When society (typically the government of the day) decides to embrace a nation-scale change, what challenges does that throw down? Some people seem to embrace change well, others tend to be much more comfortable with the status quo. Some openly resist change. Society is, by definition, dynamic. Therefore, change is normal and natural. And the way we react/respond to change can have a significant bearing on our quality of life.

How do you cope with change? Are you on the vanguard, leading change initiatives? Or are you one back, happily embracing changes that others define? Are you perhaps a bit more ambivalent, simply accommodating  change when it comes. Or, do you tend to resist change? I'd love to hear your story.

Gender reporting is a good move in my opinion—albeit a very small one because companies already report the names of their directors in their annual reports. A reporting system is a far better option than a quota system. Quota systems run the very real risk of tokenism and making-up-the-numbers, neither of which contribute to effective governance. In contrast, a reporting system will simply make the composition of boards plain. I'm hoping it will improve governance effectiveness and ultimately company performance. Time will tell.

No doubt the move will also provide a platform for lobby groups to exert pressure where they see fit. It will be interesting to see what develops in the 2013 reporting season and beyond!

Why do seemingly successful companies choose to diversify and, in doing so, put their future success at serious risk? The latest is a long line of companies to expand their reach is Dell. This week, with their acquisition of Quest Software, Dell made the move from being a hardware company (they make computer systems), to being a hardware and software company.

On the surface, this looks like a good move. But when one looks at history, I'm not so sure. The sustaining of high performance over time is hard. When Zook and Rogers surveyed 2000 companies, they found just 10% sustained profitable growth continuously through the first decade of the new millennium. That's right, just 10%. They identified three characteristics that were common to the successful companies. Profitable companies reduced the scope of their business (Dell has just expanded theirs); they looked for profitable opportunities within their core business boundaries; and, they set high performance targets. So, with this insight, why would any company complicate its business as Dell has just chosen to do? 

What role should a Board of Directors play in the development of strategy? I've heard many responses when I've asked this question—ranging from "rubber stamp the CEO's plan" through to "actively create and implement the strategy".

The best answer lies between these extremes. The Board should be fully involved with the development of the strategy and oversight of execution, but it should not become involved with implementation because that is the job of management (the Board should "create, decide and monitor" but not "do"). There seems to be widespread agreement amongst researchers that this level of involvement is appropriate, and importantly, that this level of involvement is associated with good company performance. And it makes sense—after all, the Board (not the CEO) is ultimately responsible for the performance of the organisation. Given this argument, why do so many Boards steadfastly remain passive when it comes to the development strategy? They are doing their companies and their shareholders a gross disservice. 

I am no English scholar, but I am a bit of a stickler when it comes to grammar and punctuation. Take for instance the humble apostrophe. How often have you seen an apostrophe inserted in the word "it's" to imply ownership when "its" is correct? Another rather common mistake in business writing is the incorrect usage of the plural "are" following a company name. When a company (singular) takes an action, the company "is" acting.

The incorrect usage of words, punctuation and grammatical constructs is a sign of sloppiness. It also creates an opportunity for miscommunication to occur. In today's technologically-equipped world, real-time grammar checkers should have all but eradicated poor grammar. Yet the evidence seems to show the opposite. The widespread influence of instant communication via email, text messaging and Twitter seems to have elevated speed (of response) over precision (of message).

Think about the messages you have received in the last seven days. How many contained ambiguities or grammatical errors? Perhaps more importantly, how many messages did you misinterpret or misunderstand—to the extent that you needed to ask a question or double-back to check on a relationship? This might sound a little picky, but each poorly constructed message has the potential to reduce our productivity. And that brings me to the point. Isn't technology supposed to enhance our productivity? I'm sure it can, but only if we get the basics correct first.