Note: This Muse is somewhat different from many previous entries. Whereas most prior entries record aspects of my doctoral journey, or make suggestions about a range of topics, this Muse simply poses a question: "What is the purpose of economic growth?"

I'm raising this question now because I realised, while re-reading some PhD notes today, that a statement that appears several times in my papers is heavily loaded. The statement is: "High company performance is an important contributor to economic growth and societal wellbeing". Today, for the first time, I realised this statement somehow assumes that economic growth and societal wellbeing are some how "good", and therefore worthy of pursuit. But why? What is the purpose of economic growth? What is the underlying driver?

Before you get too excited, I'm certainly not devaluing economic growth as such. Rather I'm asking why we humans pursue it. I don't have a clear answer right now, but I will ponder this question over the coming days, do some reading, and try to form some views.

To kick the discussion off, Benjamin Friedman, the political economist, writing in 2006, asserted that "Economic growth—meaning a rising standard of living for the clear majority of citizens—more often than not fosters greater opportunity, tolerance of diversity, social mobility, commitment to fairness, and dedication to democracy. Ever since the Enlightenment, Western thinking has regarded each of these tendencies positively, and in explicitly moral terms."

What do you think? I love to hear your ideas—considered, wacky or otherwise!

The ugly face of conflicted interests in local council governance raised it head in Wellington again today. In September, I suggested that it was time for Councils (and Councillors) to resolve the conflict of interest that exists when they appoint themselves to subsidiary company boards.

This morning, the Dominion Post published a front page article stating that Wellington City Councillors had voted to axe perks for board appointments. This sounds like a step in the right direction, however the decision will only become effective from the next term! Further, Councillors can (and probably will) still appoint themselves to plum roles. This smacks of cronyism and the feathering one's nest for personal gain.

It's disappointing that the Council has not bitten the bullet by moving immediately to appoint independent directors to the Boards of subsidiary companies. The appointment of independent directors, through a robust appointment process, will achieve at least three positive outcomes:

• Remove the conflict of interest that exists when Councillors appoint and pay themselves
• Ensure the best possible skills are recruited to maximise business performance
• (Begin to) restore public confidence in civic administration 

Every day, news stories and articles from a plethora of sources arrive in my email inbox and news reader software. The deluge is self-inflicted—I need to read widely for my doctoral studies. Mind you, having a voracious appetite for general knowledge doesn't help much!

Every now and again, an article seems to lift itself off the screen, seemingly to attract extra attention as my eyes scan down the headings. Today, one such article was the "Top 100 global thinkers for 2012" list, published by Foreign Policy magazine. I looked at the FP list, because I was fascinated to know whether Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma or the Pakistani student Malala Yousafzai featured anywhere. To my surprise (and delight) both appeared in the top ten.

It seems that, in 2012 at least, global influence is strongly correlated with politics and activism. With one exception (Sebastian Thrum—a computer scientist who has been working on the driverless car), the top ten are all activists or politicians fighting for various causes. It's not until you read further down the list that musicians, economists and business people start to appear.

The point of this muse? Perhaps if you aspire to become globally influential, you should turn to politics in a volatile state, or embrace a vital cause. But most people motivated by these endeavours couldn't care less about fleeting appearances on "influence" lists. Rather, their primary motivation is the cause they've chosen the invest their hearts and souls in, and the enduring impact of their efforts. And therein lies a lesson for us all, as we ponder our role in society and contribution to it.

Thanksgiving marks the beginning of the Holiday Season in the US. Sinter Klaas is not far away for Western Europeans (5 Dec). Indeed, today marks one month until Christmas Day. With the cooling of the weather in the Northern Hemisphere, and its warming in the Southern, many people start reflecting on the year past, and the year ahead. On their hopes and dreams, and on the giving and receiving of gifts.

In the spirit of the season, and the general theme of this blog, what might your corporate governance wish be this year?

• more diversity on Boards?
• better alignment between pay and performance?
• less corruption and fraud?
• directors taking more responsibility and accountability?
• something completely different?

I'd like to think that 2013 will herald a sea-change for governance; the year in which the boardroom troubles of recent years were consigned history; the year in which Boards got on with the business of growing companies, making them strong and improving societal wellbeing as a result. Gosh, that sounds grand. Is this too much to wish for, or is this something worth striving for?

Over the last 18 months, I have subscribed to what seems like an increasingly eclectic range of newsfeeds, on-line magazines, blogs and podcasts. Some of the material relates directly to my governance research (OK, quite a bit does), and some of the subscriptions are pure indulgences—to take my mind off the former. I've discovered that, in reading widely, I've learnt a little about a lot of things. Interestingly, some of the "unrelated" material has actually been helpful in terms of piecing together disconnected research ideas that I've had floating around. On the flip side, several of the subscriptions have turned out to be "noise" to me, so I've cancelled them.

One article that arrived in my Reeder application today was entitled The history of humans is the history of technology. Titles like this tend to catch my eye, if for no other reason than they are quite provocative.  I quickly discovered the article was an interview with a writer I've not heard of before—Robin Sloan. Hope Mills, the author of the article, interviewed Robin Sloan via email. Yes, via email! In her introduction Mills writes: Robin Sloan is the kind of writer/thinker you want to take out for a beer and ply with questions. About writing. About reading. About life. He is frightfully creative and incredibly open-minded. He also happens to tell really good stories. Below is our conversation, conducted over email, about stories, technology, and giving up the iPhone. 

With an introduction like this, I was hooked. I read the article right through—twice—and have come away with much to ponder. If you can spare a few minutes over the weekend, grab yourself a coffee and read the article. It just might set you thinking as well. If it does, I'd love to hear what you got out of it.

I had the privilege of attending the inaugural Gender Diversity Summit in Auckland yesterday. Approximately 90 delegates—the majority of whom were female leaders from business and academia—assembled to discuss diversity in company C-suites and board rooms. It was an interesting day, and I'm pleased I responded to the invitation to attend. The full participation of women in the senior echelons of business and governance is a topic that needs robust research, critical thought and vigorous debate, to ensure we understand what we are trying to achieve and, crucially, why. If such rigour is not applied, the outcomes of these types of initiatives will naturally reflect the wishes of the most eloquent protagonists.

That leads me nicely to the point of this post. An opinion piece caught my eye while reading the New Zealand Herald in the cab to the Summit venue. Peter Lyons, an Economics teacher at St Peter's College in Epsom, Auckland, wrote a very good article about the important role of critical thinkers in society. Lyons asserted that corporate-speak and populist techno-babble has taken over our society, yet it does us no good. He went on to say critical thinkers are crucial to social and economic progress, because they rise above the status quo and they ask the hard questions like "why?" and "what if?".

Lyons' article was as refreshing as it was timely. Having re-read the article a couple of times, and pondered the discussion at the Summit, I've come to realise we have a rather large blind spot in our society. We naturally drift towards conformity and populist viewpoints, lest we be ostracised by offering alternative views. Somehow, we need to overcome this tendency if our society is to grow and develop. But how? At the risk of grossly oversimplifying things, one option might be to turn to Mr Lyons' profession for help. If philosophy was reintroduced as a core subject in our high school classrooms—to teach the emerging generation how to think critically—I suspect a broader range of options would be debated and better decisions would ensue. And that can only be good for social and economic progress.