The Board's role in Value Creation

    Governance Research
    In the last couple of days, I've been involved in a very significant discussion with a panel of governance experts from three countries (Canada, USA, New Zealand). We've been exploring the notion of value creation and the role that boards of directors could (should?) be playing in creating value and building wealth. This has been a timely discussion, because it has come not long after my latest research piece which explored this very topic! So, what role should governance boards play in value creation and the development of strategy? Here's a summary of the three main insights from my research:
    • Company performance and the level of board involvement in strategy development appear to be linked (active involvement is better)
    • The quality of strategic boardroom decisions are highest when proposals are directly linked to agreed strategy
    • An open and direct communications style amongst directors (including vigorous debate) is conducive to effective decision-making
    I expanded on these points in the group discussion so won't bore you here. Suffice to say, the Board and executive management should work together to identify and agree core purpose (what and why), goals (metrics to measure progress) and strategic imperatives (the big things to be done to achieve the core purpose). Why is doing this together important? It helps with buy-in, with alignment, with the speed and quality of decision-making and, crucially, with the Board taking an active (and accountable) role in creating and building value.

    The panel explored a wide range of related topics, some of which are country-specific. You can read the full discussion here (it's a long and rich discussion—86 posts—but well worth the read). If you'd like to discuss this topic further, or explore how to improve value creation in your context, please contact me. 
  • Published on

    Managing tensions

    Phd Research Time Management
    One of the things I'm re-learning as I continue on my doctoral research journey is this—that critical thinking and a broad, open mind are two crucial characteristics that need to be mastered and maintained. The sheer volume of material available at my fingertips (through electronic library systems) is mind-blowing. A simple search on "governance AND high-growth" revealed thousands of peer-reviewed academic articles and books. With this volume of material, where do I start? Clearly, my searches need to become more refined and more specific (and they are). I've found it relatively easy to go down seemingly interesting and relevant pathways, only to subsequently find that I'm miles away from where I need to be.

    Learning involves the management of tensions. On one hand, an enquiring mind is good, very good. On the other, the vastness of the pool of information is such that you simply need to become ruthless about what gets explored and what gets left. The question that begs to be answered is: "How do I manage this tension"? As I continue to write my research proposal, I've embraced two techniques that seem to be serving me well:
    • Manage my research time ruthlessly. For me, this means 1/4 of my time reading books, 1/4 searching and reviewing academic articles, 1/4 thinking (often as I ride my bike!), and 1/4 writing. Without this guide, it would be very easy to gather stuff and miss the thinking and writing parts.
    • Ask and answer two questions immediately after reading any title or abstract. How does this fit? Why does this fit? By ruthlessly asking and answering these questions, I've been able to reduce my reading list by 40-50%. That's got to be good for time management!
    Like many things in life, managing the doctoral research workload is about managing tensions effectively. What works for me may not work for you though. And that's OK!

    How do you manage the tension between effective enquiry and information overload?