A modern Board and executive dilemma
The 21st century dilemma for Boards and Executives of any organisation is how to effectively prioritise and focus on the things that matter in order to be sustainable and also grow. In an age of increasing information overload and significant noise, the perennial questions for today’s leaders are:
We live complex lives these days. We try to pack it all in. We are constantly connected with work and our personal lives through technology, mobile devices, social media that bombard us all on the sense of urgency to address certain topical areas (eg OHS, Cybersecurity, increasing regulatory requirements, agility, innovation, improved employee engagement, fraud & corruption, better connectedness, communication and promotion through social media), which if we followed would mean that our own strategies and day to day robust operations could remain untouched and treated as ‘second cousins’ to the fads. As an example, I know of a major financial services organisation CEO that uses a real time monitor of the social media communications, feedback and references to his organisation. Sounds great - but really it could be distracting.
At board level and governance oversight committee level, I know that when both the Board and Management don’t know what to do, have less confidence in their understanding and risks, the symptoms are more paper work (without balanced and key performance area context) flows into the boardroom for reviewing and discussion.
We have more and more regulatory compliance requirements, reporting, monitoring and pressures from competitors, shareholders, customers, media and our industries. The mantra is 'innovate or perish' to stay in the pack or even improve to be one step ahead of the industry pack! This adds to the frustration and the ability to get lost in the detail and omit seeing what needs to be seen and there needs to be a simpler and more common-sense approach and ‘call to action’ that improves and gives us comfort that we know where we are going, know what we are doing and are doing this effectively.
Why the basics are more important more than ever
Let’s get back to basics rather than get lost in the technology, the latest fads, the catch cry or the need to keep up with the Joneses. The basics that I refer to are:
Breakthrough research findings
- How does one stand out and perform?
- Do we change for change’s sake, act quickly or ignore what is going to avoid the issue or make a mistake?
- How does an organisation determine the important from the trivial; in other words, how does one sift ‘through the forest to decipher the wood from the trees’, the ‘wheat from the chaff’, and the ‘truth from the fiction’?
Why, am I raising this?
We live complex lives these days. We try to pack it all in. We are constantly connected with work and our personal lives through technology, mobile devices, social media that bombard us all on the sense of urgency to address certain topical areas (eg OHS, Cybersecurity, increasing regulatory requirements, agility, innovation, improved employee engagement, fraud & corruption, better connectedness, communication and promotion through social media), which if we followed would mean that our own strategies and day to day robust operations could remain untouched and treated as ‘second cousins’ to the fads. As an example, I know of a major financial services organisation CEO that uses a real time monitor of the social media communications, feedback and references to his organisation. Sounds great - but really it could be distracting.
At board level and governance oversight committee level, I know that when both the Board and Management don’t know what to do, have less confidence in their understanding and risks, the symptoms are more paper work (without balanced and key performance area context) flows into the boardroom for reviewing and discussion.
We have more and more regulatory compliance requirements, reporting, monitoring and pressures from competitors, shareholders, customers, media and our industries. The mantra is 'innovate or perish' to stay in the pack or even improve to be one step ahead of the industry pack! This adds to the frustration and the ability to get lost in the detail and omit seeing what needs to be seen and there needs to be a simpler and more common-sense approach and ‘call to action’ that improves and gives us comfort that we know where we are going, know what we are doing and are doing this effectively.
Let’s get back to basics rather than get lost in the technology, the latest fads, the catch cry or the need to keep up with the Joneses. The basics that I refer to are:
- Disciplined and Robust systems and practices (in process, decision making and review)
- Measured risk taking, including analysis, testing prior to change
- Transparency, openness and a willingness to independently identify, assess, determine approaches and a way forward
Breakthrough research findings
Has anyone ever read the Jim Collins’ books, “Built to last” and from “Good to Great”?
Well, in recent years, collaborative research by Jim Collins and Morten Hansen in the much applauded recent book: “Great by Choice” outline their learnings that provide surprising insight into organisations that outperformed their industries 10 times over a 15 year horizon.
According to the Collins and Hansen study, the following areas were dispelled as the main approaches of organisations (ie, the 10xers) that make them sustainable and outperform their industry tenfold?
This Research dispels entrenched myths about what brings company success
Well, in recent years, collaborative research by Jim Collins and Morten Hansen in the much applauded recent book: “Great by Choice” outline their learnings that provide surprising insight into organisations that outperformed their industries 10 times over a 15 year horizon.
According to the Collins and Hansen study, the following areas were dispelled as the main approaches of organisations (ie, the 10xers) that make them sustainable and outperform their industry tenfold?
- ‘Innovation’
- ‘Agility’
- ‘Visionary’
- ‘Risk seeking’ and ‘Bold’
- “Good Luck
This Research dispels entrenched myths about what brings company success
Collins and Hansen in "Great by Choice" also dispelled the following entrenched business myths and identified the following contrary findings:
Myth 1: Successful leaders in a turbulent world are bold, risk-seeking visionaries
Contrary findings:
a) The best leaders studied did not have a visionary ability to predict the future. They observed what worked, figured out why it worked, and built upon proven foundations.
b) They were not more risk taking, more bold, more visionary, and more creative than the comparisons and were instead more disciplined, more empirical, and more paranoid.
Myth 2: Innovation distinguishes high performing companies in a fast-moving, uncertain, and chaotic world
Contrary findings:
a) To Collin’s and Hansen’s surprise, no. Yes, they innovated, a lot. But the evidence does not support the premise that these companies will be more innovative than their less successful comparisons; rather in some cases, these companies were less innovative.
b) Innovation by itself turns out not to be the trump card; more important is the ability to scale innovation, to blend creativity with discipline.
Myth 3: A threat-filled world favors the speedy; you’re either the quick or the dead
Contrary findings:
a) The idea that leading in a “fast world” always requires “fast decisions” and “fast action” – and that we should embrace an overall ethos of “Fast! Fast! Fast!” – is a good way to get killed.
b) Successful company leaders figure out when to go fast, and when not to. Rather these companies don't jump onto the next trend / fad without robust low cost, low risk and low distraction testing
Myth 4: Radical change on the outside requires radical change on the inside
Contrary finding:
a) These high performing companies changed less in reaction to their changing world than the comparison cases.
Myth 5: Great enterprises with higher performing success have a lot more good luck
Contrary findings:
a) The higher performing companies did not generally have more luck than the comparisons. They had lots of luck good and bad.
b) The critical question is not whether you’ll have luck, but what you do with the luck that you get.
Collins and Hansen's research findings to get back to robust basics is convincing
Myth 1: Successful leaders in a turbulent world are bold, risk-seeking visionaries
Contrary findings:
a) The best leaders studied did not have a visionary ability to predict the future. They observed what worked, figured out why it worked, and built upon proven foundations.
b) They were not more risk taking, more bold, more visionary, and more creative than the comparisons and were instead more disciplined, more empirical, and more paranoid.
Myth 2: Innovation distinguishes high performing companies in a fast-moving, uncertain, and chaotic world
Contrary findings:
a) To Collin’s and Hansen’s surprise, no. Yes, they innovated, a lot. But the evidence does not support the premise that these companies will be more innovative than their less successful comparisons; rather in some cases, these companies were less innovative.
b) Innovation by itself turns out not to be the trump card; more important is the ability to scale innovation, to blend creativity with discipline.
Myth 3: A threat-filled world favors the speedy; you’re either the quick or the dead
Contrary findings:
a) The idea that leading in a “fast world” always requires “fast decisions” and “fast action” – and that we should embrace an overall ethos of “Fast! Fast! Fast!” – is a good way to get killed.
b) Successful company leaders figure out when to go fast, and when not to. Rather these companies don't jump onto the next trend / fad without robust low cost, low risk and low distraction testing
Myth 4: Radical change on the outside requires radical change on the inside
Contrary finding:
a) These high performing companies changed less in reaction to their changing world than the comparison cases.
Myth 5: Great enterprises with higher performing success have a lot more good luck
Contrary findings:
a) The higher performing companies did not generally have more luck than the comparisons. They had lots of luck good and bad.
b) The critical question is not whether you’ll have luck, but what you do with the luck that you get.
Collins and Hansen's research findings to get back to robust basics is convincing
Bottom line... organisations today don’t have the time, money and people to do all the ‘nice to haves’ and ‘be hit and miss’ about what we do by jumping to the next latest fad.
This is food for thought! So, think before you act, test before you launch and ensure you have the right checks and balances to reduce the impact of detrimental decision making.
Today, organisations need to prioritise, focus, 'cut out the clutter' and ‘look before they leap’.
In a nutshell, robust practices to analyse, test and review through the traditional S W O T Balanced Scorecard and Risk analysis for major decisions and initiatives. Yes, I am right! Let’s get back to basics and the key traditional approaches that cover the strategic and operational context as well as the external and internal influences that have a major impact on the organisation’s performance in the short to long term.
No comments:
Post a Comment