Greetings from Portmeirion in north Wales. The management blog has travelled here to attend a two-day symposium – “We are names not numbers” – a discussion of the interconnected worlds of business, politics and the media. (The event takes its name, of course, from the 1960s TV series The Prisoner, which was filmed here.)

We left London in a mini-convoy of coaches on Sunday morning, after listening to a refreshingly candid speech by the British cabinet minister Douglas Alexander. The recent gathering of business leaders and politicians in Davos had been “an object lesson in pessimism and anxiety”, Mr Alexander said. He challenged attendees at the Portmeirion event to “move beyond a rhetoric of criticism”.

Well, we’ve made a start. Tonight we heard from Michael Wolff, the biographer of Rupert Murdoch. Some of his descriptions of the media mogul are unrepeatable, but his main argument will disappoint conspiracy theorists and those who believe Mr Murdoch has been pursuing an ideologically-driven plot to take over the world. On the contrary, Mr Wolff said. “KRM” is an instinctive dealmaker and entrepreneur. He starts from scratch every day, ready to improvise and seize any passing opportunity.

Over the next day and a half we will be exploring more facets of this fast-moving and tumultuous business/media/political world. I’ll report back on the best bits here.

If a piece of research comes up with findings that are startlingly obvious, is there any point to it? I think so. So often ignored, the obvious bears repetition.

Take this new McKinsey survey on how companies make good decisions, on issues such as whether they should enter a new market or buy a competitor. The conclusions aren’t going to lead to a boardroom revolution. I paraphrase:

• Detailed financial modelling and risk analysis works, as does looking at comparable situations from the past;
• The person responsible for implementing a decision should be clearly identified and involved in the decision itself;
• Decisions initiated and approved by the same person, however, generate the worst financial results;
• Companies with no strategic planning process are bad at making decisions;
• CEOs require particularly bold oversight since their pet projects often turn out to be either big successes or big failures;
• Leaders of business units sometimes put their parochial concerns above the needs of the broader organisation.

As I said, not rocket science — but look where rocket science got us…

Last week the Hay Group, a management consultancy best known for its work on pay and rewards, published a report on the failure of chief executives to execute strategy effectively. Out of the report’s main recommendations, one stood out: design better pay and incentive schemes. I wonder who might be able to help out with that?

Hay’s report was called “Make or Break – how leaders keep promises in business”, and on first sight it makes unhappy reading for chief executives. It contains a survey of 100 senior managers who are working just below board level at FTSE 350 companies.

And, goodness me, they are not impressed with their leaders. Almost four-fifths of them say they do not think their businesses will hit the targets set by the boss. A third do not understand the chief executive’s strategy well enough to carry it out. Over a quarter disagree with the messages coming from the top, finding them unrealistic. A fifth of them are just plain bored.

The remainder of the article can be read here. Please post comments below.