It's been said that better boards usually lead to better business performance. Such claims have been widely reported—in the press; in classrooms; amongst consultants; and, during informal chatter amongst business executives—however they are potentially misleading.
I am amongst those who would like to think that better leads to better performance. However, I'm not sure what "better" means, nor that any direct link exists between governance and performance. Does "better" mean more active, more experienced, more diverse, more engaged, or more something-else? We need to find out, so we know what we are talking about. To the second point, we don't know how boards influence performance. Several researchers have postulated a relationship between governance and performance but, as yet, conclusive explanations have remained elusive. Thus, my doctoral research.
If you have grappled with these questions, I'd love to hear from you, with a view to sharing some ideas and testing a few theories that are starting to form in my mind.
Leave a Reply.
Thoughts on corporate governance, strategy and boardcraft; our place in the world; and other topics that catch my attention.