My wife and I had a wonderful dinner last night, with some newfound friends at their home. The four of us have quite different backgrounds, so the evening was primed for a wide-ranging conversation. And so it came to pass: we explored a rich tapestry of business, social, political, cultural and spiritual ideas.
During the conversation, Jane asked about my research, because she wanted to understand its practical application to business owners, boards and managers. She had heard a little about governance and boards. However, some of the stories in the media and suggestions that "every one should have a board" were a bit frightening. She said she had read some of my research papers, which she found interesting but hard to read. While she understood the words, some of the concepts and their practical application were harder to fathom. Jane asked why I write as I do.
"For my audience", I said.
"OK, that's great; but if you are uncovering some interesting things, to help boards perform better, why don't you write in a way that your audience can understand?"
Jane perceived that my audience is (or should be) business owners, boards and managers, whereas my papers are actually written for, and to meet the expectations of, the research community. I have long planned to re-write my findings into a book format—after the doctoral journey is completed. However, the question set me thinking: should I write two versions of each paper: one for academic consumption and another, more accessible version, for boards and managers? Would this idea be helpful, or are the musings posted on this blog sufficient until the book appears?
Thoughts on corporate governance, strategy and boardcraft; our place in the world; and other topics that catch my attention.