The unexpected outbreak and spread of Covid-19 early this year has had a seismic effect on the lives and well being of people, around the world. Politicians and government officials have activated crisis response plans (some more quickly and effectively than others) and business leaders have reached for their continuity plans. Amongst the turbulence, little if anything is clear—except that SARS-CoV-2 has our attention.
Horizons have shortened, and most if not all resources have been diverted to deal with the situation. This is reasonable, but it also exposes the company to a significant risk. Business leaders (especially boards) need to keep one eye on the future, because the crisis will eventually pass. When it does, companies need to be ready to ‘go’ in the post-crisis environment, lest they be outgunned by others.
- What has changed, and what might things look like after the crisis has passed?
- How does this effect our ability to compete; and our ability to win?
- What adjustments (both strategic and operational) are needed to ensure the company is positioned to thrive in the future?
- Short horizon and great detail: While horizons are, naturally, shortened during times of crisis, boards need to begin looking further into the future early. But, when they do, they need to resist the temptation to dive into the detail (many directors associate detail with higher quality decisions and the mitigation of risk). This is a trap. A strong focus on perfection and detail diverts one’s gaze away from the big picture, the wider context within which the company operates. Emerging but still weak signals and new risks will be missed. Left unchecked, the resultant strategies and decisions will be little more than long lists of activities. Roger L. Martin’s words speak volumes: “True strategy is about placing bets and making hard choices. The objective is not to eliminate risk but to increase the odds of success”. If in doubt, play long—but refine often.
- An over-optimistic outlook: Strong leaders like solving problems, but they are also prone to thinking they are better or more capable than they are. We see it in politicians, project leaders and business executives: humans have an innate tendency to overestimate their abilities, especially to predict future outcomes. Boards are no exception. One way of mitigating this is to ensure someone acts as an advocatus diaboli (devil’s advocate), to challenge the thinking at each step along the way. Another is to explicitly seek expert advice from independent sources. An external facilitator with a strong personality (to manage egos!) can also be very valuable.
- Confusion over the board–management nexus: This trap is more common than most care to admit. Usage of the term governance over the last 15–20 years has become so widespread (in appropriate and inappropriate contexts), that is has become a panacea for all manner of corporate activity and ills. With it, the board–management nexus has become clouded, with the two parties unsure of who is doing what. If the board and management are to work well together, with the company’s best interests to the fore, a well-defined of division of labour is required, to allocate to tasks explicitly to the board, to management, or to both.
This article was originally posted at www.petercrow.come/musings
Learn more at upcoming Digoshen Exchange Webinars and Vote on Topics
The insights from the article highlights the need for our next planned Digoshen Board Forum Exchange Webinar, on the topic “Boards for Short and Long Term”, and will be held on April 27 at 12-13 CET welcome to >> sign up here.
If you like to vote on upcoming topics of our exchange webinars we should discuss at upcoming Digoshen Board Forum Exchange Webinars, you can vote by distributing 100 points to the >> topics you are most interested in here.
It the upcoming time doesn’t fit, you can >> check out and pencil in the planned future dates.
You can learn from earlier exchange experiences at the
You are also welcome to connect with the >> Digoshen Impact Team.