 Is it Time to Revisit the Purpose of Your Organisation? |
 Some years ago, when commencing a client board's annual strategy session, I asked the question 'what business are you in?' It was a disability support organisation but the answers from both board members and executives alike boiled down to 'we are in the housing business.' This organisation, when originally established, had determined that their best strategy to assist their target client group was to provide accommodation with physical modifications appropriate to that group's particular disability.
It turned out that, 40 years on, this organisation was no longer an exclusive supplier of modified housing for its client group and a number of other housing providers were doing a far better job. The organisation's reputation was waning and its future was in doubt. This was a classic example of how the clarity of an organisation's purpose can wane and become confused with a particular strategy.
Read and Print the full Article |
The Value of Visual Thinking in the Boardroom |
Are your board meetings typically routine and dull? Is what passes for board discussion dominated by one or two individuals? Are there some members of the board who hardly ever say a thing? Do some directors seem more interested in playing on their 'Blackberries' than following the progress of the meeting? Do some board members seem completely oblivious to decisions made at last month's meeting?
If these or similar symptoms apply to your board it could indicate that the board is failing to engage its members in the type of conversations that are vital if it is to be an effective governing group. Nothing good can come from disengaged and uncommitted directors and a lack of the collective consciousness that is needed for high quality decision making.
Improving board member engagement can be achieved in a number of ways but one of the most effective is by visually 'mapping' the board's thinking on important matters.
|
|
Book Review |
 Are Surprises Predicatable? Authors Max Bazerman and Michael Watkins think so. Their book 'Predictable Surprises: The Disasters You Should Have Seen Coming and How to Prevent Them'* is a cautionary and convincing tale about unnecessary and avoidable failures of leadership. The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York and the demise of Enron and its auditor Arthur Andersen.
These examples are both used in the opening chapters to illustrate how corporate and governmental leaders had all the necessary information to anticipate (and prevent) those catastrophic failures. Many more, similarly compelling examples are sprinkled throughout the book. In a sense, however, these are used simply to attract (and hold) the reader's attention. Notwithstanding the novel concept reflected in its title, at its heart this is a book about the various organisational decision making vulnerabilities to which our boards and executive teams (and for that matter our families) are all potentially susceptible. It is a book about how to recognise and hopefully avoid the acting out of these vulnerabilities and the consequences that 'predictably' follow.
Read and Print the full review
|
|
|
 Politicians and regulators around the world continue to focus attention on the vexed issue of executive bonuses, particularly those paid by companies receiving extensive taxpayer support. To date the debate in the public domain has tended to be on the quantum of the bonuses rather than on their actual existence. Now Professor Henry Mintzberg, a leading thinker on a wide range of organisational performance and management issues has raised a more fundamental issue. "The problem isn't that they (bonuses) are poorly designed. The problem is that they exist [at all]."
Read and Print the full Article |
