The Board’s Role In Corporate Strategy
June 30, 2009
Earlier this year I wrote Corporate Governance Trends 2009. I thought it appropriate to expand on some of the trends discussed. For this post I will review Corporate Strategy and the importance of the Board in not just reviewing the strategy but becoming active participants in its formulation. At its essence Corporate Strategy is rigorously defining “where we are, where are going and how we will get there”.
In the past, the CEO and the strategy team would develop the corporate strategy, send it to the Board members and meet at an offsite location. The C-Suite would present the plan and the Board would usually accept it. Well the world has changed dramatically and has become far more complex. This static strategy process does not work in this new corporate world.
A McKinsey survey indicates that Boards want to spend more time on Corporate Strategy matters–
What is causing this increased attention?
According to Frost and Sullivan–
Factors in current business environment shaping Corporate Strategy and Corporate Development plans in 2009
Respondents identified the following as the top five environmental factors:
- Global economic downturn (51%)
- Increasing need for product/service innovation (32%)
- Intensifying competition (26%)
- Emerging global markets (22%)
- Corporate restructuring (21%)
So what should be the roles the Board should play in Corporate Strategy?
An excellent report “Engaging the Board in Corporate Strategy” from Oliver Wyman – Delta Organization & Leadership provides an overview –
The key role and the one missing most in the past is Strategic Thinking.
Boards cannot leave this vital role to management. Their independent insights and viewpoints ensure that development of the strategy will not become a product of group think. Boards in companies such as UBS and United Technologies are already engaged in Corporate Strategy development.
More on this in a future post.
A Look at Cadbury’s Investor Page
June 29, 2009
Continuing my visits to the investor home pages of FTSE 100 companies, I recently visited the Cadbury site. I think my decision to visit the site was subliminal – I’ve been on a diet lately, so perhaps I subconsciously thought that I could satisfy a craving for sweets by visiting their site. I didn’t lick the screen however – you have to draw the line somewhere.
Overall, I thought the Cadbury investor page was quite well done in terms of layout and the information content on the page. The left hand side of the page lays out the major sections within investor relations, enabling investors to find what they are looking for easily. My one quibble with the list of sections is the listing for RNS. Not everyone will know that this stands for Regulatory News Service, but as I say, it’s a quibble.
The center of the page presents important recent information to investors where they are most likely to look for it, while the right hand side of the page focuses on links to longer term information such as a half yearly trading update, management interviews and stock information. The layout and information presentation worked quite well for me.
Alas, I wish I could say as much for the graphic design elements of the page.
The investor page, as it should, carries over the design element of the Cadbury web site, which I find less than attractive and distracting. First, there’s the color – purple. I know that this is a confectionery company and some designer probably chose purple to signify fun and to carry through Cadbury’s signature color scheme, but to me purple printing is just plain ugly. And I say this an alumnus of Northwestern University, which has purple as one of its school colors. Secondly, the graphic elements of the page – uneven lines, ragged edges and lime green color splashes behind the photos, are distracting.
My overall impression on the design side is that Cadbury is trying too hard. Just like candy, a little bit of that stuff goes a long way.
Is Online Recruiting Elitist?
June 29, 2009
“Today online recruiting is more than just a human resources tool . . . It’s a whole culture.”
That’s a quote from Peter Capelli, director of Wharton’s Center for Human Resources. It’s featured in The Evolution of Recruiting, a short, entertaining video put together by ERE’s Brendan Shields and HR superstar Susan Burns. (Excellent music, by the way!)
I don’t know exactly what Capelli meant by this statement–but it brings up a good question. “Cultures” can be quite closed to outsiders, especially when they are organized to focus on internal values. And it doesn’t ultimately matter whether exclusionary tendencies are the result of prejudice, profit-seeking, or just the desire to fit in.
So is it possible that the self-reinforcing culture of online recruiting is inherently (or at least potentially) unfair? Sometimes it does appear that HR experts and recruiting bloggers are focused mainly on the competition for top talent, oblivious not only to the challenges of job-hunting but also to the practical realities of staffing. And as mentioned in a recent post, quite a few of the readers who commented on an NPR story about online and social media recruiting had very negative reactions. Several voiced concern that this trend excludes older and poorer job seekers, who may have less technological expertise and access.
The issue is complicated. On the one hand, there’s a case to be made that most workers today need to be at least basically conversant with current technologies for working and communicating. So requiring them to demonstrate that competence during the job-seeking process is reasonable.
On the other hand–there may be some perfect people out there who won’t be found purely with bits and bytes. They might be ideal candidates for jobs that don’t require much technical sophistication, or they might be able to get up to speed quickly on whatever technology is required.
Hypothetically: Could someone without email potentially be an asset to your organization?
Sometimes we may have to ask not just what’s cutting-edge for the corporate Career site, but also whether the site supports a broad array of recruiting approaches, suitable for a real-life variety of candidates. We could think of it as the techno-equivalent of diversity . . .
I’d love to hear opinions on this.
Jockey Tries to Blur Gender Lines with Women’s Y-fronts
June 29, 2009
Boy shorts are one thing, but Y-front underwear for women? That’s not attractive. However, Jockey is betting that women want to look androgenous or downright manly, so the company is launching Y-front underpants for women. The Y-front offers no utility, but it does de-feminize the wearer. Hmmm…. I think this is going to be a hard sell.
There are several forms of gender branding, and the androgenous brand is popular for a number of consumer products brands such as Old Navy and Calvin Klein. But clearly there is a line that a brand can cross when androgyny becomes less interesting and just plain ugly. In short, just because a product attribute is popular for one gender, does not mean it will be equally popular for the opposite gender.
I suppose you can look at it this way. There was that scene in the Charlie’s Angels movie where Cameron Diaz danced in Underoos, so perhaps the new Y-front women’s Jockey underpants will become a short term fad that high school girls might embrace. However, I have to believe that the majority of women, even those who like “practical” underwear, would steer clear of the Y-front Jockey. At the very least, the extremely small segment of consumers who will come to love and advocate the Y-front Jockey underpants for women are just that — a small group.
Certainly, there is a better way for the Jockey brand to connect with women consumers. Rather than trying to turn them into men, how about helping them feel more like the amazing women they are by offering products that make them feel great and look great? Perhaps that’s just too simple.
Your thoughts?
Image: Jockey
Is Your CEO Afraid of Facebook?
June 28, 2009
No, really, is she/he?
This article written by Internet News gives a very interesting discussion on how CEOs, both popularly known and not-so-well known are apprehensive when it comes to using Facebook. They either have an account that they don’t use, make infrequent updates or perhaps just don’t know HOW to use it. Perhaps they feel that it’s a waste of their valuable time, or maybe they do not fully understand the impact that social networking can have on their businesses and on their reputation.
Social networking sites are a veritable playground for top-level CEOs if they market themselves and their sites comprehensively. Just their presence alone is enough to gain traffic and interest in their products or services. For instance, the article reports that Warren Buffet has over 7K followers on Twitter, but has a “soon to be published” message on his Twitter page. What’s that all about? After all, he IS Warren Buffet, but does that mean that he does NOT need to interact with the online audience and the internet media? Surely not!
Well, not everyone is as popularly known as Mr. Buffet, but social networking is crucial to a CEO’s business success nonetheless. I’ve spoken with many heads-of-companies and CEOs and my first question to them is always, “Do you Twitter?”, or, “Do you have a Facebook page?” Often, the answer is yes, but there are times when I get this blank look or this “poor little woman” smile (because they think I’ve been “tricked” into the latest online distraction)!
Far from it, social networking for CEO’s is quite necessary for their business success. What’s more impacting than having a CEO comment on your status or follow you on Twitter? Actually participating in online discussions can be a great way for CEOs to connect and establish rapport with online clients. The wrong thinking occurs when CEOs of companies think that the networking is a waste of time. They are doing themselves and their ventures a disservice by not fully engaging all available resources at their disposal. Consider the following:
1. The majority of social networking sites users are there to socialize AND to get information on the things that interest them. Be accessible.
2. Social sites bring the most unlikeliest of people together. Who’s to say that the next best deal to be had by you can somehow occur via Twitter?
What can you do to make your CEOs more visible in the social networking scene? How can you create an atmosphere that is inviting to the online audience and workable for the executive?
Get our updates
 |