Pathways to governance: The role of education and training in enhancing governance practice and removing barriers to governance roles

Author: Judene Edgar

Supervisors: Steve Henry Alexa Forbes

4 December 2025

Edgar, J. (2025). Pathways to governance: The role of education and training in enhancing governance practice and removing barriers to governance roles [Master's thesis, Otago Polytechnic]. Research Bank. https://doi.org/10.34074/thes.7274

Abstract

This project investigates the pathways into governance and the role that education and training play in shaping director capability, broadening access and strengthening governance practice in New Zealand. Governance has long relied on experience, reputation and networks as the primary route into board roles. While this tradition has produced many capable leaders, it has also entrenched inequities, limited diversity and left capability gaps at a time when boards are facing increasingly complex and diverse challenges. Against this backdrop, I set out to evaluate the existence and value of formal educational pathways in New Zealand and overseas, and to consider whether structured training and potentially mandatory requirements could help to remove barriers, improve practice and create a more inclusive governance ecosystem. My inquiry was designed as a mixed-methods study, blending empirical research with a literature review and reﬂective practice. This study draws on a self-selected online survey of 115 directors circulated primarily via the Institute of Directors, and self-selected in-depth interviews with six Māori and Pasiﬁka women directors, complemented by an international literature review. To deepen understanding of underrepresented experiences, six in-depth interviews were conducted with Māori and Pasiﬁka women directors. Thematic analysis of these interviews was combined with statistical analysis of the survey results to draw out patterns, challenges and opportunities. This research was anchored by an extensive literature review covering seven international jurisdictions alongside New Zealand, supported by content analysis of regulatory frameworks, professional standards and training offerings. By weaving together personal experience, empirical data and international comparison, the report provides a multi-layered view of governance pathways and their implications. The ﬁndings revealed that experience and networks remain the dominant entry routes into governance, yet these mechanisms are not equitable and often exclude those without established executive careers or connections. Internationally, some jurisdictions have adopted compulsory training or structured pathways, while New Zealand remains largely reliant on voluntary approaches. Although there was clear consensus among participants against mandating training, there was strong agreement that accessible and scalable education is vital to both capability and fairness. A key insight was the need to differentiate expectations across sectors: the requirements of a large, listed company are not the same as those of a small charity or community trust, and training pathways must reﬂect this diversity. At the same time, the research highlighted the risks of leaving pathways entirely unstructured, as this reinforces existing inequities and perpetuates governance practices that are too often inconsistent or underdeveloped.

Several key take-home messages emerged:

1. Experience alone is not sufficient; governance must be treated as a professional skillset that requires deliberate and ongoing development.

2. Education pathways matter because they provide structure, consistency and a way to level the ﬁeld for those without privileged access.

3. Persistent barriers remain for women, Māori, Pasiﬁka and those outside traditional executive pipelines, and these must be deliberately addressed.

4. Governance education and expectations need to be scaled to organisational size and complexity, recognising the unique needs of not-for-proﬁts, public entities and listed companies.

5. Capability ﬂourishes when formal education, mentoring, peer learning and lived practice are connected rather than siloed.

6. Reﬂective practice is central to effective governance, as it transforms how directors approach complexity, inclusivity and accountability.

Building on these insights, I’ve identiﬁed a set of actions that are both practical and necessary to strengthen governance capability within the limitations of existing legislation and assuming no progression towards occupational licensing.

1. A structured education pathway for aspiring and new directors is needed to provide consistent foundations and reduce reliance on informal networks as the primary entry point; this would require deliberate efforts from the Institute of Directors, tertiary providers and community governance organisations and others to design accessible, scalable programmes.

2. Minimum training expectations should be introduced that are scaled to organisational size and complexity, ensuring that the governance of small charities is enhanced but not overburdened, while larger, higher-risk entities meet appropriate standards of competence; regulators and sector bodies could play a role in setting proportional guidelines.

3. Ongoing professional development, including inductions and regular board evaluations, must be treated as integral to board service, just as it is in other professions; professional associations and board chairs in particular have a responsibility to embed continuous learning into director expectations as well as those appointing directors.

4. Deliberate measures are required to reduce barriers of cost, access and awareness for women, Māori, Pasiﬁka and those outside traditional executive pipelines, so that governance roles reﬂect the communities they serve; this could involve scholarships, targeted mentoring and partnerships with Māori and Pasiﬁka networks.

5. Reﬂective practice should be embedded into governance education and board evaluation, equipping directors to question assumptions, address bias and integrate Te Tiriti o Waitangi and sustainability into decision-making; educators and board evaluators alike have a role in normalising and supporting this.

Taken together, these actions provide not only a pathway to more equitable participation but also a strategy for lifting the overall standard and resilience of governance in New Zealand. For me as a practitioner, this inquiry has been deeply transformative. It has shifted my identity from someone working in governance to a governance practitioner with both the privilege of inﬂuence and the responsibility to contribute to systemic improvement. It has heightened my appreciation of soft skills, inclusivity, Te Tiriti o Waitangi and sustainability, and has made me more deliberate in how I curate governance narratives, advise directors and shape capability. Importantly, the research also shifted my thinking about Māori approaches to learning and governance. Rather than assuming that a single pathway such as mandatory education was the solution, I came to understand the value of multiple pathways that respect different traditions and ways of learning. Māori methods of whakawhanaungatanga, master–apprentice relationships and experiential learning offer powerful models that can enhance capability and remove barriers without defaulting to one-size-ﬁts-all requirements. This insight deepened my recognition that strengthening governance in Aotearoa means valuing diverse pathways while aiming for the shared outcome of more capable, inclusive boards. Ultimately, this project underscores that the future of governance in New Zealand will not be deﬁned by chance appointments or inherited networks, but by the extent to which we invest deliberately and equitably in developing those who lead.

Keywords

governance, diversity, education, directors, evaluation

Licence

This thesis is publicly available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/