1 / 38

Organizing Committee: Professor Mark Easterby-Smith Professor Ian Clarke Dr. Ellen Pruyne

Researching Managerial Elites: Engaging in a Collaborative Agenda? Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster Leadership Centre, Thursday 16 th March 2006, 2-5pm. Organizing Committee: Professor Mark Easterby-Smith Professor Ian Clarke Dr. Ellen Pruyne Wayne St. Amour.

jeremy-pitts
Download Presentation

Organizing Committee: Professor Mark Easterby-Smith Professor Ian Clarke Dr. Ellen Pruyne

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Researching Managerial Elites:Engaging in a Collaborative Agenda?Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster Leadership Centre, Thursday 16th March 2006, 2-5pm Organizing Committee: Professor Mark Easterby-Smith Professor Ian Clarke Dr. Ellen Pruyne Wayne St. Amour

  2. Welcome & Introductionto the Workshop Dr. George Baxter Head of Science & Innovation North West Development Agency

  3. Purpose & Structure of the Workshop Professor Ian Clarke Senior AIM Fellow Lancaster University Management School

  4. To assess and improve business-university collaboration in the UK, we need to move beyond the neat picture presented by policy-makers and engage with the messy, complex and interconnected nature of the local, regional and national context…The key challenge …lies …in ensuring… that the process of collaboration is effective The Context  

  5. Purpose of the Workshop Engage researchers and practitioners in reflection on their experiences to tease out and develop a practical understanding of what makes collaborative processes effective

  6. Workshop Structure 2.00 Introduction Dr. George Baxter, Head of Science & Innovation, North West Development Agency 2.10 The Challenge of Collaborative Research Dr. Ellen Pruyne, LUMS 2.20 Collaborating with BAE Systems Professor Ian Clarke, LUMS 2.35 A Collaborator’s Perspective Ali Willocks, Human Resources Director, Operational Services, CS&S Division, BAE Systems 2.45 Collaborating with Ciba Professor Mark Easterby-Smith, LUMS 3.00 A Collaborator’s Perspective Doug Chamberlin, Managing Director, International Water Management, Ciba Speciality Chemicals

  7. Workshop Structure 3.10 Questions to the Panel 3.25 Tea/Coffee & Breakout Discussion Wayne St. Amour, LUMS 4.00 Plenary discussion 4.50 Summary Professor Ian Clarke, LUMS 5.00 Drinks & Buffet

  8. The Challenge of CollaborativeResearch Dr. Ellen Pruyne AIM Fellow Lancaster University Management School

  9. Three Phases of Collaborative Research

  10. The Research Challenge: Same issue, different perspectives

  11. Some Academic Trade-offs • Relevance vs. Rigour • Adapting to organizational changes vs. adhering to the research design • Real-time feedback vs. hindsight analysis • Ciba – joint interpretation during the project • BAe – ‘hands-off’ objective stance until end-of-project • What are the relevant trade-offs for organizations?

  12. Questions to Ponder • How can the trade-offs be eliminated or minimized so organizational research becomes a win-win proposition for both parties? • What are the opportunities and challenges in terms of academics conducting research inside organizations? • For academics • For organizations and their managers and staff

  13. Collaborating with BAE Systems Professor Ian Clarke Senior AIM Fellow Lancaster University Management School

  14. Context: The nature of the relationship • Existing institutional links with BAE (on leadership development) helped but did not guarantee us a research site – we still had to convince them how we could ‘add value’ • Field Research took place over a 12 month period (Dec 04 – Dec 05) • We studied how a number of ‘triggers’ stimulated a change in the strategic logic and approach of BAE Systems • Substantive cuts in Government expenditure to the MOD • Lack of a national Defence Industrial Strategy • How BAE Systems responded by negotiating a partnership agreement with the MOD/DLO • Our interest was in how they developed strategy in real-time in two CS&S business units (MASS & Operational Services)

  15. The Negotiation Phase Emergent Issues & how they were tackled • Scepticism about the value-add from the research • isolating benefits of the project to overcome the perceived barriers to collaboration • building trust on a 1:1 basis with MDs and directors in interviews and team meetings • Potential burden of the research on busy senior executives • identifying the time required from each manager, and emphasising observation of existing processes to minimise impact • Opening-up the business to comparison • drawing up a detailed research agreement and statement of informed consent to reassure managers and their teams • agreeing to a comparison within the organization • for internal feedback, drawing out lessons rather than comparing units

  16. Company  Development of leadership behaviours in the organization  Improving the effectiveness of strategy processes and practices  Implications for running strategic reviews Academic What role does leadership play in effective strategy-making?  What are the cognitive structures & sensemaking processes that underlie effective & ineffective strategy-making?  How and why are strategy workshops effective? Negotiation Phase ‘Matching’ company & academic questions

  17. The On-Site Phase Emergent Issues & how they were tackled • Eagerness to know how they compared with others, internally and externally • By holding to our agreement about not divulging insights • By giving them interim feedback based on what we heard that did not affect our research or compromise our research design • A genuine interest in how our insights could help them deal with issues with which they were struggling • By assuring them of the nature of our feedback • By agreeing a date when we would provide it • A growing sense that we could add more value, the more we saw and heard

  18. The Follow-up Phase Emergent Issues & how they were tackled • Eager for practical knowledge to help them going forward • Delivering within agreed timescales • Feedback and recommendations on existing approaches to leadership development and strategy (e.g. developing team leadership skills) • Engaging them in a discussion about the what the findings might mean for them (e.g. greater self-awareness) • Desire for timely consultancy-style feedback • By presenting a report and presentation of our interpretations underpinned by what we had heard from subjects • Feedback provided them with issues to address in their emerging strategic initiatives • Demonstrated support for extending the work internationally

  19. Conclusions • The collaborative process we utilised led to a growing ‘momentum’ in the relationship • Why did this occur, and what were the key ingredients? • Built trust on the basis of clarity of deliverables, consistency, reliability, and responsiveness • Confidence grew and there was a growing appreciation of the two-way value of the collaboration • Synergies between what we were doing and the on-going strategic developments in the organization • Our willingness to translate the insights and frame them within the latest ‘cutting-edge’ approaches in context

  20. A Collaborative Experience Ali Willocks HR Director CS&S Operational Services BAE Systems

  21. What was it like to be researched? • Understanding what was happening • Where has this come from, what it is, why us? • Initial Reactions • Interest, suspicion, scepticism, avoidance, discomfort, fear • Research Agreements?! • Time went on, relationships developed, transparency increased • Temptation to elicit feedback on content rather than process

  22. Costs and Benefits? • Minimal time from business perspective • Valuable third party insights • Follow Up Action – locally/centrally? • Appetite for follow up • Reflections within the team had we still existed • Link to peripheral activities ongoing • A closer relationship between industry and the academic world

  23. Lessons Learned • Real understanding for both parties is key prior to any engagement • Genuine openness around context, climate of business and individuals within it • Academic research and what it can offer • Active participants or passive subjects under scrutiny? • Collective contracting around process • Stronger linkage to central BAe Systems sponsor • Buy in to benefits for business • Better planning around IC/EP involvement • Valuable activity – needs follow up to maximise the value to our business

  24. Collaborating with Ciba Professor Mark Easterby-Smith Senior AIM Fellow Lancaster University Management School

  25. Business Context of IWM • The Business, 2003 - 2005 • Business plan developed during intensive workshop at IMD Lausanne as part of corporate initiative • Extended existing French technical and marketing expertise into an international business (spin ‘in’) • Recruitment of new regional sales managers and local technical partners • ‘Dynamic’ due to: • Minimal investment in (static) infrastructure; flexibility of relationships • Combining knowledge from existing French business with evolving international experience/expertise

  26. Negotiation Phase • Ciba Motivation • Established relationship (harmless!) • Altruism • Curiosity • Access • Negotiated through internal Ciba contacts • Practicalities of dates/ diaries/ locations • Open-ended timescale • Outputs • should be approved in advance of publication • anonymity

  27. On-Site and Follow-up • Gathering ‘data’ • Interviews and observation over time • Minimal interference (fly on wall; speed dating) • Ongoing feedback, and joint sense-making • Practical Outputs • Providing a mirror over time (external impressions) • Identifying longer-term issues • Academic Outputs • Conference papers; • Journal articles (anon?)

  28. Reflections • Openness • Easy access to data and people (but logistics complex) • Good exchanges about both • Ciba business plans/strategies and • Our research frameworks/questions • Self doubts and ethics • Is our feedback of any strategic or operational value? • Not harming interests of individuals or the company • ‘Capture’ • Identification with the business (agent) • Want a positive story to tell

  29. A Collaborative Experience Doug Chamberlin Managing Director International Water Management Ciba Speciality Chemicals

  30. Questions to the Panel

  31. Breakout Discussion Wayne St. Amour AIM Fellow Lancaster University Management School

  32. Key Discussion Issues Managing the ‘trade-offs’ to get the win-win e.g. perspectives, relevance, applications of research  Overcoming barriers to collaborative research e.g. understanding each other  Strengths/weaknesses of different research styles e.g. action research vs. traditional (‘collaborative’ vs ‘objective’)

  33. Workshop Process • Divide & disperse into groups • one speaker per group • Focus on one of the key issues • 3-4 key comments to share in plenary • Other thoughts from your experiences

  34. Plenary Discussion Chair: Wayne St. Amour AIM Fellow Lancaster University Management School

  35. Summary Professor Ian Clarke Lancaster University Management School

  36. Key Issues Raised during the Workshop

  37. Thanks Professor Ian Clarke Lancaster University Management School

  38. Researching Managerial Elites:Engaging in a Collaborative Agenda?Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster Leadership Centre, Thursday 16th March 2006, 2-5pm Organizing Committee: Professor Mark Easterby-Smith Professor Ian Clarke Dr. Ellen Pruyne Wayne St. Amour

More Related