Prof. David Deakins, Director of the NZ Centre for SME Research at Massey University, provided some great insights this week. He rightly pointed out that small businesses can have a huge impact on the economic development of a nation. He singled out entrepreneurs as having an important role to play.

As I see it, Boards also have a big role to play. First, they can serve as a useful foil for an entrepreneurial founder, particularly when it comes time to create plans, assess opportunities, and monitor performance objectively. Second, Board members have networks and they can (and should) access resources (funding, people, products) in ways that the entrepreneur may not be able to. No doubt there are many other ways Boards can help, but these are two that spring straight to mind. The challenge for Boards is to own this proactive role, and not to just sit back on monitor performance.

Deakins points to the upcoming ICSB conference in June. The SME growth topic will be explored further. I've registered. If you have an interest in growing small business into the next generation of large enterprises, perhaps you should consider attending as well.

A very interesting article appeared over at law.com this week. The author, Catherine Dunn, asked whether governance boards are prepared for the rising tide of young directors (particularly those from the ranks of the so-called "Millennials"). Ms Dunn noted that younger people think differently, have different motivations, and ask different types of questions (than older people).

Dunn's article provided a deja vu moment for me—because over the past six months I've been asking established directors and CEOs what they think about the appointment of young directors to Boards. The response to my informal survey? Generally, the people I spoke with said that calls for younger directors need to be carefully tempered with the need to retain experience. Every time an older director is replaced by a young director, 20–30+ years of experience is removed from the discussion and decision-making process (the wise old head).

So, it is good to have the vitality of youth and the good questions they ask, but this needs to be balanced with the retention of experience. A balance which is difficult to achieve in my view! How can this be best achieved? 

Earlier this week I attended a dinner function with 16 others, to hear a well-regarded Director and Chairman share his thoughts and experiences about leading the Board of a high-growth company. Amongst some great insights, he suggested three areas that Boards of high-growth companies need to focus on closely:

• Capital: Boards need to ensure the company has sufficient capital to fund its growth plan. Otherwise, growth will be limited by available funds, and that inevitably means slower growth, and may mean important market opportunities are missed.
• Capability: Boards need to ensure the company has sufficient people capability to execute its growth plans. That means recruiting a CEO capable of leading the company effectively, both now and in the future. It also means encouraging the CEO to recruit high capability people into key roles, lest the growth of the company outstrip the manager's ability to execute.
• Culture: Driving growth is often hard work, so everyone needs to be on-board. The Board needs to ensure (through the CEO), that everyone is working to the same goal, and that they are signed up to an agreed set of brand/company values. People who can't sign up should be given the opportunity to "get off the bus".

Sounds easy on paper! What do you think?

Some very interesting articles have appeared in Harvard Business Review recently—articles about motivation, meaning and habits. These articles caught my eye because they were very different from the usual diet of (very good) economic, business and leadership articles. The majority of HBR's articles can be categorised as "tools and techniques that readers can apply to improve their business". In contrast, these articles focus on the person—on improving one's self and one's contribution—and they are just as applicable in the boardroom as amongst the wider workforce.

That's right, directors are not immune. These articles are relevant because we seem to be living in a world where selfish motivations take precedence over "community good". I wonder how many corporate failures could have been averted had the characteristics described in these articles been apparent in the boardroom? Perhaps the global financial crisis and subsequent recession may have been averted as well?

In the last couple of days, I've been involved in a very significant discussion with a panel of governance experts from three countries (Canada, USA, New Zealand). We've been exploring the notion of value creation and the role that boards of directors could (should?) be playing in creating value and building wealth. This has been a timely discussion, because it has come not long after my latest research piece which explored this very topic! So, what role should governance boards play in value creation and the development of strategy? Here's a summary of the three main insights from my research:

• Company performance and the level of board involvement in strategy development appear to be linked (active involvement is better)
• The quality of strategic boardroom decisions are highest when proposals are directly linked to agreed strategy
• An open and direct communications style amongst directors (including vigorous debate) is conducive to effective decision-making

I expanded on these points in the group discussion so won't bore you here. Suffice to say, the Board and executive management should work together to identify and agree core purpose (what and why), goals (metrics to measure progress) and strategic imperatives (the big things to be done to achieve the core purpose). Why is doing this together important? It helps with buy-in, with alignment, with the speed and quality of decision-making and, crucially, with the Board taking an active (and accountable) role in creating and building value.

The panel explored a wide range of related topics, some of which are country-specific. You can read the full discussion here (it's a long and rich discussion—86 posts—but well worth the read). If you'd like to discuss this topic further, or explore how to improve value creation in your context, please contact me. 

The discussion about gender diversity disclosures this week piqued my interest.

NZ Herald article

Are these calls for gender and age disclosures simply representative of societal pressures towards inclusiveness, or are they because increased gender and age diversity is linked to increased company performance?

Researchers have been studying the supposed link between board composition factors and company performance for many years. To date, their findings are inconclusive. Gender diversity does, however, seem to lead to more civilised debate in the boardroom, higher accountabilities and better attendance. So, there appears to be goodness in diversity. However, we must to be careful not to confuse these inputs and activity with the desired output of increased company performance.

New Zealand was first to give women the vote, and that was good for society. Moving towards diversity in the boardroom may also be good for society. However, we don't know that yet. 

I applaud any move towards increased transparency and disclosure, particularly for listed companies. However, if the motivation is to move down a diversity pathway for which no solid evidence linking increased diversity to company performance is available, are we not on dangerous ground?