Author: 162325266

16th London Global Convention on Corporate Governance and Sustainability

Theme: Boards Evolving Role in an Uncertain Global Economy

Companies need to work for all and not just the few*

Prof. Colin Coulson-Thomas+

Responding to challenges and opportunities in the global economy and helping people to cope with them is creating an historic opportunity for businesses, government, public bodies and regulators to work together to ensure the results of growth are more widely shared. We could be on the threshold of a new era of cooperation and collaborative capitalism.

The contemporary company is a network of relationships with stakeholders. Among these stakeholders, customers, employees, suppliers and business partners can be as important as shareholders if not more important for a company’s growth and development..

While in company law the interests of shareholders have been paramount, in practice directors have to achieve a balance between the interests of all stakeholders. If not satisfied, each group of stakeholders might take decisions that could harm the future prospects of a company.

While some investors might sell their shares if not satisfied with dividend levels, customers who feel short changed and key employees who are dissatisfied may look elsewhere. Important suppliers and business partners who are not fairly treated might give more priority to other relationships, or even walk away.

A board cannot give so much away that it does not retain sufficient resources for building the capabilities to ensure a company’s own survival and development. Relationships with stakeholders need to be mutually beneficial and based on trust if they are to endure in uncertain times.

Uncertainty can be unsettling, but collaborative responses to uncertainty can create closer and more strategic relationships with customers, suppliers and business partners. Unfortunately, a combination of corporate governance scandals, allegations of excessive executive pay and cases of inadequate funding of pension obligations has resulted in a degree of public cynicism and distrust.

With certain stakeholders some directors and boards need to take urgent steps to restore and sustain confidence, credibility and trust. Traditional responsibilities to ensure solvency and promote the best interests of a company remain. Value still needs to be created, but many boards need to devote more attention to its allocation in order to benefit more stakeholders and a wider society.

Efficiency, economy, innovation and productivity in value creation are still vital for sustainability. The bigger the cake the more there is to allocate, including to the company itself to build and sustain its continuing capability to create future value.

Revisions of company law have recognised the wider responsibilities of directors. In the UK’s Companies Act, when taking decisions they are now expected to have regard to the interests of stakeholders other than shareholders. In India, companies that meet stated criteria are expected to devote 2% of net profit to socially responsible activities.

Wider society faces many of the challenges faced by boards, including sustainability and coping with uncertainty. Given technological developments, of particular concern to many people and governments is the question of where future jobs will come from. Those who are not employed by others and who do not become self-employed and entrepreneurs will need activities to occupy them. They will also require some form of income or other financial support to cover the basics of life.

At the 2016 Conservative Party Conference, a theme of UK Prime Minister Theresa May’s speech and a challenge to her ministerial team was creating an economy that works for all and not just a few. Given the common challenges facing them, other governments may share this ambition.

Our challenge as directors is increasingly to build companies that work for all and not just a few.
If we can restore trust and build confidence and credibility, we have a once in a generation opportunity for collaboration, cooperation and partnerships with other enterprises, governments, legislators, regulators, public bodies and other stakeholders. We can work together to create and build economies of companies that benefit wider society and future generations.

*These concluding comments by Prof. Colin Coulson-Thomas were made on Wednesday 19th October, 2016 at the end of Plenary Session X to summarise some of the main issues that emerged at the international conference of the 16th London Global Convention on Corporate Governance and Sustainability which was held at the Millennium Hotel, 44 Grosvenor Square, London W1K 2HP, UK. The convention was organised by the Institute of Directors, India

+Prof. Colin Coulson-Thomas, an experienced director and board advisor, leads the International Governance Initiative of the Order of St Lazarus, is Director-General, IOD India, UK and Europe, Chancellor and a Professorial Fellow of the School for the Creative Arts, Chairman of the Audit and Risk Committee of United Learning and a member of the advisory board of Bridges of Sports. He has helped to improve director, board and corporate performance in over 40 countries. Author of over 60 books and reports he has held professorial appointments in Europe, North and South America, the Middle East, India and China. Colin was educated at the London School of Economics, the London Business School, UNISA and the Universities of Aston, Chicago and Southern California. He is a fellow of seven chartered bodies. His recent publications can be obtained from: http://www.policypublications.com/

 

27 Oct 2016
Colin Coulson-Thomas

Adaptation chairman’s speech to 16th London Global Convention on Corporate Governance and Sustainability

Enhancing the Effectiveness of Tomorrow’s Boards:
Issues and Questions for Entrepreneurs, Business Owners and Board Chairs*

Prof. Colin Coulson-Thomas+

Could your directors and board contribute more to the growth and development of your business? What might tomorrow’s board look like and who should be appointed to it? The theme of this year’s London Global Convention on Corporate Governance and Sustainability convention is the board’s evolving role in an uncertain global economy, which raises important issues for entrepreneurs, business owners and board chairs.

Are your directors primarily, or exclusively, drawn from the country in which your company is incorporated and/or where its head office is located? How global is your board in terms of its awareness and perspective? In today’s world international awareness and perspective can be more important than nationality.

Given the uncertainty in the international marketplace, how flexible are your board and corporate processes? How might greater flexibility be introduced into your company’s infrastructure, estate, contracts and relationships?

How could you speed up responses? How might evolution and adaptation be built into how your company operates, is structured and is governed? In rapidly changing contexts, are you planning or intelligently steering your company?

Greater uncertainty has many implications: for the questions we ask; for policy making; for what we delegate and to whom; and for how decisions are made. When new situations arise, we may not have an agreed position. We may not know trusted experts to whom we can turn for counsel.

Uncertainty is challenging, but we need a sense of perspective. Collaborative responses to uncertainty can create closer and more strategic relationships with customers, suppliers and business partners.

Uncertainty has always been a fact of life for many – if not most – entrepreneurs. We are constantly told that markets don’t like uncertainty. When there is uncertainty cautious and risk averse boards put their investment plans on hold.

More adventurous, courageous and entrepreneurial spirits respond differently. They are often both more resilient and more willing to be proactive. During periods of uncertainty, they gain competitive advantage, grow market share and develop first mover leads while others hold back.

Opportunity could be another word for uncertainty. Our challenging business environment offers unprecedented opportunities.

Whether your organisation is a large and listed corporation, a family business or a small or social enterprise, many directors are already confronting uncertainty and striving to build a better tomorrow.

Appropriately, the topic for this session is enhancing the effectiveness of tomorrow’s boards. The extent to which your board is fearful, reactive and defensive rather confident, proactive and innovative should raise questions about the steps required to enhance the effectiveness of your board.

Were existing directors appointed because of their past achievements and experiences in yesterday’s world, or their openness to future possibilities? At board meetings do they contribute war stories of what they did when your company had a different business model?

Are directors providing challenge and asking the right questions? Are they trying to improve and/or protect what exists, or create new and better alternatives? How do they relate to generation Z?

Where will tomorrow’s directors come from and how will they be prepared for their boardroom roles? What contributions will you expect from them?

Taking a cue from Rt. Hon. Theresa May MP, the UK Prime Minister, will there be customers and employees on your boards? If so, how will they be selected and how will you handle conflicts of interest when matters affecting customers and employees are discussed?

Crucially, will there be greater diversity of thinking on tomorrow’s corporate boards? What will they look like? Will their remit and how they operate change?

What form will future board meetings take? Will existing agendas, annual calendars of business and practices still be relevant?

Will monthly board meetings survive? When operations are 24/7, significant issues and narrow windows of opportunity can arise at any time. Could waiting for the next board meeting be viewed as an archaic and dangerous practice?

Greater connectivity and speed of response is increasing the number of decisions that have to be quickly made. Deciding how and when to act can be as important as determining what to do.

Will a structure of permanent board committees give way to networks, communities and project groups? New rules of engagement may be required, covering both directors and those who advise them. Who needs to be engaged, by what means and when?

What will tomorrow’s company look like? To whom should it be accountable? As more companies transition to flexible and responsive portfolios of projects and mutating networks of collaborative relationships I advocated in my 1992 book Transforming the Company, how will they be governed?

Does corporate governance need to become more open and democratic? Should it involve more people? Should a wider range of inputs be sought when visioning and other exercises are undertaken?

Will company law, the activities of regulators and governance practices keep pace with the consequences of greater use of crowd funding, sharing, bartering and non-monetary exchange?

Board effectiveness and performance can depend upon the context, stakeholder requirements, ambitions, the stage of development of a business and the nature of the issues and opportunities it faces. Can the current degree of relative uniformity in governance practices survive?

Should different companies, subsidiaries, business units and strategic projects be governed and managed in quite different ways, according to their situation and circumstances? Might a variety of approaches to control and compliance be required?

In a world of greater diversity, rapid change and periodic adoption of new business models, who do we benchmark against?

Tomorrow’s boards will reflect decisions we take today. For new board members, do you look in familiar places or cast the net more widely? Predicting the specific experience, expertise, qualifications and track record that may be relevant in future scenarios is not easy, but integrity and personal qualities may become even more important than they are today.

We need directors who can handle turbulence and uncertainty. They have to assess risks, make choices and take decisions in shifting situations, where data may be suspect and probabilities are changing. We need people who instinctively do the right things.

The rarefied atmosphere of corporate head offices can lead to over-sophistication. Faced with uncertainty, some people hide behind prison bars of their own creation. They are so concerned with avoiding risks and compliance that they loose the courage to be entrepreneurial and to have a go.

When making board appointments, be wary of candidates who have effortlessly advanced in a period of greater stability and certainty than we have today. How resilient will they be when tested? In crisis situations, some people surprise us and rise to the occasion, while others disappoint.

Don’t overlook the latent potential of your existing team. Finding what we need within ourselves rather than looking for what might not exist is a key message from a classic 1939 film, The Wizard of Oz.

Transported to the land of Oz, young Dorothy set out on an uncertain and potentially dangerous journey with three companions: a tin man with a hard shell who felt he needed compassion and wanted a heart; a cowardly lion who wanted courage; a scarecrow who wanted a brain so that he could think.

Dorothy and her companions faced a succession of challenges, but they stayed together. They found within themselves the compassion, courage and thinking required to cope with adversity and overcome obstacles. How tomorrow’s boards will cope and be perceived will depend critically upon the extent to which future directors possess these and other personal qualities.

While new blood on a board can be welcome, where there is humility and self-awareness there is the possibility of renewal, reinvention and reinvigoration.

Understanding and addressing the deficiencies within your existing directors and board might enable you to identify, release and/or develop what you require to confront and exploit uncertainty. It may allow you to build a positive and resilient team of ‘bouncing balls’ who can repeatedly recover and move forward.

+Prof. Colin Coulson-Thomas, an experienced director and chairman of Adaptation, has helped directors in over 40 countries to improve director, board and corporate performance. Author of over 60 books and reports he has held professorial appointments in Europe, North and South America, the Middle East, India and China. Colin was educated at the LSE, London Business School, UNISA and the Universities of Aston, Chicago and Southern California. He is a fellow of seven chartered bodies. His latest publications can be obtained from: http://www.policypublications.com/

*Speech delivered in Plenary Session III of the international conference of the 16th London Global Convention on Corporate Governance and Sustainability between 12.15 and 13.30 hours at the Millennium Hotel, 44 Grosvenor Square, London W1K 2HP on Tuesday 18th October, 2016

 

26 Oct 2016
Colin Coulson-Thomas

Governance for Sustainability and the Sustainability of Governance

Prof. Colin Coulson-Thomas*

What should be the evolving role of the board in an uncertain global economy? What changes are needed in governance arrangements and board practices to accommodate greater diversity, ensure sustainable innovation and enable more confident and flexible responses to new opportunities and mutating risks? What needs to be done for sustainability to become a new business paradigm? These and related issues will be discussed at IOD India’s 2016 London Global Convention.

The 16th London Global Convention on Corporate Governance and Sustainability will review the current and emerging roles and responsibilities of directors and boards, and explore ways of enhancing their effectiveness. With corporate governance at a cross roads and facing multiple challenges, the issues, options and opportunities will be explored from a global perspective.

The Future of Boards

Our corporate governance institutions, codes, principles and practices largely derive from reactions to problems encountered by certain quoted companies in particular countries in what now appears a bygone age. Are they sustainable? In the countries in which the first corporate governance reports appeared the number of companies de-listing has exceeded the number of new listings and many of the new entrants require much less investment in physical assets and/or employ far fewer people.

Corporations face multiple threats. Individual consumers can increasingly use on-line platforms to help themselves or connect with other individuals who can help them, whether by giving them a lift or renting a room. As more offerings are bought on-line and/or produced at home or locally by 3D printer, and lifestyles change to accommodate the need for greater sustainability, what will happen to manufacturers, retailers and distribution chains? Will corporate governance experience the decline of corporations and their de-listing, or like a virus will it mutate to find new hosts?

What will boards and boardrooms look like in five, ten or fifteen years? Will the downward trend in the size of boards with significantly fewer executive directors experienced in some jurisdictions continue? Will board composition change in terms of age, gender and nationality? Will boardrooms and monthly meetings be needed as more connected directors deal with issues as and when they arise, and make greater use of conferencing technologies? In a fast moving world, will waiting for the next opportunity to get onto the agenda of a monthly board meeting seem an archaic practice?

Relationships with Stakeholders

In UK company law directors are required to take account of the interests of stakeholders when they take their decisions. However, are increasing levels of CEO and top executive pay and higher loss of office compensation payments an indication that directors are primarily concerned with their own interests? To mix metaphors, are many directors feathering their nests while they have their snouts in the trough? Was the rejection by BP shareholders of a pay package proposed for the company’s chief executive a foretaste of greater shareholder activism and proxy wars to come?

Customers represent an important stakeholder group. Without their continuing support a business cannot survive, while for many customers what happens to their suppliers is of great significance. For some, their purchases can be a matter of life or death. Many activities, operations and associated jobs are dependent upon bought in raw materials, components, supplies or services.

Judging by the problems customers often experience when trying to speak to someone about an issue, companies seem to take their money and then keep them at arms length. In place of head-office teams suggesting what customers might want, should more companies ask them, track their responses and follow what they do in real time? How many CEOs who talk about the importance of the customers whose purchases pay their salaries seek to involve them in the governance process?

Boards in the Political Spotlight

If directors do not respond to investor and public concerns, politicians and others may question and seek to change governance arrangements. In a speech in Birmingham before becoming UK Prime Minister, Theresa May said: “I want to see changes in the way that big business is governed. The people who run big businesses are supposed to be accountable to outsiders, to non-executive directors, who are supposed to ask the difficult questions, think about the long-term and defend the interests of shareholders. In practice, they are drawn from the same, narrow social and professional circles as the executive team and – as we have seen time and time again – the scrutiny they provide is just not good enough. So if I’m Prime Minister, we’re going to change that system – and we’re going to have not just consumers represented on company boards, but employees as well. ”

As Home Secretary Theresa May attended, spoke and presented Golden Peacock Awards at IOD India’s London Global Convention. After discussing excessive executive pay and individual and corporate tax avoidance during her speech in Birmingham she concluded: “It is not anti-business to suggest that big business needs to change. Better governance will help these companies to take better decisions, for their own long-term benefit and that of the economy overall. ”

What should “better governance” look like? Will independent directors challenge governance practices? Are they on boards just because of legal, listing or code of practice requirements? Will they come to be regarded as more or less valuable? Might the mood shift to making arrangements for independent and objective advice to be sought whenever important board decisions have to be taken? Much will depend upon the extent to which independent and executive directors understand each others role, duties and distinct perspectives and contributions.

Board Committees and Structures

What will happen to board committees? Where time allows, reference of a matter to the relevant committee can enable a fuller discussion than might be possible with a crowded main board agenda. On the other hand, referral can result in a matter being deferred until a committee reports back. Care needs to be taken to ensure that directors do not abrogate their ultimate responsibility and become too reliant upon sub-sets of directors who attend particular committee meetings.

Many boards only establish the committees prescribed in law or a corporate governance code. Would these be justifiable if such requirements did not exist? What other committees might be helpful? Would a committees, perhaps set up on an ad hoc basis to review a strategy or establish policy in new areas, allow time for a wider range of inputs to be sought?

What about sustainability, or the investigation of an issue on which viewpoints might differ and there is much evidence to examine and/or stakeholder views to canvas, such as whether or not to de-merge or move a corporate headquarters or registered office? Is this a matter for executive management or a single expert to advise on, or should a group of directors consider options?

Remuneration Committees and Executive Pay

Have remuneration committees and the boards they advise been particularly weak, unadventurous and unimaginative in the area of executive pay? Have they employed policies and approaches such as “paying in the top quartile to attract the best talent “ that automatically ratchet up average levels of remuneration? Going with the flow and failing to challenge has not gone unnoticed.

In her Birmingham speech, Theresa May has also pointed out “The FTSE, for example, is trading at about the same level as it was eighteen years ago and it is nearly ten per cent below its high peak. Yet in the same time period executive pay has more than trebled and there is an irrational, unhealthy and growing gap between what these companies pay their workers and what they pay their bosses. ”

The incoming UK Prime Minister concluded: “I want to make shareholder votes on corporate pay not just advisory but binding. I want to see more transparency, including the full disclosure of bonus targets and the publication of “pay multiple” data: that is, the ratio between the CEO’s pay and the average company worker’s pay. And I want to simplify the way bonuses are paid so that the bosses’ incentives are better aligned with the long-term interests of the company and its shareholders. ”

Such calls could lead to other suggestions relating to reporting and disclosure requirements, depending upon perceptions of purpose and priorities. For example, in relation to sustainability, should companies be required to report steps they are taking in areas such as emissions limits on company cars and other vehicles?

Widening Perspectives and Regulation

Current approaches to corporate governance assume accountability to shareholders. Compliance, “command and control”, onerous reporting and associated bureaucracy can inhibit initiative, reduce spontaneous adaptation and involve significant costs. As barriers to entry and capital requirements fall, and developments are funded by customers, will companies redefine their purpose? Will the perspectives of directors embrace a wider range of interests? What might governance look like if one replaced or supplemented shareholders with customers, employees or business partners?

Governance arrangements need to ensure a board understands the market and regulatory context in which it operates and takes a longer-term view. Given the earth’s resources are not infinite and that the consequences of human activity threaten its restorative capacity, should the perspective of governance and boards embrace the planet as a whole? Do attitudes in boardrooms need to change?

There are costs and risks of unintended consequences associated with much regulation, but in relation to the environment and sustainability is such action required? If directors were more engaged in the process, might the effectiveness of some regulations be increased and their costs reduced? Those directly affected by regulations often act to protect their interests. Could involving a wider range of voices counter this, reduce barriers to entry and create both a level playing field and opportunities for entrepreneurs to introduce more sustainable offerings and practices?

Purpose and Sustainability

Boards should ensure that people can relate to the purpose of a company. Vision and mission statements should be more than generalities about being the best. They should have meaning for employees, customers, investors other stakeholders. Some leaders turn their organisations into a cause that motivates others. A clear and shared purpose should guide decisions and drive operations. Does sustainability engage people and align individual and corporate purpose?

Sustainability is a challenge for governance arrangements. A succession of decisions that take account of immediate priorities and short-term considerations, while ignoring externalities and longer-term impacts can have serious future implications. Action to address the negative consequences of individual decisions can take many forms, from outright bans of harmful activities to collective action to address resulting outcomes. What role could governance codes and practices play as alternatives to legal and regulatory responses? Could pricing emissions address social costs?

Directors are sometimes schizophrenic. They want to avoid certain climate change consequences and natural capital shortages, but without being at a short-term competitive disadvantage. Hence calls for level playing fields. In the meantime, cosmetic rather than substantive initiatives may be pursued. Some boards make hay while the sun shines. Tough decisions are postponed until external pressures build and/or legal or regulatory intervention occurs. Could institutional investors and owning families do more to encourage boards to adopt a longer-term perspective?

In relation to sustainability decisions, what should be sustained and when? Those advantaged by the status quo usually favour its continuation. Those left behind may want to catch up before reigning back. Is resilience becoming more important, along with the ability to cope with changes as they occur and maintain essential services? Directors who see the bigger picture and can link different considerations may detect a relationship between innovation, entrepreneurship and sustainability.

Public Policy Intervention

Peter Drucker suggested that human institutions can outlive their original purpose as situations, circumstances, perspectives, requirements and priorities alter and can imperceptibly change from being a solution to a pressing problem to become a new obstacle to progress. To what extent does his advocacy of innovation and entrepreneurship apply to corporate governance and sustainability?

Has Government intervention in the form of legislation and regulatory requirements facilitated or inhibited innovation and entrepreneurship? Where they occur is this in spite of public policy rather than because of it? Has regulation created a community of advisers with a vested interest in ever more detailed intervention because their livelihoods depend upon it?

In an era of greater diversity and uncertainty, alternative business and organisational models, and new ways of working and operating, is a prescriptive approach, the use of single standards and a compliance bias out of sync with such changes? Are they resulting in tick-box and legalistic attitudes, rather than a focus on outcomes and allowing more scope for imagination and innovation in terms of how they are achieved? How might more flexibility be introduced?

Will an excess of regulation, requests for more information and disclosure and greater media scrutiny discourage people from seeking CEO and senior executive roles? Will greater exposure to scrutiny and enhanced risk of investigatory and legal action put more people off seeking board positions? At the same time, the emerging crowd-based economy depends upon trust. Who and what will protect the consumer when peer-to-peer services disappoint or result in harm?

Passing the Innovation Test

Many boards do little to actively encourage innovation and entrepreneurship. In established companies their focus is often upon consolidation, rationalisation, cost-cutting and squeezing more out of existing operations. Corporate cash is disbursed as dividends or used to buy-back shares rather than invest in new industries. The emphasis is often upon keeping an existing show on the road and avoiding failure rather than creating a better alternative.

Are some big company bosses leaving innovation to sole entrepreneurs, family businesses or smaller enterprises who are less influenced or constrained by corporate governance considerations. Is corporate governance largely a set of arrangements for dealing with maturity, stagnation and slow decline? Is it a retirement home for when founding entrepreneurs and companies run out of steam?

Must creative spirits in T-shirts be replaced by cautious retainers in suits? If corporate governance attitudes and advisers are introduced too early, might the cold draft of compliance snuff out the sparks of innovation? Will more companies seek to avoid such negative associations by de-listing? Would innovation and entrepreneurship be best served by avoiding a standard model developed for a different context, and instead adopting bespoke governance arrangements that are right for an enterprises stage of development and particular situation and circumstances?

Emerging Realities and Requirements

The innovative responses a sustainable future requires thrive on diversity. Hermann Simon has found that market leaders in niche specialisms are often not large and/or listed. Many of them are family owned and keep a low profile. Although based outside of major cities they often trade internationally. They engender customer and staff loyalty. They work hard to remain innovative and competitive in their chosen field. They are managed and governed in a way that works for them and allows them to excel at what they do.

Digital developments present businesses with a variety of challenges and opportunities. What role will directors and boards play in crowd-funded, web-enabled, organically evolving, creative and networked enterprises that need to adapt and mutate in real time? In more democratic and participative markets will an intermediary role of directors and boards be required? Will governance become a series of questions to address to determine what is best for a particular network at one moment in time, rather than a set of principles and rules that assume a standard requirement?

What proportion of assets and economic activity will be in the hands of large companies owned by external shareholders? Will more of the corporations for which corporate governance has evolved be cut out as people directly barter and share what they have, whether empty space or home grown vegetables? Will those living healthy lives for longer, become more self-sufficient and help each other within their communities rather than depend upon the state or a weekly shop at the nearest supermarket? How successful will our directors be at acquiring a trade or skills others might want?

In a connected world, self-employed individuals may use networks of relationships to access what they need and do what they enjoy and feel they are good at. They may find their individual ability to quickly adjust, embrace new technologies and re-learn or embrace new opportunities exceeds that of less flexible centrally controlled groups that have to await a new policy or direction from a board before they can change. Will entrepreneurial people become their own directors, rather than expect someone else to undertake directorial activities on their behalf? Will they govern themselves?

*Author
Prof. Colin Coulson-Thomas holds a portfolio of board and leadership roles, is IOD India’s Director-General, UK and Europe, and has advised directors and boards in over 40 countries.

Further Information: The 16th London Global Convention on Corporate Governance and Sustainability of the Institute of Directors, India will be held in London from 17th to 19th October 2016. Following a Global Business Meet at the House of Lords on the first day, the conference element of the convention and the presentation of Golden Peacock Awards will be held at the Millennium Hotel in Grosvenor Square and the last evening will be hosted by ICAE&W at Chartered Accountants Hall.. Further details of the convention and other activities of the Institute of Directors are available from www.iodonline.com. This theme paper was published by IOD India in Director Today (Vol. II Issue VIlI, August 2016, pp 41-45) and is also available from: http://www.iodonline.com/images/lgc2016/theme-paper.pdf.

 

22 Aug 2016
Colin Coulson-Thomas

Rural poor could replace rich city dwellers as the new lifestyle elite according to a theme paper for the 2016 World Congress on Environment Management

Could the life chances of rich and poor be reversed? While a new quality of life poor composed of lonely urban dwellers trapped in high-rise apartments look down at the life-shortening pollution of congested and dangerous cities, will rural dwellers revel in being close to nature and valued members of vibrant and connected communities, living longer, healthier, simpler and less materialistic but more fulfilling lives? The theme paper for the 18th World Congress on Environment Management by Adaptation’s chairman Colin Coulson-Thomas questions whether today’s poor could become tomorrow’s quality of life rich.

Will displays of material wealth such as expensive and fuel-guzzling fast cars will come to be seen as evidence of shallow self-obsession, concern with superficial appearance and ignorance of environmental issues? Could the manufacture and use of some products be considered a “crime against the environment”? Will business leaders have the courage to exercise restraint in how they advertise and promote offerings, to reduce impulse and unnecessary purchases of items whose production and use are environmentally harmful?

We have choices. In comparison with private consumption, team sports are shared activities. Like the creative arts they can be both participative and observed or enjoyed by others. A whole community can be lifted by a winning team. Such activities have a multiplier effect. Their externalities are positive. They enrich lives. Knowledge activities build intellectual capabilities rather than consume physical resources. Entrepreneurs could both trigger the transition and also contribute to greater well being by devising innovative and affordable solutions to basic needs for sanitation facilities and fresh water, areas in which today’s rural poor are at a disadvantage.

For several months in a row average temperatures have been the highest ever recorded. Climate change challenges individuals, organisations, communities and governments. The forthcoming World Congress on Environment Management will look beyond issues and threats and consider options and opportunities. The theme paper raises questions for consumers, investors and employees, as well as directors, public officials and elected politicians. It suggests a shift of focus and imaginative responses from entrepreneurs could create new business opportunities and lead to more sustainable and affordable lifestyles.

Sustainability and environmental quality are issues for citizens, communities, cities and the businesses that operate within them. Pollution, congestion and adverse weather conditions can impact upon health, productivity and performance. A company, its people and its customers can all benefit from resilient and effective transportation, water, energy, sanitation, sewerage, rubbish collection and waste disposal services. Boards need to consider what role a company should play, either individually or collaboratively, in ensuring that essential infrastructure and public services are able to cope with climate and other changes.

Should more companies and public bodies be looking at shared services as a way of making more cost effective use of infrastructure? Bridges of Sports, a non-profit initiative to create an inclusive and sustainable sports ecosystem in India, has found that publicly funded athletics facilities in many areas are under-used. People need to be made more aware of healthier and less environmentally damaging activities. Creative arts and crafts activities can use local materials and also be fulfilling. The creative arts, leisure and sports are significant economic sectors in some countries. They present opportunities for large and small businesses and local and national enterprises.

Will our buildings be more flexible and intelligent? Will smart city initiatives lead to intelligent communities and more integrated public services? In 2015 106 new buildings over 200 metres tall were added to city skylines. How much of the space and its use is related to perpetuating current patterns of consumption and display, as opposed to simpler and healthier lifestyles, creativity and innovation? Should insecure status seekers be aiming to build the world’s smartest building rather than its tallest? Does taller just mean greater isolation and distance from the natural environment?

Personal consumption can cause significant environmental damage. Do we need to change our consumer values and priorities? Should we be less wasteful? Could more be recycled? As more people look for independence, more balance in their lives, greater personal freedom and to reduce their environmental footprint, do our activities reflect these interests and related concerns? Do our corporate strategies and priorities reflect our past rather than the aspirations of younger generations?

Should we change our expectations of business leaders? Rather than reward those who increase the production of unnecessary and disposable goods, should the giving of awards and the writing of case studies high-light the leaders who reduce physical production and the use of scarce material resources and switch the emphasis from external trappings to helping customers achieve more of a sense of inner worth? When confronted with marble entrance foyers should we ask questions about the safety of the stone cutters involved?

Directors could reduce the environmental impact of physical good production by reducing or abandoning practices such as built in obsolescence. Could more elements be replaced as they wear out or upgraded? Should boards champion sustainable product design? The new product designs of a responsible business ought to be ethical and sustainable as well as profitable. How might a new design benefit other species such as birds and bats? Could engaging with the public and providing them with ways of increasing biodiversity represent a new business opportunity for garden centres?

Championing fulfilling activities rather than physical consumption could lead to new commercial opportunities. Whereas the production of goods might increasingly be undertaken by factory robots or local 3D printers, a shift of emphasis to creative endeavours, sport and keep fit activities could create opportunities for those who might otherwise be marginalised or made redundant to offer one-to-one personal services, engage in communal activities and experience a higher quality of life.

These comments are selected from a theme paper prepared by Colin Coulson-Thomas for the 18th World Congress on Environment Management. It is taking place in New Delhi on 8th and 9th of July 2016. Full details of the conference and the theme paper can be obtained from The Institute of Directors of India’s website http://www.iodonline.com/wcem-2016.html.

Prof. Colin Coulson-Thomas’ is Chairman of Adaptation. His other roles include leadership of the International Governance Initiative of the Order of St Lazarus, Chancellor of the School for the Creative Arts and Director-General, IOD India, UK and Europe. He has helped directors in over 40 countries to improve board and corporate performance and is the author of over 60 books and reports. Those on more affordable and sustainable routes to high performance organisations can be obtained from: http://www.policypublications.com/.

 

27 May 2016
Colin Coulson-Thomas

For several months in a row average temperatures have been the highest ever recorded. Climate change challenges individuals, organisations, communities and governments. The 18th World Congress on Environment Management will look beyond issues and threats and consider options and opportunities. A theme paper for the event by Adaptation’s chairman Colin Coulson-Thomas raises questions for consumers, investors and employees, as well as directors, public officials and elected politicians. It suggests a shift of focus and imaginative responses from entrepreneurs could create new business opportunities and lead to more sustainable and affordable lifestyles.

Sustainability and environmental quality are issues for citizens, communities, cities and the businesses that operate within them. Pollution, congestion and adverse weather conditions can impact upon health, productivity and performance. A company, its people and its customers can all benefit from resilient and effective transportation, water, energy, sanitation, sewerage, rubbish collection and waste disposal services. Boards need to consider what role a company should play, either individually or collaboratively, in ensuring that essential infrastructure and public services are able to cope with climate and other changes.

Is a more integrated approach needed? Issues relating to food, water, energy and the environment impact upon each other, and can no longer be considered in isolation. Should more companies and public bodies be looking at shared services as a way of making more cost effective use of infrastructure? Bridges of Sports, a non-profit initiative to create an inclusive and sustainable sports ecosystem in India, has found that publicly funded athletics facilities in many areas are under-used. What should companies and other bodies do to make people more aware of healthier and less environmentally damaging activities? Bridges of Sports is calling for increased awareness and provision. Creative arts and crafts activities can use local materials and also be fulfilling.

Directors need to be aware of developments occurring in the social, physical and market environment and alert to ways of taking advantage of them. Will our and other buildings be more flexible and intelligent? What do smart city initiatives mean for businesses? Will they lead to intelligent communities and the delivery of more integrated public services? In 2015 106 new buildings over 200 metres tall were added to city skylines. The location and use of such space reveals much about the priorities of planners and developers. How much of the space and its use is related to perpetuating current patterns of consumption and display, as opposed to simpler and healthier lifestyles or the encouragement of entrepreneurship, creativity and innovation? Should insecure status seekers be aiming to build the world’s smartest building rather than its tallest? Does taller just mean greater isolation and distance from the natural environment?

Personal consumption patterns cause significant environmental damage. Do we need to change our consumer values and priorities to confront the difficult challenges and choices that we now face? Should we be less wasteful? Could more be recycled? Are more people looking for independence and balance in their lives, greater personal freedom and opportunities to reduce their environmental footprint? Do our activities reflect these interests and related concerns? Do our corporate strategies and priorities reflect our past rather than the aspirations of younger generations?

As consumers and investors should we give a lead by also changing our expectations of business leaders? Rather than reward those who increase the production of unnecessary and disposable goods, should the giving of awards and the writing of case studies high-light the leaders who reduce physical production and the use of scarce material resources and switch the emphasis from external trappings to helping customers achieve more of a sense of inner worth? When confronted with marble entrance foyers should we ask questions about the safety of the stone cutters involved?

Directors could reduce the environmental impact of physical good production be reducing or abandoning practices such as built in obsolescence. Could more elements be replaced as they wear out or upgraded? Should boards champion sustainable product design? The new product designs of a responsible business ought to be ethical and sustainable as well as profitable. How might a new design benefit other species such as birds and bats? Could engaging with the public and providing them with ways of increasing biodiversity represent a new business opportunity for garden centres?

Should we champion fulfilling activities rather than physical consumption? Whereas the production of goods might increasingly be undertaken by factory robots or local 3D printers, a shift of emphasis to creative endeavours, sport and keep fit activities could create opportunities for those who might otherwise be marginalised or made redundant to offer one-to-one personal services, engage in communal activities and experience a higher quality of life.

Will displays of material wealth such as expensive and fuel-guzzling fast cars come to be seen as evidence of shallow self-obsession, concern with superficial appearance and ignorance of environmental issues? Could the manufacture and use of some products be considered a “crime against the environment”? Will business leaders have the courage to exercise restraint in how they advertise and promote offerings, to reduce impulse and unnecessary purchases of items whose production and use are environmentally harmful? In comparison, team sports are shared activities. Like the creative arts they can be both participative and observed or enjoyed by others. A whole community can be lifted by a winning team. Such activities have a multiplier effect. Their externalities are positive. They enrich lives. Knowledge activities build intellectual capabilities rather than consume physical resources.

Could one envision an inversion of life chances? While a new quality of life poor composed of lonely urban dwellers trapped in high-rise apartments look down at the life-shortening pollution of congested and dangerous cities, will rural dwellers revel in being close to nature and valued members of vibrant and connected communities, living longer, healthier, simpler and less materialistic but more fulfilling lives? We have choices. Entrepreneurs could both trigger the transition and also contribute to greater well being by devising innovative and affordable solutions to basic needs for sanitation facilities and fresh water.

The 18th World Congress on Environment Management provides a forum for discussing options. How might we best internalise external costs? How do we ensure corporate and political strategies are aligned? What individual and collective action could customers and investors take to bring about desired changes? What role should professionals, banks and insurance companies play? How might cities contribute more to global discussions? Do we replace markets or work with them? Could a barter economy, including the exchanges of time, replace or complement a monetary one?

These comments are taken from a theme paper prepared by Prof. Colin Coulson-Thomas for India’s Institute of Directors Annual Convention and 18th World Congress on Environment Management. It is taking place in New Delhi on 8th and 9th of July 2016. Full details of the conference can be obtained from http://www.iodonline.com/wcem-2016.html. The theme paper is accessible on The Institute of Director’s website from: http://www.iodonline.com/images/wcem2016/wcem-2016-theme-paper.pdf. Further information on Bridges of Sports can be obtained from: http://www.bridgesofsports.com/.

In addition to advising boards and his board appointments Prof. Colin Coulson-Thomas leads the International Governance Initiative of the Order of St Lazarus, is Chancellor of the School
for the Creative Arts, Director-General, IOD India, UK and Europe Operations and chair of the Audit
and Risk Committee of United Learning. He has helped directors in over 40 countries to improve board and corporate performance. Author of over 60 books and reports he has held professorial appointments
in Europe, North and South America, Africa, the Middle East, India and China. Colin was educated
at the London School of Economics, London Business School, UNISA and the Universities of
Aston, Chicago and Southern California, and is a fellow of seven chartered bodies. His recent books and reports on quicker and more affordable and sustainable routes to high performance organisations can be obtained from: http://www.policypublications.com/.

 

27 May 2016
Colin Coulson-Thomas

Evidence shows how people can be enabled to address individual needs as and when required and suggests that many corporate activities should be removed rather than reformed.

Increasingly, we can reach people directly in personalised ways and enable them to address their individual requirements as and when required, according to Prof. Colin Coulson-Thomas speaking in Dubai at the World Congress for Business Excellence and Innovation. His most recent research reports point the way to a change in the relationship between people and organisations.

The author of Winning Companies; Winning People suggests: “Organisations often treat individuals as statistics. People become data, categories or trends in corporate reports. Yet more and more digital technologies and applications enable us to treat people as individuals. We can provide them with the personalised help and support they require as and when they need it 24/7. This can include when they are on the move via mobile devices.”

The Professor finds: “People vary greatly in terms of their preferences for working and learning and applications of digital technologies such as performance support can enable people to work and learn and produce, co-create and buy at times and places that best enable them to harness their talents and maximise their contributions. Applications of performance support can make it very easy for people to do what is desirable and appropriate and very difficult for them to do things that might be undesirable or harmful and which would breach a law, regulation, policy, guidelinne or code. They can be allowed to try things themselves that have previously been done by others.”

The professor’s research reports Transforming Public Services, Transforming Knowledge Management and Talent Management 2 set out quicker, more affordable and less disruptive ways of simultaneously achieving multiple objectives. In particular, they show how personalised performance support can help ordinary people to emulate the approaches of superstars and excel at activities that are crucial for corporate success such as winning bids, building customer relationships, pricing, purchasing, and creating and exploiting know-how. Building enablers and checks into the performance support that people are provided with allows them to be set them free to network, collaborate, explore, create and responsibly innovate.

Coulson-Thomas’ findings suggest the emphasis needs to shift from top-down directing, motivating and control to what he terms ‘New Leadership’ which is more of a bottom-up approach that involves supporting people and helping them to excel at the things that matter most. He finds “very often one can directly support customers and users. Rather than struggle to improve parts of organisations and elements of the supply chain we can take them out. Developments in areas ranging from artificial intelligence to 3D printing as well as performance support are increasingly helping people to help themselves. The can also help to democratise individual and group creativity and innovation.”

The professor believes: “Many discussions of digital technologies have become overly negative. Risk managers and others worry about cyber security and other issues. While being altert to risks, many problems also represent opportunities to differentiate and secure competitive advantage. In themselves information and communications technologies are neutral, electronic signals flowing across and through physical devices. How we use them and for what purpose determines whether they help us or harm us. We need to be more thoughtful, creative and imganinative in how we use them, for example moving on from transactional advantages such as saving costs to transformational applications such as enabling the introduction of a better business model.”

These comments were delivered by Prof. Colin Coulson-Thomas in the Ball Room of The Meydan, Dubai, UAE during the second day of the Dubai Global Convention 2016 and 26th World Congress on Leadership for Business Excellence and Innovation. The author of Winning Companies; Winning People and Developing Directors joined a plenary session panel to answer questions on pursuing excellence and innovation in a digital economy. He also delivered an address on the first day during a plenary session on driving excellence and innovation through the boardroom and led a delegation on the convention’s study visit to the Jebel Ali port and free zone on the third day.

Prof. Colin Coulson-Thomas holds a portfolio of national and international leadership roles and has spoken at national and international events in over 40 countries. He is the author of over 70 books and reports, including Transforming Public Services, Transforming Knowledge Management and Talent Management 2 which set out a quicker, more affordable and less disruptive route to high performance organisations using performance support from a change, knowledge and talent management perspective respectively. They can be obtained from: http://www.policypublications.com/

 

28 Apr 2016
Colin Coulson-Thomas

Excellence and innovation need to be appropriate, affordable and sustainable

Striving for excellence and innovation can be counter productive if we ignore the questions of excellence and innovation in what and for whom. Speaking at the 26th World Congress for Business Excellence and Innovation Prof. Colin Coulson-Thomas asked “why should customers pay for excellence and innovation that is neither relevant to them nor represents value for them?”

The author of Winning Companies; Winning People told delegates that whether or not excellence is a good thing or a distraction depends upon what you are trying to be excellent in, or excellent at: “You may be trying to perfect your existing activities and operations, but what if tastes and requirements are changing? What if innovation is creating new possibilities that people might prefer or an alternative business model would be more advantageous? Rather than improvement, should you be replacing what you are doing now with something better?”

Coulson-Thomas told delegates that too much irrelevant excellence can drive customers away: “Too much improvement can become unnecessary gold plating, and excessive excellence can become unaffordable. Why should customers pay for our companies to be excellent at everything they do? Most customers just want us to be excellent at whatever represents value for them.”

He continued “Should we aim to excel at critical success factors for key corporate activities and sources of differentiation and competitive advantage, but be just be good enough at everything else? In some sectors, the life cycles of requirements, offerings and technologies have dramatically shortened. Will you have time to be anything other than just good enough to be relevant and to quickly deliver while fleeting windows of opportunity exist?”

Coulson-Thomas’ investigations reveal: “Some boards hinder creativity and innovation. Their strategies are overly defensive. They protect past investments. They impose standard approaches and ways of working and are constrained by accounting conventions. Their market intelligence is focused on existing competitors. “

Others help innovation. He finds: “They encourage diversity, invite challenge and promote freedom of thought. They are willing to reassess, reinvent and write off past investments and replace them with better alternatives. They allow people to work and learn in whatever ways best suit their roles, tasks and projects. They collaborate with entrepreneurial staff and set up new ventures with them. They scan the business and market environment for new possibilities and new competitors.”

The attitudes, instincts and perspectives of board members can either constrain people or liberate them. Coulson-Thomas believes: “We need to focus excellence and innovation upon what is important and in particular what is important for customers and prospects. We also need to strike the right balance in the boardroom between entrepreneurship and stewardship. One cannot be reckless and just throw money at challenges and opportunities. Encouragingly, there are ways of being both entrepreneurial and prudent. We can enable responsible innovation.”

The professor’s research reports set out quicker, more affordable and less disruptive ways of simultaneously achieving multiple objectives. They show how ordinary people can be helped to excel at activities that are crucial for corporate success such as winning bids, building customer relationships, pricing, purchasing, and creating and exploiting know-how. Building enablers and checks into the performance support that people are provide with allows them to be set them free to network, collaborate, explore, create and responsibly innovate. The findings suggest the emphasis needs to shift from top-down directing, motivating and control to supporting people and helping them to excel at the things that matter most.

Coulson-Thomas concludes: “Excellence where it counts and responsible innovation are achievable. We have a choice. We can plough ahead and wrestle with the various expensive, time consuming and corporate-wide initiatives we see in many companies today. Alternatively, we can focus and balance. We can adopt quicker and simpler ways of helping our people to deliver multiple outcomes that benefit them, our organisations, customers and the environment.”

These comments were delivered by Prof. Colin Coulson-Thomas in the Ball Room of The Meydan, Dubai, UAE during the first day of the Dubai Global Convention 2016 and 26th World Congress on Leadership for Business Excellence and Innovation. The author of Winning Companies; Winning People and Developing Directors holds a portfolio of leadership roles and has spoken at national and international events in over 40 countries. He is the author of over 70 books and reports, including Transforming Public Services, Transforming Knowledge Management and Talent Management 2 which set out a quicker, more affordable and less disruptive route to high performance organisations from a change, knowledge and talent management perspective respectively. They can be obtained from: http://www.policypublications.com/

 

26 Apr 2016
Colin Coulson-Thomas

Global convention call for more focus on director and board development

So much emphasis is put upon recruiting new talent that we often overlook the importance of working with the people we have and ensuring they can cope with challenges, address opportunities and create a better future. Prof. Colin Coulson-Thomas told delegates attending a global convention in London that “We need to ensure that support arrangements are in place to enable people to remain current and competent, excel at key tasks and grow with a developing business.”

Coulson-Thomas recognised that: “Building tomorrow’s boards is a challenge. We cannot be sure what the future will bring. Innovation and new competitors, challenges and opportunities may fundamentally change our aspirations, priorities and the nature of our organisations.”

The author of Developing Directors suggested: “One can change the composition of a board. However, windows of opportunity can quickly open and close. Finding new directors, completing an induction process and becoming effective all take time. Sometimes we have to run with existing people and take steps to ensure they stay relevant and vital.”

The professors investigations reveal: “While corporate governance has a higher profile, director and board development can be more specific. It can meet the requirements of individual directors and the needs of the board as a team. It can address issues as and when they arrive. It can support new models of organisation and ways of working, operating and directing that were not considered when governance codes were first developed.”

He continued: “Directors and boards should grow and develop as an enterprise expands, builds its capabilities, extends it reach and becomes more complex. They should review what they have learned after confronting a novel situation or taking a difficult decision. Director and board development can match the evolving requirements of an expanding business and the growing confidence and ambitions of those involved. Yet sometimes it takes an obvious failure or new challenge to trigger acceptance of a development need.”

Coulson-Thomas finds: “Too often the qualities, experiences and competences of directors reflect where they have been rather than where they would like to go, or ought to go. Director and board development should be about preparing for the future rather than catching up and dealing with past deficiencies. It can address factors that inhibit better performance and embrace individual learning programmes and/or team activities.”

The professor also finds: “Responsible boards commit to regular reviews and continuous learning. Confident directors willingly assess themselves against directorial competences and allow others to appraise them and comment based upon their observations.”

His experience suggests: “Development activity can prepare people for board appointments. It can help them to cope with the pressures directors face and the dynamics of the boardroom. It can enable individuals to add more value and can improve particular board processes and activities ranging from visioning to intelligent steering.”

Coulson-Thomas’ work also suggests that: “Director and board development can focus explicitly on behaviours and address any deficiencies, whether of individual contribution, inter-personal dynamics, how business is handled or how decisions are taken. Issues, areas and activities unaffected by governance arrangements can be confronted and improved.”

He concludes: “Whether or not a company has a governance structure that is appropriate for its aspirations and stage of development we ought to be concerned that directors are competent and boards are effective. We need to ensure directors take the development steps needed to remain competent and effective as businesses grow, situations and circumstances change and new challenges and opportunities arise.”

These comments draw upon Prof. Colin Coulson-Thomas’ remarks on building tomorrow’s boards and director and board development at the Institute of Directors of India’s 15th London Global Convention on Corporate Governance and Sustainability which was held in the Ballroom at the Millennium Hotel, Grosvenor Square, London, UK.

Prof. Colin Coulson-Thomas, author of Developing Directors, a handbook for building an effective boardroom team, holds board, public and academic appointments in the UK and abroad. He has helped organisations in over 40 countries to improve director, board and corporate performance. He has spoken at over 300 national and international conferences and his latest books and reports are available from www.policypublications.com.

 

10 Oct 2015
Colin Coulson-Thomas

Global summit advised to adopt new leadership’s emphasis upon helping and supporting important work-groups to excel at key tasks.

Many specialists spend far too much time on ‘tick box compliance’ – ticking boxes on standard corporate check-lists that can inhibit innovation and the development of better alternatives according to Prof. Colin Coulson-Thomas. His investigations reveal that: “Supportive check-lists that share more cost-effective ways of undertaking key tasks can be much more valuable. Support tools with built-in checks can enable people to try new possibilities.”

He continues: “A social networking element can enable the members of a scattered community to discuss the best way of responding to new challenges and opportunities. For example, during the afternoon it might be possible to roll out globally advice on how to cope with a security threat that was identified earlier in the day. Defences can be mobilised at remote sights long before a threat reaches them.”

Health, safety and sustainability are key issues in the energy sector and liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry. Speaking to a global summit in Barcelona, the author of Winning Companies; Winning People explained that: “Performance support tools that make people aware of the implications and consequences of different options can enable them to select those that are safer, healthier and more sustainable.”

The Professor believes that: “Regulatory approaches and controls that are perceived as harmful to national competitiveness are likely to be less enthusiastically followed and observed than developments which are differentiators and a source of competitive advantage. Less reliance should be put on negative controls and more emphasis given to positive innovation.”

In LNG and other areas of the energy and utilities sector a variety of key tasks are performed by highly qualified professional and technical experts such as specialist engineers. In many cases individuals with sought after experience and skills are difficult to recruit. Certain global players have current vacancies running into hundreds and thousands.

Coulson-Thomas points out: “Appropriate performance support can capture and share the approaches adopted by the more experienced engineers. This can speed up the induction of new staff, raise the performance of others and enable less experienced staff to handle more difficult issues. Overall, performance support can be the most affordable, least disruptive and quickest route to a high performance organisation and simultaneously achieving multiple objectives.”

The Professor is an advocate of ‘new leadership’ which switches the emphasis from directing and motivating people to helping and supporting them: “However motivated people are they may fail if they are not provided with the tools to do what is expected of them. Effective transformational leaders identify important work-groups contributing to priority objectives and ensure they are equipped to excel at key tasks.”

Prof. Colin Coulson-Thomas the author of Winning Companies; Winning People was speaking on Transformational Leadership at the 10th Annual Global LNG Tech Summit which was held at the Hesperia Tower Hotel in Barcelona. He shared key findings from investigations from his recent reports Talent Management 2, Transforming Public Services and Transforming Knowledge Management which can be obtained from www.policypublications.com.

 

06 Oct 2015
Colin Coulson-Thomas

Performance support tools can enable the transformation of public services

Public sector leaders should focus more upon the implementation of strategy according to Prof. Colin Coulson-Thomas. Speaking to politicians and senior civil servants he suggested that “agreeing plans is one thing. Making them happen is something else. It is about ensuring that what needs to be done actually is done.”

Coulson-Thomas continues “The implementation of strategies and plans cannot be assumed. Often they are incomplete and objectives will only be achieved when missing pieces of the implementation jigsaw puzzle are put in place. In particular, the members of key work groups may need the help and support they require to achieve priority objectives.”

The author of Transforming Public Services stresses: “Relevant capabilities will not ensure success if they cannot be accessed and utilised as and when required. Personalised performance support can provide 24/7 access to just what is required at any time and place, including when on the move.”

He continues: “Some organizations aspire to excellence in too many areas. Customers, clients and the public may simply not be willing to pay for gold-plating across the board. Often one needs to be just good enough at many things, but outstanding in the areas that are important to them.”

Coulson-Thomas stressed the importance of identifing obstacles and danger signals and looking for ways of overcoming them: “If barriers do not exist it may be because strategies and objectives are insufficiently demanding. A compelling vision can help to ensure that people want a strategy to succeed. To reach them a vision needs to be communicated and shared. People should be helped to understand the rationale for sought after outcomes and what they can do to bring them about.”

In many cases people lack the support tools to do what is required of them. Coulson-Thomas’s report finds: “Relevant performance support can help people to behave in desired ways. It can make it easy for them to do the ‘right things’ and difficult for them to do the “wrong things”. It can ensure compliance while at the same time enabling responsible innovation. Cautious bureaucrats can be set free to become innovative social entrepreneurs.”

The report Transforming Public Services shows how the effective use of performance support can simultaneously deliver multiple benefits for people and organisations. It can also benefit the environment by helping people to understand the consequences of different courses of action and select less damaging options. It can work with existing people, cultures and structures.

Coulson-Thomas concludes: “Personalised performance support can accommodate social networking and enable groups and networks to manage themselves. It can help people to better understand their particular roles within a complex whole and concentrate upon what is important. It can enable key work groups to do difficult tasks and handle complex problems and allow customers, users and citizens to help themselves.”

Prof. Colin Coulson-Thomas, author of Transforming Public Services, has received international recognition for his work as a change agent and transformation leader. A vision holder of successful transformation programmes he has held public sector board appointments at national and local level. The world’s first professor of corporate transformation, he has helped over 100 boards and management teams to improve performance. Colin holds a portfolio of board appointments, is an academic at the University of Greenwich and can be contacted via http://www.coulson-thomas.com.

Coulson-Thomas’ comments were delivered in London to visiting African politicians and civil servants concerned with implementing strategy and learning of better ways of handling complex decisions. The 200 page A4 size report Transforming Public Services sets out a practical route to building high performance organisations and quickly achieving multiple objectives. The approach can avoid traditional trade-offs and benefits people, organisations and the environment. can be obtained from http://www.policypublications.com.

 

24 Sep 2015
Colin Coulson-Thomas