The conversations principals
found worth having.

The situation

A managing director of a mid-sized Malaysian manufacturing group had been considering a significant shift in the group's market positioning for approximately eighteen months. The question had not been formally raised at board level, and internal colleagues had not been brought into it. He was uncertain whether his thinking had been thorough enough, and uncertain whether to proceed.

The engagement

Two structured conversations over four weeks, with a short brief prepared between them. The advisor read the materials the principal had been working from and prepared a set of questions ahead of the second conversation. A written document was returned at the close of the four weeks, addressing the three areas where the principal's thinking appeared least settled.

The outcome

The written document gave the principal a clearer sense of the two assumptions that most needed to be tested before any commitment was made. He returned to the document at a board session three months later, using elements of it to frame the conversation with the board. He described the engagement as having helped him to decide when, and with what caveats, to bring the question forward.

The situation

A recently appointed chair of a listed Malaysian group had formed the view that her board was well-composed on paper but that the quality of its conversations was not what it could be. Certain directors were dominating agenda items outside their expertise; others were not speaking to the matters where they had most to offer. She wanted an outside reading before raising the question directly with the board.

The engagement

Over twelve weeks, the advisor attended two board meetings as a quiet observer, held confidential conversations with each of the eight directors and the company secretary, and prepared a written document for the chair. The conversations with directors were framed as a general review of how the board was currently working and what the director found most or least useful about it.

The outcome

The document named specific patterns in the board's conversation — not individuals — and suggested two changes to the agenda structure and one change to how certain papers were being presented. The chair found the observations confirmed several things she had sensed but not been able to articulate clearly. She used a redacted version of the document as the basis for a subsequent board conversation on how the board wished to work.

The situation

A family-controlled group entering its third strategy cycle since transitioning to a more professionally managed structure wanted a senior outside presence through the process. Previous strategy cycles had produced documents that were well-received but not well-used. The chair wanted a counterpart who would read the materials carefully and say so if the direction being adopted appeared to rest on assumptions that had not been adequately examined.

The engagement

Monthly conversations with the principal advisor over six months, attendance at two full-day strategy sessions, and two written readings during the engagement — one at the midpoint and one at the adoption stage. The closing presentation to the board reflected the adopted direction and the material questions that the board would need to return to in the years covered by the strategy.

The outcome

The chair described the midpoint reading as having prompted a revision to one of the strategy's three central assumptions — a revision that the leadership team subsequently agreed had strengthened the overall direction. The closing board presentation was received as a more candid account of the strategy's dependencies than the group had produced in previous cycles.