Have you experienced the pure delight, the visual symphony, of looking to the horizon after reaching the pinnacle on a seemingly unending trek? When the view changes from the near detail of the next step to the overall context? Yesterday, I had exactly this experience with my research. After spending several weeks wading through a great pile of weighty tomes, academic articles and handwritten notes, feeling somewhat daunted by the seeming lack of progress, a penny dropped and the fog that'd been masking my view lifted.

All new knowledge needs to be built on a worldview (technically, an ontology and an epistemology). In my case, discovering the most suitable starting point for my governance research. I've been struggling with this, because the theory of knowledge doesn't come naturally to me at all. Much of the governance research to this point has employed positivist (financial analyses), post-positivist (structure and composition research) or constructionism (boardroom behaviour) worldviews.

Unfortunately, much of the research to date has revealed very little about the impact boards have on performance. Therefore, my work needed to look at the problem quite differently if any progress was to be made. The new lens finally became clear during a meeting with my Supervisor yesterday, when we explored a couple of seemingly left-field ideas that I'd been investigating in recent days. An intense 30-minute discussion around the whiteboard was all it took. The path forward became clear. And in case you're interested, the worldview is pragmatism, supported by a multiple-case study design and grounded theory.

With the launching point now clear (in my mind, at least!), it's time to pause for a coffee and admire the view, before heading onward and upward again to face the next challenge. Thank you to everyone who has encouraged me in recent weeks, I (now) appreciate it.

Last week, I was invited, with 16 others, to help review a Competency Framework being proposed by the Institute of Directors. I commend this initiative, aimed at raising the bar. While competency of itself does not guarantee that any director will be effective, it is a move in the right direction.

Last week, I was invited, with 16 others, to help review a Competency Framework being proposed by the Institute of Directors. I commend this initiative, aimed at raising the bar. While competency of itself does not guarantee that any director will be effective, it is a move in the right direction.

During the wide-ranging discussion, several participants suggested that governance should be professionalised, like medicine, accountancy, law and several other professions. I support these calls—strongly. Why? Well, stories like this get under my skin. While the majority of directors fulfil their legal and ethical responsibilities well, sadly there are a few bad eggs that discredit governance in the public's eyes.

The mechanism would be relatively straightforward, involving perhaps:

• entrance tests (competency, references and interviews)
• maintenance of professional standards (on-going education)
• periodic re-registration (two- or three-yearly)
• tiering (a general registration, and a higher level for directors of large, widely-held or publicly-listed companies)
• a disciplinary tribunal (with teeth and a propensity to act)

The Institute's optional accreditation scheme provides a useful starting point, but it falls short because participation is optional. In my opinion, governance must be professionalised, with a robust body and process not dissimilar to medicine (Colleges of Practice, Medical Council of New Zealand, Disciplinary Tribunal). Perhaps then the concerns expressed in the article—that directors can dodge bans—will become a thing of the past. Here's hoping.

An outstanding Editorial appeared in our local newspaper, the DominionPost, today. The editorial highlights the significant conflict of interest that exists when local government politicians are appointed to the boards of Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs). The appointment of local councillors—many of whom lack sound governance expertise, and all of whom are conflicted as the editorial argues—must stop. 

Councils and local communities would be far better off if independent directors were appointed to the boards of CCOs (and held accountable through normal shareholder and fiduciary processes). Independent, commercially astute directors would focus entirely on their role of acting in the best interests of, and maximising the performance of, the company. In so doing, the returns to shareholders would more than likely improve over what would otherwise be possible with a highly conflicted Board.

PS: I disagree with one sentence towards the end of the Editorial "...over time, superior systems will produce superior results." No. Governance is a complex and socially dynamic phenomenon. Over time, superior systems should produce superior results. 

Against a backdrop of greed, examples of New Zealand companies taking a strong ethical stand and "doing the right thing" are starting to emerge. This week, Keith Turner, Chair of publicly-listed company Fisher & Paykel Appliances was reported as saying that his approach was to resist trading (in FPA shares) while the Board was debating and commercially analysing ideas that could have material value implications. This strong ethical stance—based on what is best for the company—bodes well for the somewhat sullied reputation that governance boards have suffered recently.

Well done FPA Board, your ethical stance is an example that others should follow.

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!

A seemingly small—but ultimately quite significant—statement emerged from the corporate governance sector this week. The CEO of one of New Zealand's larger companies went on record when announcing the company's annual result. He stated that his directors must act in the best interests of the company (not the shareholder).

Meridian chief executive Mark Binns said the company would take time to evaluate the situation but would ultimately come to a decision that was in the best interests of Meridian Energy Limited. ''The obligations of the directors are very clearly set out in companies law and the Companies Act, that is to act in the best interests of the company.''

This was a refreshing statement, because most directors and executives (in New Zealand) incorrectly believe their role is to act in the best interests of the shareholder. Research conducted in 2010 by Dr James Lockhart indicated that the majority of directors in New Zealand simply do not understand their legal obligations. The New Zealand Company Act is quite clear: directors must act in the best interests of company. Well done, Mr Binns.