A study of safety leadership and safety governance for board members and senior executives

This thesis is an investigation of the fields of leadership and corporate governance in the context of workplace safety. The research has made a contribution by defining four criteria of safety leadership and applying these criteria to board members, senior executives and written communications. The thesis outlines the findings of two studies; the first is an analysis of public disclosures in ASX200 annual reports and CSR reports, and the second comprises two case studies of large Australian companies including interviews with board members and senior executives. The concept of safety governance is defined and a safety governance framework is developed.

Developing new alliances in higher education leadership and governance : autopoietic application of the “arts” creative capacities

This paper, underpinned by a framework of autopoietic principles of creativity/innovation and leadership/governance, argues that open forms of creativity in ‘arts’ provide opportunity for impact upon concepts of development, leadership and governance. The alliance of creativity and governance suggests that by examining various understandings of artistic experiences, readers may perceive new understandings of alliance, application and assessment of such experiences. This critical understanding would include assessing whether such experience supports people changing their aspirations as they become what they want to be. Such understanding may also suggest that different applications of the creative capacity of the ‘arts’ offers relevance in alleged ‘non-creative’ areas of academe, particularly in areas of management, leadership and governance. This alliance also offers the possibility of new staff development programs that facilitate learning and building of individual capacity, as well as facilitate congruent development process and policy, particularly within academic organisational structures.

Enterprise Business Technology Governance: Three Competencies to Build Board Digital Leadership Capability.

The competent leadership of digital transformation needs to involve the board of directors. The reported lack of such capability in boards is becoming a pressing issue. A part of leadership in such transformation is the board of director’s competence to lead Enterprise Business Technology Governance (EBTG). In this paper we take the position that EBTG competencies are essential in boards, because competent EBTG has been shown to contribute to increased revenue, profit, and returns. We update and expand on the results of a multi-method approach to the development of a set of three board of director competencies needed for effective EBTG.

Can IT Security be improved with better IT Leadership in the 21st Century University?

Organizations generally are not responding effectively to rising IT security threats because people issues receive inadequate attention. The stark example of IT security is just the latest strategic IT priority demonstrating deficient IT leadership attention to the social dimension of IT. Universities in particular, with their devolved people organization, diverse adoption of IT, and split central/local federated approach to governance and leadership of IT, demand higher levels of interpersonal sophistication and strategic engagement from their IT leaders. An idealized model for IT leaders for the 21st century university is proposed to be developed as a framework for further investigation. The testing of this model in an action research study is proposed.

The open kimono: How Intel balances trust and power to maintain platform leadership

A small group of companies including Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco have used "platform leadership" with great effect as a means for driving innovation and accelerating market growth within their respective industries. Prior research in this area emphasizes that trust plays a critical role in the success of this strategy. However, many of the categorizations of trust discussed in the literature tend to ignore or undervalue the fact that trust and power are often functionally equivalent, and that the coercion of weaker partners is sometimes misdiagnosed as collaboration. In this paper, I use case study data focusing on Intel's shift from ceramic/wire-bonded packaging to organic/C4 packaging to characterize the relationships between Intel and its suppliers, and to determine if these links are based on power in addition to trust. The case study shows that Intel's platform leadership strategy is built on a balance of both trust and a relatively benevolent form of power that is exemplified by the company's "open kimono" principle, through which Intel insists that suppliers share detailed financial data and highly proprietary technical information to achieve mutually advantageous objectives. By explaining more completely the nature of these inter-firm linkages, this paper usefully extends our understanding of how platform leadership is maintained by Intel, and contributes to the literature by showing how trust and power can be used simultaneously within an inter-firm relationship in a way that benefits all of the stakeholders.

Shared leadership in Queensland schools : a collective case study

Shared leadership has been identified as a key governance base for the future of government and Catholic schools in Queensland, the state’s two largest providers of school education. Shared leadership values the contributions that many individuals can make through collaboration and teamwork. It claims to improve organisational performance and reduce the increasing pressures faced by principals. However despite these positive features, shared leadership is generally not well understood, not well accepted and not valued by those who practice or study leadership. A collective case study method was chosen, incorporating a series of semi-structured interviews with principals and the use of official school documents. The study has explored the current understanding and practice of shared leadership in four Queensland schools and investigated its potential for use.

Analysing governance categories used on project alliances in the construction industry

In Australia, collaborative contracts, and in particular, project alliances, have been increasingly used to govern infrastructure projects. These contracts use formal and informal governance mechanisms to manage the delivery of infrastructure projects. Formal mechanisms such as financial risk sharing are specified in the contract, while informal mechanisms such as integrated teams are not. Given that the literature contains a multiplicity of often untestable definitions, this paper reports on a review of the literature to operationalize the concepts of formal and informal governance. This work is the first phase of a study that will examine the optimal balance of formal and informal governance structures. Desk-top review of leading journals in the areas of construction management and business management, as well as recent government documents and industry guidelines, was undertaken to to conceptualise and operationalize formal and informal governance mechanisms. The study primarily draws on transaction-cost economics (e.g. Williamson 1979; Williamson 1991), relational contract theory (Feinman 2000; Macneil 2000) and social psychology theory (e.g. Gulati 1995). Content analysis of the literature was undertaken to identify key governance mechanisms. Content analysis is a commonly used methodology in the social sciences area. It provides rich data through the systematic and objective review of literature (Krippendorff 2004). NVivo 9, a qualitative data analysis software package, was used to assist in this process. A previous study by the authors identified that formal governance mechanisms can be classified into seven measurable categories: (1) negotiated cost, (2) competitive cost, (3) commercial framework, (4) risk and reward sharing, (5) qualitative performance, (6) collaborative multi-party agreement, and (7) early contractor involvement. Similarly, informal governance mechanisms can be classified into four measureable categories: (1) leadership structure, (2) integrated team, (3) team workshops, and (4) joint management system. This paper explores and further defines the key operational characteristics of each mechanism category, highlighting its impact on value for money in alliance project delivery. The paper’s contribution is that it provides the basis for future research to compare the impact of a range of individual mechanisms within each category, as a means of improving the performance of construction projects.

Understanding Formal and Informal Governance on Infrastructure Projects - Literature Review [industry report]

In Australia, collaborative contracts have been increasingly used to govern infrastructure projects. These contracts combine formal and informal mechanisms to manage project delivery. Formal mechanisms (e.g. financial risk sharing) are specified in the contract, while informal mechanisms (e.g. integrated team) are not. The paper reports on a literature review to operationalise the concepts of formal and informal governance, as the literature contains a multiplicity of, often un-testable, definitions. This work is the first phase of a study that will examine the optimal balance of formal and informal governance structures. Desk-top review of leading journals in the areas of construction management and business management, as well as recent government documents and industry guidelines, was undertaken to to conceptualise and operatinalise formal and informal governance mechanisms. The study primarily draws on transaction-cost economics (e.g. Williamson 1979; 1991), relational contract theory (Feinman 2000; Macneil 2000) and social psychology theory (e.g. Gulati 1995). Content analysis of the literature was undertaken to identify key governance mechanisms. Content analysis is a commonly used methodology in the social sciences area. It provides rich data through the systematic and objective review of literature (Krippendorff 2004). NVivo 9, a qualitative data analysis software package, was used to assist in this process. Formal governance mechanisms were found to be usefully broken down into four measurable categories: (1) target cost arrangement (2) financial risk and reward sharing regime (3) transparent financials and (4) collaborative multi-party agreement Informal governance mechanisms were found to be usefully broken down into three measurable categories: (1) leadership structure (2) integrated team (3) joint management system We expect these categories to effectively capture the key governance drivers of outcomes on infrastructure projects. These categories will be further refined and broken down into individual governance mechanisms for assessment through a large-scale Australian survey planned for late 2012. These individual mechanisms will feature in the questionnaire that QUT will deliver to AAA in October 2012.

Enterprise business technology governance: A validation of three technology-governance competencies for boards of directors

The competent leadership and governance of digital transformation needs to involve the board of directors. The reported lack of such capability in boards is becoming a pressing issue. Underpinning leadership in such transformation are the competencies to effectively govern Enterprise Technology (ETG). In this paper we take the position that ETG competencies are essential in boards because competent enterprise business technology governance has been shown to contribute to increased revenue, profit, and returns. We report the industry validation processes of a set of three board-of-director competencies needed for effective ETG related to strategy and planning; investment and risk; and, innovation and value creation. We conclude that gaps in board ETG competence remain.

Enterprise technology governance: New information and technology core competencies for boards of directors

Boards of directors have legal and ethical responsibilities to be competent. Yet, in a world where business models and whole sectors are being disrupted by rapid information and technology change, a majority of directors lack IT governance knowledge and skills. Individual IT competency and collective board Enterprise Technology Governance capability is a global problem. Without capability, boards are potentially flying blind, and risk is increased and opportunities to lead and govern digital transformation lost. To address this capability gap, this research provides the first multi-industry validated Enterprise Technology Governance competency set for use in board evaluation, recruitment and professional development.

Governance of enterprise Information and Technology: A new core competency for boards of directors

With the level of digital disruption that is affecting businesses around the globe, you might expect high levels of Governance of Enterprise Information and Technology (GEIT) capability within boards. Boards and their senior executives know technology is important. More than 90% of boards and senior executives currently identify technology as essential to their current businesses, and to their organization’s future. But as few as 16% have sufficient GEIT capability. Global Centre for Digital Business Transformation’s recent research contains strong indicators of the need for change. Despite board awareness of both the likelihood and impact of digital disruption, things digital are still not viewed as a board-level matter in 45% of companies. And, it’s not just the board. The lack of board attention to technology can be mirrored at senior executive level as well. When asked about their organization’s attitude towards digital disruption, 43% of executives said their business either did not recognise it as a priority or was not responding appropriately. A further 32% were taking a “follower” approach, a potentially risky move as we will explain. Given all the evidence that boards know information and technology (I&T***) is vital, that they understand the inevitably, impact and speed of digital change and disruption, why are so many boards dragging their heels? Ignoring I&T disruption and refusing to build capability at board level is nothing short of negligence. Too many boards risk flying blind without GEIT capability [2]. To help build decision quality and I&T governance capability, this research: • Confirms a pressing need to build individual competency and cumulative, across-board capability in governing I&T • Identifies six factors that have rapidly increased the need, risk and urgency • Finds that boards may risk not meeting their duty of care responsibilities when it comes to I&T oversight • Highlights barriers to building capability details three GEIT competencies that boards and executives can use for evaluation, selection, recruitment and professional development.

Leading Digital Transformation: Building Technology and Information Governance Capability in Boards of Directors and the C-Suite

Information and technology and its use in organisation transformation presents unprecedented opportunities and risks. Increasingly, the Governance of Enterprise Information and Technology (GEIT) competency in the board room and executive is needed. Whether your organization is small or large, public, private or not for profit or whether your industry is not considered high-tech, IT is impacting your sector – no exceptions. But there is a skill shortage in boards: GEIT capability is concerningly low. This capability is urgently needed across the board, including those directors who come from finance, legal, marketing, operations and HR backgrounds. Digital disruption also affects all occupations. Putting in place a vision will help ensure emergency responses will meet technology-related duty of care responsibilities. When GEIT-related forward thinking and planning is carried out at the same time that you put your business strategy and plan in place, your organization has a significantly increased chance of not only surviving, but thriving into the future. Those organizations that don’t build GEIT capability risk joining the growing list of once-leading firms left behind in the digital ‘cloud of smoke’. Those organizations that do will be better placed to reap the benefits and hedge against the risks of a digital world. This chapter provides actionable, research-based considerations and processes for boards to use, to build awareness, knowledge and skills in governing technology-related organization strategy, risk and value creation.