What's your attitude towards risk? Are you a pragmatist, a conservator, a maximiser or, are you a manager?

When I was young I used to ride motorbikes on the farm—fast, sans helmet and often in light clothing. It was the normal thing to do in the seventies. I also did many other things that, looking back, could easily be described as "risky" in today's terms. My risk appetite was high (and to be truthful, I probably didn't even think about it at the time). Now, forty years on, our children have grown and all but left home. I've gathered a wealth of life experiences. Unsurprisingly, my appetite for risk—as a father, husband and as a business professional—has changed. In some areas, I take fewer risks than before. In others, more.

Understanding our attitude towards risk in the business world is as crucial as it is in our personal lives. There's a great article over at the HBR Blog Network that puts it all in perspective—particularly our response in different market conditions and the downstream consequences that follow. I commend it to you over coffee today!

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.

Periodically I hear directors introduce themselves with "I'm a professional director". Sometimes, they add "I sit on NN Bboards", where NN could be as high as eight or even ten (boards). Wow. Presumably this means all of their income comes from director fees, and somehow more Boards is better or more prestigious. Am I impressed? Not really.

The core role of any director is to maximise the performance of the company they serve. But how can they do this effectively if they spread their time across as many as eight or ten boards? Ten boards means a maximum of two days per company each month. In this scenario, how can any director possibly understand the issues and strategic options sufficiently well to contribute effectively around the board table? 

Governing a company is demanding. It takes time to understand the issues. Can a director have too many irons in the fire? The stories starting to emerge in the media suggest the answer is a clear "yes".

New Zealand has a proud heritage of export-led growth. For over 100 years, the world has beaten a path to our door to buy our protein and fibre. Superficially, this has been great for the nation. Export sales from our large companies grew by 40% in the four years to 2011. Yet in the last 50 years, New Zealand's OECD ranking has plummeted—from the top-5 to well into the bottom third of the list. The trouble is that our large exporters sell low margin commodities. They contribute little to the economy in real terms. And export growth in the rest of the market is languishing at less than 2%. Clearly, our smaller, aspirational companies aren’t getting the traction they need to grow.

How should we respond to this? Do we accept our place in the world? Or should we make the changes necessary to punch above our weight as we have done so well in the past? The late Sir Paul Callaghan was right when he argued that diversification into high-value, high-margin businesses is crucial to our economic future.

The question in my mind, having read the 2012 Budget summary and subsequent comments from MEA, interest.co.nz and others is this: “What role should the government play (if any), to kick start this reinvention of New Zealand’s economy?”

I've been thinking a lot about the seemingly steady stream of corporate failures and litigations that have filled the front pages of our newspapers in recent times. What has caused these failures? Why have men and women become so motivated by greed that they have compromised the hand that feeds them?

I've rationalised the situation by deciding that there's been a few bad eggs that have caused the trouble. Most corporate directors and executives behave ethically, I thought. Then I came across this opinion piece published in  The New York Times. Deresiewicz tackled the issue head-on. He argued that "capitalism is predicated on bad behaviour". Gosh.

Clearly there is a problem with the system at present. However, capitalism has provided the foundation for many great economies. So, is the capitalist system sound but simply out of balance at present? Or is the foundation that many western economies are built upon fundamentally flawed? Does a new system need to emerge? What do you think?

On paper, academics and practitioners agree that governance boards have two roles: future performance (strategy) and conformance. Yet in reality most Boards seem to expend most of their energy on conformance. Twenty-four days ago, a California lawyer, Douglas Y. Park, asked why Boards do this. Park's blogpost triggered a robust discussion on a LinkedIn group. Now, 324 comments later, a new model for governance seems to be emerging.

This might seem to be a rather minor event on the world's stage, however I think it is significant, for several reasons. I'll highlight two in particular. First, great minds from all around the world have shared their experiences and thoughts about the topic—without spending anything on travel, accommodation or conference fees. The speed of interaction and "reach" has been truly amazing. Second, in addition to purely commentating and critiquing, correspondents have worked together to create a new model. This is one of the first times I've seen an online discussion add such value.

If this example of going beyond "sharing" to "creating" is a bellwether of future learning and knowledge creation, we are in for an exciting ride!