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!

Do you struggle with too much on your "todo" list? Is the attraction of social media diverting your attention from concentrating on more important things?

If you can relate to this, you must read this outstanding article. It is as practical and helpful as the problem is profound.

The latest Regus work-life balance report has just been published. Generally, people are working harder than they were two years ago. However they say they are able to manage their work and home lives adequately.

Interestingly, workers and owners in smaller businesses are better off than in larger businesses. This surprised me, because I often hear anecdotal comments from small business owners and workers who say they work harder and longer than workers in big businesses.

I struggle with the concept of a work-life balance. A work-life balance implies a separation between our work-life and our personal-life. Yet with the ubiquity of mobile technology, smartphones, working-from-home arrangements and an "always on" mentality, the supposed separation has become very blurred. For me, the notion of a "lifestyle balance" has much more meaning. What do you think?

For the record, the average work-life balance across Regus' global survey of 16,000 workers in 80 countries is 124. New Zealanders punched above average with a score of 126, but near neighbours Australia returned an even higher score of 129. Maybe that's why the current net migration figures are favouring the lucky country.

A very interesting article appeared over at law.com this week. The author, Catherine Dunn, asked whether governance boards are prepared for the rising tide of young directors (particularly those from the ranks of the so-called "Millennials"). Ms Dunn noted that younger people think differently, have different motivations, and ask different types of questions (than older people).

Dunn's article provided a deja vu moment for me—because over the past six months I've been asking established directors and CEOs what they think about the appointment of young directors to Boards. The response to my informal survey? Generally, the people I spoke with said that calls for younger directors need to be carefully tempered with the need to retain experience. Every time an older director is replaced by a young director, 20–30+ years of experience is removed from the discussion and decision-making process (the wise old head).

So, it is good to have the vitality of youth and the good questions they ask, but this needs to be balanced with the retention of experience. A balance which is difficult to achieve in my view! How can this be best achieved?