As a reasonably pragmatic type, my starting point when writing is function. Every sentence should have a purpose—it is more important to communicate the message fluently and eloquently than to dress the message in what some describe as "flowery language". Unlike many fiction writers, my default setting is to prioritise function over form.

Yet when I read this article, I found myself thinking about my as yet unwritten thesis. Doctoral theses are limited to 100,000 words (about 270–300 pages), with an expectation that a robust argument will probably require 75,000–85,000 words. Gosh that seems like a lot. Why so long? Bulk for bulk's sake is never going to make the grade. Clearly a balance needs to be struck between function and form though, to ensure the expectations of the academic community are satisfied and that the essence of one's thesis is clearly communicated. But where does one draw the line between function and form?

One of the things I need to tackle in my PhD is to ground my research in theory. Simply, it isn't acceptable to conjure up some grand scheme without showing the theoretical basis from which your ideas emerge. As none of the three main theories of governance (agency, stewardship and resource dependency) account for all situations, I have been looking at decision theory as the theoretical basis for my research. Further, research method also needs a theoretical basis. I am planning to use an iterative inductive-deductive-inductive method, based on grounded theory. 

Do you know of someone in New Zealand or Australia who is an expert in decision theory or grounded theory? If so, can you please contact me because I'd like to speak with them to build my knowledge. Equally, if you can point me to some good books or academic articles, I'd appreciate that as well. As these theories are new territory for me,  I'd welcome any and all suggestions—thanks in advance!

The first (planning) phase of my doctorate journey is drawing to a close. In the next few weeks I expect to finalise my research proposal and defend it in front of the University Confirmation Panel. Assuming that goes well, I can start the research proper, by selecting three companies to participate in the research. I have one already, but need at least two more. Here are the parameters:

• A record of high-growth over at least three years (revenue growth at least 20% pa compounding)
• A mature governance structure in place (a formal board that meets regularly, with reports and minutes)
• Formal records available (annual reports and board minutes)
• Domiciled in New Zealand

Would you like to participate in some ground-breaking research to explore the contribution boards make to company performance? The research will involve observation of board meetings and some interviews, and all company details will be kept 100% confidential. 

Please contact me if your company might be willing to participate, if you know of a company I should consider, or you would like more information. Thanks in advance!

How well to do contribute in your work environment? Most of us rate ourselves fairly highly, but we all have blind spots. Today, Jessica Hagy offered some simple truths to help us lift our game. She suggested we all need six people around us, to challenge and encourage us to perform well.

Thanks Jessica, your thoughts were a timely reminder for me as I continue to wrestle with my doctoral research. 

I agree with Baker and Mowbray. Governance is a socially dynamic phenomenon, with many variables and much complexity. Numerous researchers and practitioners have investigated structural and composition factors over many years. More recently, world-class governance researchers, including Leblanc, Huse and Nicholson, have investigated behavioural and process factors. To date, the research findings have been inconclusive, and causality with performance is yet to be established.

Despite flights of fancy from some commentators, slow progress by researchers, and much frustration all round, the search for a link between governance and company performance is of enormous practical importance. Therefore, efforts to understand the mechanisms within the governance phenomena, and any relationship with company performance, must continue. However, the research agenda much be changed. Attention must move away from consideration of individual characteristics—toward a holistic consideration of governance—if further insights are to be gained and any clear understanding is to be achieved.

My doctoral research efforts attempt to build on Leblanc and Nicholson's work. I plan to use a longitudinal multiple-case study approach (to understand the processes, behaviours and dynamic interactions within the governance system) to focus on the way Boards make decisions. Strategic decision-making has been postulated to be an important factor in the governance–performance relationship. If this is correct, a link between a strategic decisions and subsequent improved company performance should be apparent, after some longitudinal delay. The challenge will be to determine whether or not strategic decision-making can be attributed to the Board.

So where does this leave us? I certainly don't have any silver bullets, and progress is likely to be frustratingly slow. Boardroom diversity is important, however I suspect a focus on decision-making and related factors will reveal more about board performance than arguments about the number of women at the board table. Let's push on.

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.