UPDATE: more filings + latest business confidence results published since original post.

The annual and half-year reports emerging in the New Zealand market this week appear to be generally soft—perhaps indicating that the economy remains relatively fragile, and that strong economic growth may still be some way off.

• Ecoya's revenue is up 16%, while EBITDA remains in the red
• Rangitira reported that operating earnings of $3.3M for the six months to 30 Sept 2012, down from $4.4M for the corresponding period in 2011.
• Sanford's profit fell and sales growth stalled.
• PharmacyBrands appears to be growing, but the bulk of the growth has come from acquisitions.
• In contrast Air New Zealand has provided guidance that it is on track to double its pretax earnings.
• Argosy boosted its first-helf result by 29% (albeit on the back of an in-house merger)
• TOWER (the insurer) reported a 67% increase in net profit after tax.

While business confidence is reportedly improving, more strength is needed in the economy. What do you think the trigger to tip the economy from "fragile" to "strong" will be? 

What role should governance (especially Boards) play in sport? Should sporting codes be governed any differently than commercial businesses or not-for-profit agencies? 

These questions are raised from time-to-time—often by the media and commentators, and especially when a team or code is not doing so well. Yet another case was reported today, this time concerning New Zealand Cricket. Dion Nash is reported as saying "the board is failing in its duty to lead the game in the right direction." Such criticisms are not new. The challenge is in finding and implementing the remedy.

The moving parts that make up a sporting code are familiar—a board, administration, management, players (called workers, employees, volunteers in other contexts), spectators (customers, consumers). In my view, sporting codes are just another form of organisation, albeit with goals specific to their context. Therefore, they should embrace [sound] organisational constructs and practices, including governance.

Dion Nash's call for the NZC Board to take control of the sport's destiny (and ultimately the Black Caps' performance) via sound top-level planning (strategy) has much merit. The development of strategy is now widely accepted in academic circles to be a major task of the Board. To do this effectively, Boards need to be comprised of people who understand the market and emerging trends, and understand and participate in the development of strategy. In NZC's case, that means appointing suitably knowledgeable and competent people to the Board, and soliciting well-structured contributions from various specialists.

The time to act is now. But will the NZC Board be so bold as to make the necessary governance adjustments—for the good of the game?

I get asked this question two or three times most months. Like any social institution, companies are complex and their success is subject to many variables. As far as I am aware, there are no cookie-cutter models that reliably deliver "point and shoot" type results. However, there are things company owners can do to increase the chance that their company will be successful. One of these is to establish a governance board. I'd like to suggest that a first board (or any board for that matter) can offer considerable value in three areas:

• First: strategy. Strategy is now widely (but not universally) accepted as a major role of the board. Owners are typically very busy, and they often can't see the wood for the trees. Also, many are not that good at generating or considering strategic options. A couple of carefully selected board members with well-developed strategy and critical thinking expertise can be really helpful to help understand the environment and set an appropriate course to navigate.
• Second: monitoring. Again, owners/shareholders are very busy! A board will help determine whether the company is performing to plan or not, and help sort out any remedial actions that may be required.
• Third: connections. Gaining access to resources (capital, skills, customers) can be a real challenge for smaller business owners. Directors can help in this regard, because most have a wide network of contacts and are happy to make introductions to secure access to much-needed resources.

These comments are offered in the context of owners of smaller companies becoming comfortable to "let go"—to open the financial records, to reveal the inner workings of the company, and to invite others to contribute to the generation of ideas and strategic options. These are all big hurdles for many owners. Yet they are hurdles which, if vaulted, can have big payoffs, through increased performance and a more sustainable future.

How does one get started down this path? Talking to people with experience is the best option in my opinion.  I am a strong advocate of professional bodies and organised networking groups. They are a good source of information, real-life stories, and, importantly, potential directors. Many of these groups schedule events where more experienced directors, researchers, business owners and CEOs to share case studies (good and bad), to help inform owners that might be considering an external board.

One final point. As an owner or shareholder you hold the control! You decide whether to establish a board or not, and you appoint the directors. And if things don't work as expected, you can (and should!) make changes.

Are you a reader? I used to be. But university intervened. Thirty years ago, after reading my way through university (text books, journals and articles—not novels or anything of general interest), I lost my appetite for reading. When asked "What are you reading?", I'd answer with "Nothing, university cured me." After plowing my way through heavy material for four years, I had reached the point where I simply did not want to pick up anything longer than an article. I still read a little, but my diet was based entirely on articles published in the popular press (Times, National Geographic, The Economist, HBR), and material I needed to read for work.

A few years ago, after a long hiatus, a switch flipped. I rediscovered reading again—reading for pleasure and relaxation, that is. I can't recall the time, the place or the exact trigger. Like earlier in my life, I still read to learn. But now I also read to relax. Here's a selection of titles I have read recently:

• A Beautiful Mind: Sylvia Nasar
• London, The Biography: Peter Ackroyd
• Into the Wider World: Brian Turner
• The Bridge of San Luis Rey: Thornton Wilder

The following titles are stacked up awaiting my attention:

• Titan: Ron Chernow
• Thinking Fast and Slow: Daniel Kahneman
• One day in the life of Ivan Denisovich: Alexandr Solzhenitsyn
• Created for Community: Stanley Grenz

I tend to read about times, people and places—history and biography. I've discovered that, by reading this sort of material, I relax and learn at the same time. Articles like this motivate me. Reading about the past helps me understand today's world

If you read, I'd be interested to hear your story.

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?

The discussion about gender diversity disclosures this week piqued my interest.

NZ Herald article

Are these calls for gender and age disclosures simply representative of societal pressures towards inclusiveness, or are they because increased gender and age diversity is linked to increased company performance?

Researchers have been studying the supposed link between board composition factors and company performance for many years. To date, their findings are inconclusive. Gender diversity does, however, seem to lead to more civilised debate in the boardroom, higher accountabilities and better attendance. So, there appears to be goodness in diversity. However, we must to be careful not to confuse these inputs and activity with the desired output of increased company performance.

New Zealand was first to give women the vote, and that was good for society. Moving towards diversity in the boardroom may also be good for society. However, we don't know that yet. 

I applaud any move towards increased transparency and disclosure, particularly for listed companies. However, if the motivation is to move down a diversity pathway for which no solid evidence linking increased diversity to company performance is available, are we not on dangerous ground?