A blog by Joel Barolsky of Barolsky Advisors

Posts Tagged ‘governance’

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

10 questions for your PLAN B

In Commentary on 1 June 2017 at 8:04 am
52eaec9e26b7f8374633e6086e2e7d5b

Source: CoffeeStencil

MY 50th BLOG POST…

What’s your firm’s PLAN B?

PLAN B addresses the scenario of your firm primarily selling talent, to selling a combination of talent, technology and data. It means moving from the pyramid to the rocket business model (read this BCG report if you don’t know I’m talking about). It’s about the digitisation of professional practice.

These 10 questions may be helpful in crafting your PLAN B:

#1 How big do we need to get?

Economies of scale have not traditionally been a key success factor in talent-heavy professional services. One shining example of this is Wachtel Lipton Rosen & Katz, which is one of the world’s most successful law firms despite being a relatively small single-office partnership.

With the addition of technology and data to the mix, there may be specific advantages that larger firms may have over smaller rivals, including…

  • deeper pockets, that is, the ability to wear the risks of technology-related R&D, software and start-up acquisitions;
  • bigger footprints, that is, the ability to deploy new technology in more relationships and in more markets; and
  • more data, that is, the ability to develop better analysis, insights and products.

Small may be more nimble and cosy, but if you can’t afford the new bright shiny toys clients might stop playing with you.

#2 What’s our dividend policy?

Be they partnerships or incorporated entities, many traditional professional service firms tend to do more handing-out than hoarding when it comes to profits.

The “cash burn” phase of new technology acquisition is generally much longer than that of new talent. It took Amazon over 20 years to turn a profit. Firms need to re-align their dividend policy and balance sheets to suit their business models. Without patient capital, firms won’t be able to invest in or acquire the new tools necessary to compete.

#3 How do we (re)structure ourselves?

The rocket model raises a range of interesting organisational design issues:

  • Do we keep the suits and skivvies separate or together?
  • How do we structurally protect the core traditional business, while we invest in creating the new?
  • Is there a structural solution to the problem of improving the digital literacy and experience of everyone in the firm?
  • Do we structure our new firm primarily around practices, processes, products or technologies?
  • Do we separate sales from delivery?
  • How far do we locate the laboratory from the surgery?

#4 Who can become a partner in our firm?

Most firms see “multi-disciplinary” as adding more work types or professional disciplines. With the onset of the rocket model, this definition might need to widen to include designers, technologists, project managers, marketers and sales engineers. It is interesting to note that Herbert Smith Freehills (HSF) recently appointed the head of their ALT business as an HSF partner.

#5 What do we measure?

David Maister’s profit formula (Leverage X Hourly Rate X Utilisation X Margin) has been the foundation of measurement (and therefore reward), practice management and pricing for the past four decades. The key assumption in this model is that the core asset being leverage is human capital. With new tech-based assets and products, firms will need to radically transform what and how they measure things. To illustrate, if a firm sells compliance systems and AI tools via a subscription model, tracking staff utilisation will not only be meaningless, but dangerous.

#6 How do we price?

Time-based pricing will be less prevalent in a talent + data + technology world. New pricing models will be required to set, communicate and capture value. This will include things like user license fees, subscriptions and incentivised retainers. What constitutes a “fair price” will become more complex, and need to factor in development costs and risks, IP fungibility, the scale and scope of application, and duration of benefit.

#7 Who are we competing with?

In 1960, Ted Levitt published a brilliant HBR article called Marketing Myopia. He cited the example of US railway companies going out of business because they defined themselves as competing in the railway rather than in the transport industry. In a world, where the client solution includes a combination of talent + technology + data, your biggest competitor may not be the lookalike firm three floors up, but rather the software vendor who is using your firm to iron out bugs before attempting global domination going directly to your clients.

#8 Which clients do we say ‘no’ to?

There is a general trend towards more co-created integrated solutions between firms and their clients. In this environment, firms may be forced to choose target clients, not on size, scope or sector, but rather on systems sophistication and complementarity. One could imagine a very progressive firm not being able to service clients who were technology laggards. Platforms and standards could equally determine relative client attractiveness.

#9 How do we adapt our talent pipeline?

The pyramid model creates a “tournament” where a large group of aspirants start at the bottom and are encouraged to beat their peers on the way up. The rocket model potentially changes the game with far fewer recruited at the bottom and a philosophy of retention rather than competition. It also challenges the apprenticeship system of learning and development.

On the plus-side, the rocket model opens up a number of new career pathways and facilitates a more diverse talent pool.

At more senior levels, the prerequisites for partner promotion might need to shift to include digital literacy, project management and solution integration. Partners need to be able to supervise people who are not like them. They also need to be able to align clients’ needs with the firm’s full talent + technology + data offering and be confident in selling it.

#10 What kind of culture do we want to become?

Many professional service firms have technical excellence as the dominant cultural norm. In the end, it’s scarce specialist knowledge, advice and skill that clients are willing to pay for. In changing the business model, firms need to question the kind of culture they’d like to become and what constitutes “cultural fit”. The new culture could be anchored around things like…

  • the client experience,
  • the client relationship,
  • navigating change,
  • digital literacy,
  • experimentation/innovation,
  • collaboration, or
  • operational excellence.

Your next strategy workshop

Rather than focussing on reviewing or tweaking PLAN A in your next strategy workshop, run an “alternative futures” session and flesh-out your PLAN B. As stewards of the firm, you owe it to your partners to have thought through these possible futures and your contingency plans. An expert independent facilitator would add considerably to the discussion. Call +61 417 305 880 to speak to one.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Are your practice groups primed to win?

In Articles, Commentary on 26 April 2017 at 8:23 am

If each of your practice groups is primed to win, then there’s a pretty good chance your firm will win as well.

With this in mind, there’s much benefit to be derived by assessing all of your practice groups on two dimensions:

  • A winning strategy – from strong to weak, and
  • Execution capability – from strong to weak.

 

Illustration of portfolio map – not real data

 

If most of your practice groups are in the weak-weak quadrant, perhaps it’s time to take that call from the headhunter. If all the groups are strong-strong, don’t change a thing! If you have a mix of everything, it’s time to get to work…

A winning strategy

There is a range of factors to take into consideration to assess whether a practice group has a winning strategy for the next three years:

  • Does the practice have clear aspirations to win? Is there a stretch intent?
  • Are they competing in sizeable, growing and profitable market segments?
  • Does the practice have a compelling value proposition, that is, clear reasons why clients should choose them over others?
  • Does the practice have a profitable and sustainable business model? Bonus points if the model is scalable.
  • Is there a Plan B if non-traditional competitors strengthen?
  • Are there pilots and experiments in place creating options for future growth?
  • Is there a clear implementation roadmap with accountabilities, measures and timing?
  • Is it clear what they say ‘no’ to, and why?

Execution capability

On paper, the practice group might have a world-beating strategy but it may not have the skills, resources and systems to implement it.

a cup of coffee on the wood table.cafe latte with tulip latte art pattern on the wooden background.

Source: fotolia

The first, and most important, the question is whether you have the right practice group leader. Is she a true leader or merely a convenor? Does she lead or just manage? While she might seek to lead, does she have loyal followers? Does she have the ability to inspire and support team members to be their best? Is she strong enough to stand up to the recalcitrants?

Other questions to ask around execution capability:

  • Is the team a real team or just a loose coalition of colleagues?
  • Does the team generally follow-through on their commitments?
  • Does the team own its strategy and take accountability for it?
  • Does the team have the right talent necessary to win, now and in three years time?
  • Does the group have access to the right technology, processes and systems to underpin its business model?
  • Is there sufficient open-mindedness to adapt to new inventions and work methods?
  • Are there mechanisms in place to regularly review progress and tweak their plans?

The portfolio

While it’s important to assess the competitiveness of each practice, there’s also a lot of value in assessing the inter-dependencies, synergies and gaps across the portfolio. Another portfolio overlay is the amount of partner equity allocated to each group and expected ROE (return on equity).

A review of the portfolio should indicate which practices require investment, divestment or just be maintained. Handling the politics of these decisions is a topic for another post, or three.

In conclusion

While a firm is more than just the sum of its parts, the parts play a critical role in sustaining success. Your firm’s strategy needs to reflect firm-wide themes like overall market positioning, culture, brand, strategic clients, talent, R&D, infrastructure and support. It also needs to deep dive into the practice portfolio, making sure each plays its part and leverages the strengths of the whole.

, , , , , , , , ,

Firm purpose. Seven options.

In Articles, Commentary on 5 April 2017 at 12:45 pm

I’d highly recommend Jordan Furlong‘s new book, “Law is a Buyer’s Market – Building a Client-First Law Firm”.

Furlong argues that firms should answer ‘the why?’ question with a statement around creating client success. He states that this approach is congruent with the pursuit of professionalism and will enable the firm to withstand the challenges of increased competition and rapid technology change. Furlong suggests that firms adopt a client-centric purpose statement, something like, “our firm exists to serve the interests of clients in our chosen markets by addressing their legal challenges and opportunities so that those clients can achieve their objectives”.

Cups of coffee on blue background

Source: fotolia

Last weekend I had the opportunity to road-test Furlong’s recommendations in a client strategy workshop. It became clear quite early on in the workshop that while there was strong resonance with a client-centric purpose, it didn’t tell the full story for this firm. They felt that defining purpose solely on clients risked making them client-compelled in areas like pricing and write-offs, and, interestingly, less likely to innovate. They cited numerous examples of innovative ideas that didn’t come directly from clients expressing their needs, but rather from an intrinsic desire to do better than competitors.

To help things along, I presented SEVEN related, yet distinct, purpose statement option:

  1. Client-centric: our firm exists to make our clients more successful.
  2. Business-centric: our firm exists to maximise returns to shareholders.
  3. People-centric: our firm exists for our partners and staff to practise their craft, earn the respect of their clients and peers, and make a good living. In short, the firm is about fun, fame and fortune.
  4. Community-centric: our firm exists to add value to the communities we serve.
  5. Benefit-centric: our firm exists to reduce and manage risk.
  6. Quality-centric: our firm exists to make all other firms look second-rate.
  7. Innovation-centric: our firm exists to set precedent, break new ground and pioneer new products and processes.

I’m happy to report that we came up with a hybrid version that everyone was very excited about. Sorry, I can’t share it here in this post.

Which one of these options, or combination, best describes YOUR firm’s purpose?

, , , , , , , , ,

Is 2017 the year the fat smoker quits?

In Articles, Commentary on 19 December 2016 at 12:38 am

Eleven years ago David Maister published a brilliant article on the barriers to strategic change in professional service firms. In Strategy and the Fat Smoker, he stated…

Much of what professional firms do in the name of strategic planning is a complete waste of time, no more effective than individuals making New Year’s resolutions (to lose weight or give up smoking).

David argued that most firms were far too successful to seriously consider any radical shifts in strategy. He stated that unless partners faced imminent existentialist threats, equivalent to cancer or a heart attack, they were just going to pay lip-service to a strategy that involved any sort of change.

Much of what I’ve read and experienced as a strategy advisor affirms David’s proposition. But is 2017 going to be the year the fat smoker quits?

Early signs

Over the past six months I have been involved in a significant strategy project in a 100+ partner law firm. One thing that has struck me about this project compared to many others, is the degree of partner engagement in the process. They’ve all turned up. What’s more they all turned up with their their phones turned off. They’ve all seriously tackled the questions of where they will play, how they will win and what change is needed. It’s still a bit early to see if they will execute on their plans, but the early signs are positive.

shutterstock_392120920

Source: Shutterstock

In undertaking the research for the 2016 Thomson Reuters Peer Monitor Melbourne Law School report, I counted more than 25 case studies of established Australian BigLaw firms launching new services, business models or joint venturing. Each one of these changes would have had to pass through a vote of partners. This points to a resolve to innovate AND, more importantly, the ability to follow-through.

The typical resistors to change are very well document, but I think there are three factors that might make 2017 the year of slimmer, healthier professionals.

#1 Transformed leaders

“Company transformations accelerate when a critical mass of leaders transform themselves… Insight is the first step. Choice is the second step. Practice is the third step.” Carolyn Aiken

It’s a big call, but I think many of Australia’s professional service leaders have begun to transform themselves. They are going through the personal change journey of rejection and denial, through to acceptance and commitment. Many have seen the writing on the wall, challenged their beliefs and sought to reinvented themselves. This has in turn has led them down the path of changing the people around them and crafting a new strategy and culture for their firms. With a stronger guiding leadership coalition, firms themselves are in a much better position to embrace change.

The evidence for my transformed leader assertion is not definitive. It’s based largely on the tone and content of discussions at recent conferences, retreats, panels, media comments and blogs. The dialogue at this fabulous Chris Merritt-hosted panel is a clear case in point.

#2 Hip pocket

The 2016 Peer Monitor report indicates lower overall profit per equity partner due, in part, to declining client demand, increased discounting and rising expenses. The data also suggests a wider variation between top- and bottom-earning firms.

For many partners, there is increased pressure to justify their equity status and share of profits. Even a small drop in earnings or a delay in distribution payments, signals the reversal of a long-term trend of growth and abundance. The misfortunes of KWM in Europe have also raised more than a few eyebrows. The hip pocket is now in play, even though at this stage it’s more symbolic than catastrophic.

#3 Client pressure

Leadership guru, Simon Sinek, has a very simple but compelling message: start with why! His view is that success comes from finding an authentic purpose for the firm. The answer to the “why” question in most professional firms is about helping clients succeed, that is, saving clients money, reducing their risk, solving their problems and realising their opportunities sooner. The voice of the client is a big deal in many professional firms. How clients think and feel is a key catalyst for change.

With a shift to a buyers market, more and more clients are speaking their mind and voicing their pains and gains. Many more are asking for their professional advisors to share risk and justify their fees. While this client pressure is not a new phenomenon, 2017 will seek a continuation of this trend and force many professionals to adapt to new models of service and pricing.

In conclusion

The pace of change is only likely to increase in the years ahead. While many commentators paint a picture of doom and gloom, I have a more optimistic view and see clear signs of firms remaking themselves. There are forces at play softening the ground for fundamental and sustainable change. Yes, there will still be laggards, but as Maister concludes…

If we are prepared to rethink how we view strategy and business life, then people can achieve things they never thought possible. If I can become a fit, nonsmoking exerciser, there’s truly no limit!

Postscript

Thank you all my clients, referrers, collaborators and friends for a fantastic 2016. It’s been the best year yet in the life of Barolsky Advisors P/L.  I hope you have a safe and rejuvenating holiday season and a prosperous 2017.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Two-speed firms: the problem and solutions

In Articles, Commentary on 20 November 2016 at 5:22 pm

screen-shot-2016-11-29-at-2-35-30-pm

“We have a two-speed firm! There’s one group of partners who are ambitious and willing to spend the extra energy necessary to win new business. And then we have another group, who work hard but are broadly happy with the way things are. In reality, they expend far less energy than the first group. The problem is we’re all rowing the same boat. Rowing at different speeds makes us go in circles, not forward.”

Does this sound familiar?

The expectations of partner energy, commitment, speed, fire-in-the-belly, etc. are missed in most strategy discussions. You might have motivational words in your purpose, vision and values statements. Your goals might include stretch revenue and profit targets. But, if you look carefully, there’s nothing there on how much petrol needs to be spent by each individual partner. It is just ASSUMED that every partner will be equally committed and energised.

Five key reasons

I think think there are five main reasons why energy expectations are not adequately discussed:

  1. Remuneration model: the view in some firms is that those willing to invest more will be paid more, and therefore there’s no need to talk about it. The problem is that discretionary reward, on its own, is a very blunt (and lazy) performance management tool. Over time, it entrenches a multi-speed firm.
  2. Measurement: there’s no easy and accurate measure of energy level. Firms may have proxies like billable hours or hours worked, but these measures can be gamed and do not really capture the temperature of belly fire. As firms introduce different business models and new flexible work arrangements these measures become even less relevant.
  3. Confrontation: talking about energy expectations inevitably leads to heated discussions as to whom is contributing more or less. Firm leaders often prefer harmony over harrowing debates around relative commitment.
  4. Autonomy: in many firms partners believe their autonomy is paramount and should not be questioned. As owners, they should be free of “big brother” accountabilities around how and where and how much time they spend.
  5. Outputs over inputs: some people will argue that assessing energy feels like clock-watching – a focus on time spent rather than outcomes achieved.

#1 Focus on partner engagement

The conventional solution to address a two-speed partnership is to shine the light on the “under-performers” and hope that this will shame them into speeding up. This is often coupled with a stern conversation around accountability and the threat of sanctions. In my experience, this approach seldom has enduring success and often ends badly.

An alternative approach is to shine the light on everyone in the spirit of support and development. The idea here is to frequently check-in with the whole partner group on questions like:

  • What’s going well?
  • What’s causing you the most stress at the moment?
  • How’s your team’s strategy implementation going?
  • What support do you need?
  • What are your key priorities over the next period?
  • What things might get in the way of success?

The logic there is that through greater transparency and a more supportive leadership style there will be a positive impact across the board. This approach is aimed at growing the overall pie and reducing dissonance between the fast and the slow.

The reason this approach is seldom attempted, or, if it is, implemented badly, is that it requires the firm leaders to do some serious heavy lifting. It’s practically impossible to do well in medium and large firms.

Until now…

There are a range of new applications, like Jobvibe (an Australian start-up), Wethrive and Culture Amp, that allows for easy frequent check-ins to assess how people are feeling at work, and to identify and resolve issues quickly. The trick is to tailor the questions for professional services and for the partner group in particular, and to run it out of the managing partner’s office, not HR.

dreamstime_m_33010417

#2 Agree a partner charter

A complementary approach is to agree the social contract between the firm and its partners. As Nick Jarrett-Kerr explains, these partner codes or charters should agree explicit expectations for each partner in regard to :

  1. their dealings with the firm, for example, to accept the spirit and the letter of the firm’s strategy;
  2. their treatment of the firm’s clients, for example, promoting the highest standards of professionalism, truthfulness, integrity and trustworthiness;
  3. their dealings with fellow partners, junior staff members and support staff; and
  4. their personal learning journey and commitment to ongoing development, improvement and innovation.

I’d suggest adding a fifth dimension which describes the expectations around commitment and energy levels.

#3 Team profit contribution

Some firm’s have shifted focus away from individual revenue targets to team profit contribution. Rather than set individual budgets, the core accountability is for the team to deliver a specific profit outcome. Team members need to work through the optimum approach, roles and requisite energy levels. While there are many positives to this approach, it may further entrench silos and factions. It may also hide enduring aberrant behaviour by some individuals.

Call to action

I don’t think there is a magic silver bullet to address the issue of variations in partner contribution. It’s a complex, politically sensitive problem. The key is not to ignore the problem as it festers rage in the fast, and facilitates a victim mindset in the slow. Without active positive leadership, you’re charting course for a circling boat.

Photo sourced from dreamstime.com

, , , , , , , , , ,

5 takeaways from teaching management at the Melbourne Law School

In Articles, Commentary on 31 October 2016 at 7:30 am

“The best way to learn is to teach.”

Cup of hotlatte art coffee on wooden table

Source: fotolia

I had the privilege and pleasure to present the Management for Professionals subject on the Melbourne Law Masters program over this past week. The course covered the foundations of leadership and management within a legal context. Reference material was sourced from Maister, Porter, Kotter, Beaton, Martin, Susskind and Day, amongst many others.

After road-testing all the material in the classroom, my five key takeaways are…

#1 Maister needs an update

David Maister’s famous practice spectrum outlines a range of business models for professional service firms to consider. These include Rocket Scientist, Grey Hair, Procedural and Commodity, which in turn influence the settings on leverage, utilisation, margin and rates.

Maister’s models are still largely relevant in a people-intensive firms, but less so in technology and data-intensive legal businesses. These latter firms clearly price, operate and scale up differently. Perhaps a better business model map – see below – is to have High to Low Complexity on one continuum and People to Tech-Intensity on the other. The top right position is currently vacant, but has a huge number of aspirants.

#2 NewLaw is no longer new

During the course we studied INSEAD’s new case study on Axiom Legal. We had a great presentation from Jarred Hardman, the founder of Crowd & Co, and explored alternative models such as Keypoint, Lexvoco and Bespoke.

It appears that over the past 12 months, many traditional law firms buying-in or are copying the “new” bits of NewLaw to the point that they are no longer really fresh or compelling differentiators. One student commented that many NewLaw models shifted so much business risk to individual lawyers that they would struggle to attract really top talent.

#3 Love the grey

One of the most interesting class discussions centred around a HBR video on the common myths of strategy execution, that is, success will come from aligning goals, better communication and following the plan. The video highlighted that while the latter approaches are worthwhile there are many nuances and subtleties that need to be considered. It appears there are few absolute truths in management and most things are contingent on context, characters and constraints.

#4 Strategy should be for everyone

“I wish I had done a course like this when I started my career. It would have made sense of all the decisions my firm has taken over the years.”

It is common in many firms for discussions around strategy to be treated as secret partner business. In my view there is a strong case to give everyone in the firm a deeper appreciation of how the firm competes and how it makes money. Better understanding of these key concepts will facilitate innovation and execution.

#5 The world is small

From the class discussions, it appears that cats in Santiago, Perth, Beijing, Milan and Jakarta are equally hard to herd. The Melbourne Law Masters program attracts law students from over 40 countries across the globe. Professors, such as Katharine Christopherson (also teaching last week), come from far and wide to present their classes. Being immersed in this global village for one-week was truly an amazing experience.

_______________________________________________________

I will be presenting the Management for Professionals course again in October 2017. It is available as a single subject study option or as an elective on the Masters and JD programs.

, , , , , , , ,

Is your board focused on strategy or operations?

In Articles, Commentary on 22 April 2016 at 7:29 am

“Our board gets preoccupied with operational issues. Important discussion around the firm’s strategy is the exception rather than the rule.”

Sound familiar?

Addressing the firm’s expanded balance sheet is one way to get your board to focus on big-picture strategy. Expanded balance sheets include the intangible assets that are crucial to the firm’s long-term competitiveness and profitability.

While accountants often refer to these intangibles as goodwill, I think there’s much strategic value in disaggregating these intangibles into four separate asset classes*: relationship capital, human capital, brand capital and structural capital.

Variety of cups of coffee and coffee beans on old wooden tableBoards need to make a critical assessment as to whether capital value is growing or slowing? Asking good questions and directing management to address significant strategic issues and opportunities is what the board’s stewardship role is all about.

Relationship Capital

This refers the quantum, strength and stickiness of existing client and referrer relationships.

  • Grow: growth in relationship capital can be assessed by things like major client acquisitions, client commitment/risk indexes, client engagement, Net Promoter Scores, % of sole-sourced work, sales pipeline velocity, bid-win ratios and service mix per client. Some firms track client lifetime value as an indicator of its relationship capital.
  • Slow: relationship capital can be diminished by major client losses (actual and pending), loss of key people with strong networks, structural change in client organisations, and growth in competition, both direct and disruptive.

Human Capital

This refers to the quality and performance of all those that work in the firm.

  • Grow: growth in human capital can be assessed by things like partner and staff retention, engagement, participation and discretionary effort. Culture mapping often reveals amazing strategic insights.  Clear and compelling succession plans for the firm’s key rainmakers and team leaders is good a lead indicator of future capital value.
  • Slow: human capital is often diminished by cultural misfits, major internal disputes and disruptive politics. One indicator of the latter is the percentage of time the firm’s managing partner spends addressing internal matters like performance measurement (i.e. who takes credit), partner remuneration, client ‘ownership’ and resource hoarding/sharing. Power struggles and infighting between divisions, office locations, teams, practices and individual partners are often major distractions and result in sub-par contribution from everyone.

Brand Capital

This refers to the strength of the firm’s brand and reputation in key target markets.

  • Grow: growth in brand capital can be assessed by things like brand awareness, consideration, preference, use, recommendation and social media following. This can be evidenced by awards, rankings and directory listings. Relative price premium is often a useful proxy for brand strength.  The firm’s ability to attract star recruits, at junior, mid and senior levels, is also an indicator of its brand capital.
  • Slow: the firm’s brand can be weakened by major losses, be it clients, projects or people. Recent developments at Slater & Gordon are ample evidence of the negative impact of an externally visible crisis. Clayton Utz took years to fully recover from the infamous BAT case.

Structural Capital

This refers to the value of the firm’s IP, its systems, products, apps, methodologies, technology and platforms.

  • Grow: growth in structural capital can be assessed by things like the firm’s investment in R&D and its innovation portfolio. Quantification of the current and potential revenue from leveraging the firm’s IP may also be useful.
  • Slow: a strategic assessment of structural liabilities might include a systems effectiveness and efficiency review. In one leading law firm, they classified of each of their systems into: [1] value-adding, [2] functional and [3] deadweights. The latter were clunky systems that reduced efficiency, increased user frustration and/or lowered quality. The outcome of this review affirmed the conclusion that the internal user experience was a crucial part of creating a high-performance culture.

In practice

Boards that have adopted the four capital approach, or a variation thereof, usually rotate their agenda and focus on one area per board meeting. Discussions usually revolve, firstly, around the nature, quantum and key trends in the asset class, and secondly, how the assets should be protected, developed and leveraged further.

This approach results in a much clearer delineation in the role and contribution of the board and that of the firm’s management team. It also means that in-depth deliberations around preferred colour of Post-it notes are omitted from the board’s agenda.

* This approach is adapted from the work of Erik Sveiby.

%d bloggers like this: