Calls for more women on boards have been coming thick and fast for a while now. Many proponents (here, here, here) are taking a stand, and the noise seems to be reaching a crescendo. The growing body of research that women make a difference is starting to look compelling. 

The presence of women on boards seems to be associated with many positive aspects of governance, particularly behavioural aspects, including:

• More civilised boardroom behaviours and conversation
• Better dynamics and interaction
• Increased attendance at meetings
• Improved corporate reputation

Women are also better at processing information. However, evidence relating to one metric—some would say the most important one—is still remarkably elusive. Does the presence of woman on company Boards lead to improved financial performance? Is there a causal link? Inferential associations have been made, but no solid evidence has been demonstrated yet. If a causal link does exist, we need to find it. We need to move beyond the emotion, rhetoric, quotas and sideshows, to solid evidence. Then we can move on.

New Zealand has a proud heritage of export-led growth. For over 100 years, the world has beaten a path to our door to buy our protein and fibre. Superficially, this has been great for the nation. Export sales from our large companies grew by 40% in the four years to 2011. Yet in the last 50 years, New Zealand's OECD ranking has plummeted—from the top-5 to well into the bottom third of the list. The trouble is that our large exporters sell low margin commodities. They contribute little to the economy in real terms. And export growth in the rest of the market is languishing at less than 2%. Clearly, our smaller, aspirational companies aren’t getting the traction they need to grow.

How should we respond to this? Do we accept our place in the world? Or should we make the changes necessary to punch above our weight as we have done so well in the past? The late Sir Paul Callaghan was right when he argued that diversification into high-value, high-margin businesses is crucial to our economic future.

The question in my mind, having read the 2012 Budget summary and subsequent comments from MEA, interest.co.nz and others is this: “What role should the government play (if any), to kick start this reinvention of New Zealand’s economy?”

Have you lost confidence in some of the leaders around you? You are not alone. Mike Figliuolo just hit the nail squarely on the head. Check this out:The Leadership model is broken.

• We are broken as leaders.
• We talk funny.
• So what's to fix?
• One person. The whole person.

Mike's thesis is as profound as it is pragmatic.

One of my core motivations for embarking on my doctoral research is a deep belief that a link exists between good company performance and the 'two socials'—social progress and societal wellbeing. If companies can find ways to sustain high levels of performance, then society will be better for it. Getting ahead is good, we have all heard and read messages extolling the virtue. However, many have interpreted 'getting ahead' as getting rich—presumably to enjoy life to the max, without necessarily sharing the gains with others. The saying "He who dies with the most toys wins" comes to mind. This troubles me.

My faith in business leaders to do the right thing was restored somewhat this week however, when I read this article. With references to other studies, including a very good report published by Forbes, the authors suggest that mucking in and helping others is going mainstream. Leaders of successful businesses seem to be moving beyond selfish financial goals and beyond handing out cash, to helping out. This is inspiring stuff, and it should give us all hope. But more than that, it is a call to action. We all have a role to play—some as thinkers and 'thought' leaders, others as implementers and 'do' leaders. What role will you play?

One of the things I'm re-learning as I continue on my doctoral research journey is this—that critical thinking and a broad, open mind are two crucial characteristics that need to be mastered and maintained. The sheer volume of material available at my fingertips (through electronic library systems) is mind-blowing. A simple search on "governance AND high-growth" revealed thousands of peer-reviewed academic articles and books. With this volume of material, where do I start? Clearly, my searches need to become more refined and more specific (and they are). I've found it relatively easy to go down seemingly interesting and relevant pathways, only to subsequently find that I'm miles away from where I need to be.

Learning involves the management of tensions. On one hand, an enquiring mind is good, very good. On the other, the vastness of the pool of information is such that you simply need to become ruthless about what gets explored and what gets left. The question that begs to be answered is: "How do I manage this tension"? As I continue to write my research proposal, I've embraced two techniques that seem to be serving me well:

• Manage my research time ruthlessly. For me, this means 1/4 of my time reading books, 1/4 searching and reviewing academic articles, 1/4 thinking (often as I ride my bike!), and 1/4 writing. Without this guide, it would be very easy to gather stuff and miss the thinking and writing parts.
• Ask and answer two questions immediately after reading any title or abstract. How does this fit? Why does this fit? By ruthlessly asking and answering these questions, I've been able to reduce my reading list by 40-50%. That's got to be good for time management!
• Like many things in life, managing the doctoral research workload is about managing tensions effectively. What works for me may not work for you though. And that's OK.

How do you manage the tension between effective enquiry and information overload?