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.

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.

Why do seemingly successful companies choose to diversify and, in doing so, put their future success at serious risk? The latest is a long line of companies to expand their reach is Dell. This week, with their acquisition of Quest Software, Dell made the move from being a hardware company (they make computer systems), to being a hardware and software company.

On the surface, this looks like a good move. But when one looks at history, I'm not so sure. The sustaining of high performance over time is hard. When Zook and Rogers surveyed 2000 companies, they found just 10% sustained profitable growth continuously through the first decade of the new millennium. That's right, just 10%. They identified three characteristics that were common to the successful companies. Profitable companies reduced the scope of their business (Dell has just expanded theirs); they looked for profitable opportunities within their core business boundaries; and, they set high performance targets. So, with this insight, why would any company complicate its business as Dell has just chosen to do? 

What role should a Board of Directors play in the development of strategy? I've heard many responses when I've asked this question—ranging from "rubber stamp the CEO's plan" through to "actively create and implement the strategy".

The best answer lies between these extremes. The Board should be fully involved with the development of the strategy and oversight of execution, but it should not become involved with implementation because that is the job of management (the Board should "create, decide and monitor" but not "do"). There seems to be widespread agreement amongst researchers that this level of involvement is appropriate, and importantly, that this level of involvement is associated with good company performance. And it makes sense—after all, the Board (not the CEO) is ultimately responsible for the performance of the organisation. Given this argument, why do so many Boards steadfastly remain passive when it comes to the development strategy? They are doing their companies and their shareholders a gross disservice. 

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.

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.