Every day, news stories and articles from a plethora of sources arrive in my email inbox and news reader software. The deluge is self-inflicted—I need to read widely for my doctoral studies. Mind you, having a voracious appetite for general knowledge doesn't help much!

Every now and again, an article seems to lift itself off the screen, seemingly to attract extra attention as my eyes scan down the headings. Today, one such article was the "Top 100 global thinkers for 2012" list, published by Foreign Policy magazine. I looked at the FP list, because I was fascinated to know whether Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma or the Pakistani student Malala Yousafzai featured anywhere. To my surprise (and delight) both appeared in the top ten.

It seems that, in 2012 at least, global influence is strongly correlated with politics and activism. With one exception (Sebastian Thrum—a computer scientist who has been working on the driverless car), the top ten are all activists or politicians fighting for various causes. It's not until you read further down the list that musicians, economists and business people start to appear.

The point of this muse? Perhaps if you aspire to become globally influential, you should turn to politics in a volatile state, or embrace a vital cause. But most people motivated by these endeavours couldn't care less about fleeting appearances on "influence" lists. Rather, their primary motivation is the cause they've chosen the invest their hearts and souls in, and the enduring impact of their efforts. And therein lies a lesson for us all, as we ponder our role in society and contribution to it.

Last week, I was invited, with 16 others, to help review a Competency Framework being proposed by the Institute of Directors. I commend this initiative, aimed at raising the bar. While competency of itself does not guarantee that any director will be effective, it is a move in the right direction.

Last week, I was invited, with 16 others, to help review a Competency Framework being proposed by the Institute of Directors. I commend this initiative, aimed at raising the bar. While competency of itself does not guarantee that any director will be effective, it is a move in the right direction.

During the wide-ranging discussion, several participants suggested that governance should be professionalised, like medicine, accountancy, law and several other professions. I support these calls—strongly. Why? Well, stories like this get under my skin. While the majority of directors fulfil their legal and ethical responsibilities well, sadly there are a few bad eggs that discredit governance in the public's eyes.

The mechanism would be relatively straightforward, involving perhaps:

• entrance tests (competency, references and interviews)
• maintenance of professional standards (on-going education)
• periodic re-registration (two- or three-yearly)
• tiering (a general registration, and a higher level for directors of large, widely-held or publicly-listed companies)
• a disciplinary tribunal (with teeth and a propensity to act)

The Institute's optional accreditation scheme provides a useful starting point, but it falls short because participation is optional. In my opinion, governance must be professionalised, with a robust body and process not dissimilar to medicine (Colleges of Practice, Medical Council of New Zealand, Disciplinary Tribunal). Perhaps then the concerns expressed in the article—that directors can dodge bans—will become a thing of the past. Here's hoping.

Like hundreds of millions of viewers around the world, I have been watching the Olympics on television over the last week or so. Cycling, weightlifting and athletics are the sports that capture my imagination. The technical skill and mental capabilities of the athletes astounds me. How do they move so fast, throw so far, lift so high? In most cases, years and years of preparation go before a single moment, an opportunity to excel, to win.

Winning is important to competitors, and to nations. You just have to look at the response of those athletes that expected to win but didn't. At what point does winning become an unhealthy obsession? Winning needs to be held in context. Is the ultimate goal to vanquish others, to prove a point, or to fully realise one's one potential?

The role the judicial system plays in the governance ecosystem—dealing with fraudulent directors, company failures and company liquidations—eats me up. So much value is lost through inappropriate boardroom behaviours and decisions. And shareholders are left to pick up the pieces (and in far too many cases, bury them). Commonsense tells us that it is far better to avoid danger than pick up the pieces afterwards. But how can and should boards improve their performance to avoid fraud or failure events?

Carly Fiorina, an experienced director and previously CEO of ICT giant HP, wrote an interesting piece today. You can read it here. She made some insightful observations:

• Too many Board members serve too long
• Too many board members go along to get along
• Dominate voices and cliques can reduce decision-making quality
• Some board members don't understand the business
• Some board agendas are too full

• Conduct self-assessments and performance reviews
• Institute term limits
• Make board appointment process transparent
• Make board (and particularly decision-making) processes transparent
• Shareholders should hold board accountable (through questions)

While Carly's comments reflect her US-centric experience, most of the observations and antidotes are equally applicable in other countries, including New Zealand. Notice most of Carly's antidotes relate to process and behaviour, and not to director competence (competence is addressed in antidote one only). Carly's call to hold boards accountable is on the money—because boards hold the ultimate responsibility for the performance of the organisation. 

In my experience, the challenge most boards face in this regard is one of implementation. How does one implement an effective governance framework that improves the prospect of good company performance and holds directors accountable? The recently updated The Four Pillars of Governance Best Practice (published by the Institute of Directors in New Zealand) provides a very useful starting point. This document provides useful best practice guidance and a clear code of practice—all aimed at helping directors and boards avoid the sort of carnage (and the expensive involvement of the judicial ecosystem) that we read about far too often in the newspapers. I commend it to all directors and CEOs. 

What's your attitude towards risk? Are you a pragmatist, a conservator, a maximiser or, are you a manager?

When I was young I used to ride motorbikes on the farm—fast, sans helmet and often in light clothing. It was the normal thing to do in the seventies. I also did many other things that, looking back, could easily be described as "risky" in today's terms. My risk appetite was high (and to be truthful, I probably didn't even think about it at the time). Now, forty years on, our children have grown and all but left home. I've gathered a wealth of life experiences. Unsurprisingly, my appetite for risk—as a father, husband and as a business professional—has changed. In some areas, I take fewer risks than before. In others, more.

Understanding our attitude towards risk in the business world is as crucial as it is in our personal lives. There's a great article over at the HBR Blog Network that puts it all in perspective—particularly our response in different market conditions and the downstream consequences that follow. I commend it to you over coffee today!