VARIABLES INMUNOHISTOQUÍMICAS

Questions about oneself can be answered without recourse to theory or specific expertise and responses are generally able to be more automatic, instinctive and comfortable. Thus, the initial questions were designed to explore interviewees’ perceptions of their major motivations for pursuing governance roles, they also contributed to a relaxed interview process (Bogdan & Bilken, 1992, p. 96). The opening two questions of the interview were: “What made you want to be a director or involved in governance?” and “Is it as you had imagined? Please elaborate.”

Participants identified three main drivers for their involvement in governance. These were: having been approached; their own personal interest in governance; and the director role being a career extension from the work they had done previously. Three of the participants also mentioned that directorships offered the chance to contribute their knowledge, or operational experience, to boards. Table 3 summarises responses for both Crown directors and women private directors in the sample. Crown director responses are discussed first and compared with the private directors in section 4.3.1.

Table 3: Why Crown Directors and Private Company Directors became Involved in Governance (Number and percentage of comments in each category)

Reason given Female Crown Directors (7) Male Crown Directors (16) All Crown Directors (23) Female Private Directors (5)* Total Directors (n) (28) Career Extension 2 (29%) 7 (44%) 9 (39%) 0 9 Interest 4 (57%) 5 (31%) 9 (39 %%) 1 (25%) 10 Approached 1 (14%) 4 (25%) 5 (22%) 3 (75%) 8

* Four of the five in the private director group responded to this question and percentages are calculated from those who responded.

It was clear that most of the Crown Company directors had not consciously planned to become directors and they described their involvement as either an extension of what they had already done or as a result of having been approached. The two responses were closely related and several respondents explained that, after a long career and relevant experience, they were approached.

In the most common response, nine of the 23 interviewees indicated that the move into governance had come about as part of the unfolding of their career paths. Seven of the men (just under half) spoke about directorships or involvement in governance being a career extension. Of these seven, five referred to the process as a “natural” one: “a natural progression” for instance from CEO, or a “natural extension” of management and public life experience, or a “natural evolution”. Mentioning this extension from CEO or management roles was the case for just two of the women directors, neither of whom used the word “natural” in relation to the transition.

Nine of the Crown directors said they became involved in the role because they had an interest in governance. In terms of gender, over half of the women in the sample and a third of the men, gave this response. One of the men said simply, “I retired at the age of 50 and I was too young to go out to play golf and I felt I could contribute my skills and being a director was something that had attracted me for a number of years”. Another said he had a “strong interest in strategy development”. Participants’ interests had been roused while they were in business – perhaps because of problems when the board intervened in a business decision – or as one of the women put it, “I really never knew what went on in the boardroom, and neither did any of the other general managers”. Two respondents, both of whom had served in high profile public capacities elsewhere, spoke in terms of enjoyment, with the male respondent saying, “I enjoy decision- making. I enjoy distilling a variety of issues” and the female respondent commenting, “I love making policy”.

Nearly a quarter of the Crown directors (four of the men and one woman) said they became involved in governance after being approached. One participant said: “you don’t apply; you get asked”. As one director, outlining his career through to retirement put it, “I don’t think I consciously set out to be a director … I had quite a long

such appointments, including the Ministry of State Owned Enterprises”. Similarly one of the female participants said: “I was invited...it was a matter of just picking up opportunities as they presented themselves, not a career decision in any way”.

In a slightly different vein, one woman said she was interested in governance because of her legal and financial training and was invited to join a board: “I suppose I filled the need for a female gender balance and the need to have people with financial skills”.

The follow-up question asked directors whether their experience had been as they imagined. Four of the Crown directors (two men and two women) said they had not known what to expect of the role. However, for the majority of Crown directors, ten of the men and four of the women, their governance involvement had clearly met their expectations. Most did not elaborate much, often implying that they already knew about the nature of the role. For instance, six of the male Crown directors made comments like: “I’m under no illusions” or “I’d had previous experience”, “It’s fundamentally a leadership role”. One of the women described her experience as “intellectually stimulating” and “collegial”.

Interestingly, three Crown directors responded to the question of whether the role had been as they had imagined by referring to tensions between the governance and management roles. Two men said that the experience was not as they had expected because the role had changed, with one of these adding:

I think directors were originally appointed because they were names or had connections or what have you, but the responsibilities today are quite different…there is a very clear distinction, or there is supposed to be, between governance and management.

Another male interviewee described himself as a “hands-on” person and said, “there’s that continual battle between trying to understand the difference between governance and management”. Similarly, a female Crown director, who herself had a clear sense of the distinction, said “one of the difficulties, I think, in the New Zealand environment around being a board member is that there are a significant number of people who don’t understand the difference between governance and management”.

Another male Crown director, however, said the role was “90 percent common sense and the other 10 percent, I believe, is trust and confidence in your CEO and your colleague directors”. One female director, who had experience in a range of Crown Companies, commented that “it’s much more interesting being the Chair and being able to drive things. Being a director is a little frustrating … it doesn’t have the same excitement as running your own ship”.

For the majority of Crown directors (three female and ten male) their governance involvement has clearly met their expectations. Of the female private directors the majority responded in the same way (three of the five).

4.3.1 Why Private Directors became Involved in Governance

The majority of specialist commentators were not asked about why they became involved in governance. However, four of the five female private directors explained why they had become involved in governance. As shown in Table 3, two female private directors said they were invited, another said someone suggested the idea to her, and her involvement as a committee person was part of a transition in the late 1980s “from committees to boards”. For the fourth interviewee, involvement came from an “overwhelming interest” particularly in risk management and the financial aspects of business.

In essence, for the female private directors, three quarters reported that being approached was the main driver for their involvement in governance. This was in contrast to the Crown director group where only a quarter of the females reported being approached.

Involvement in governance as a career extension was also a point of contrast between the two types of directors (private and Crown). None of the female private directors identified this route whereas two female Crown directors did and seven males.

The director experience had met the expectations of three of the four women who answered this question. Of these, one mentioned the role was “interesting” and another was enthusiastic: “It’s probably the first time in my life that the culmination of everything I’ve

ever done has been needed”. The other private company director said it was too long ago for her to remember her expectations.

4.3.2 Summary: Why Directors became Involved in Governance

Crown directors reported that three main factors influenced participation of directors in governance roles: an extension of a career path, interest, and being approached. In general, Crown directors saw career extension or interest as the key drivers, although females identified interest more strongly than career extension, which was more common for males, who frequently used the term “natural” progression or extension. For female private directors, however, being approached was the main influence that prompted their involvement.