Being on a board is not just about showing up for the meetings. A board member needs to materially contribute to the success of the business.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Board meetings should not be for the benefit of the board. They should be for the benefit of the CEO and the senior team.
A boardroom is a collection of individuals, and individuals have varying motives, egos, agendas and qualifications. Sometimes the dynamics can go off track.
The best board members aren't elected by default. CEOs that set themselves up with their choice of board member - which means getting more than one term sheet and doing extensive reference checking - are better off.
In the age of activism that is clearly not going away, it would seem that some form of engagement from directors with shareholders - rather than directors simply taking their cues from management - would go a long way toward helping boards work on behalf of all shareholders rather just the most vocal.
My role is not so much to lobby but be a sounding board for people. That's a more effective place for me to be.
So what I do is supervise the boarding process trying to get the shows the way I'd like them to be. And in some cases I've completely redone a board myself even though I'm not credited for it.
Politics exist in the boardroom, as well.
Meetings should be great - they're opportunities for a group of people sitting together around a table to directly communicate. That should be a good thing. And it is, but only if treated as a rare delicacy.
Meetings get a bad rap, and deservedly so - most are disorganized and distracted. But they can be a critical tool for getting your team on the same page.
I'm not too involved in day-to-day matters. I only supervise at the board level.
No opposing quotes found.