<i>And if a board member isn’t performing well, we get rid of them. I’ve been on boards where the SEC is in there. I’ve been on boards where the Department of Justice is involved. You don’t want that. You destroy companies when you do that. You destroy shareholder value. So what you try to do as board is make sure people are above board. You guard against anything that hurts the companies from an outside perspective. It all comes back to governance and taking care of shareholders.</i><p>This points to a problem with due diligence and/or how board members of Fortune 500 companies are chosen. Can anyone elaborate on how this happens?<p>I get the impression from looking at corporate websites that many board members include former officers of the company, investors, and experienced leaders from adjacent (but not competing) industries. It sounds kind of insidery, which can lead to all kinds of problems and conflicts.
> You know Jay, at this level – it’s the White House. Everything needs to be clearly documented and written down.<p>I understand from the Pod Save America people that taking notes is usually avoided at the White House, since they are required to be part of the permanent record and can be subpoenaed. Destroying notes is not allowed, so it's best to not take them in the first place.<p>Naturally the current crowd have their own ways.<p><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/21/politics/sean-spicer-donald-trump-notebook/index.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/21/politics/sean-spicer-donald-tr...</a>
This is interesting but a bit self-serving. Imagine going around where you work and interviewing someone about their job:
"Is your job easy?"
"The days of my job being easy are over. Everyday I work very hard."
etc.
>And when you say board meeting, most people probably think of you taking a corporate jet somewhere, eating a fancy dinner, and showing up to a few CEO meetings before taking the jet back. How accurate is that?<p>>See Jay, it used to be that way but its changed in the last ten years because the activists [investors] have gotten more involved. It’s a real job. You really have to stay in touch with the company and understand what its doing.<p>said the guy on 4 boards
This guy must have been on the boards of companies that weren't in too much trouble. When the ship is sinking, being a director can become a full time job for a while. If the ship sinks without heavy board involvement trying to prevent it, the board members were negligent.
What I didn't hear was anything about the customers.<p>You may have heard the old saying about relationships: "If Momma ain't happy - ain't nobody happy". I think the same thing goes for a firm's relationship with their customers. If the customer isn't happy, there's no repeat sales and no positive word-of-mouth advertising, leading to decreased sales and revenue, leading to reduced shareholder value.
Most ridiculous aspect of corporate American governance, or lack there of, is making CEO the Chairman of the Board, almost always.<p>It flies in the face of the whole point of the Board! It blows my mind.
You are basically there to approve stuff, like the budget. Only if there's something really stupid it's your job to say no, but that rarely happens. If it's a smaller org you also do some job, like making policies, organize, etc. The smaller the org the more job you will do (and the less you will be paid). Being on the board of a small org like non profit is not very prestigious so it's easy to get in. But it can be a good learning experience. You first have to figure out who is responsible for recruiting new board members, then you have to get someone to suggest you. They don't want someone who actually <i>want's</i> to be a board member.
A guy who was an expert in big cats was featured on a shark show. He commented on how polite and well behaved they were. It wasn't a <i>feeding frenzy.</i> They got in line and took turns.<p>Which only makes sense if you think about it briefly. If sharks were not well mannered, they would all be missing big hunks and covered in gruesome scars. If two sharks fight, someone is going to get maimed.<p>I have no doubt these are very polite, well mannered things. But not because they live in fear of being disagreeable. Instead, it is because if someone on the board cocks an eyebrow, people tremble.<p>Kind of like military bases where people mind their manners because lots of folks there know how to kill you. So, no, you generally don't go around being a blatant disrespectful asshole for lulz.
This is actually a pretty decent overview of what it's like to be on a well-functioning nonprofit board. In that case, instead of shareholder value you're focused on the nonprofit's mission and its long-term viability.
Great read on a subject that I don't know much about.<p>For someone interested in how large corporations function and the power dynamics among the top, do any of you folks have any other recommended reading?
>>> Well the first responsibility is to ensure the company is being run in the best interest of shareholders<p>Do me a favor and tell me that best interests are something else than money, please...
The story depicts a lovely bohemenie and spirit of agreeableness; it sounds like it's almost enforced:<p>> You need to have a cohesive thought process to move the company forward.<p>> if a board member isn’t performing well, we get rid of them<p>> [I’ve] sat on boards with some amazing people who have done some amazing things in the world.<p>What a wonderful club. It doesn't sound like one conducive to dissenting opinions and disagreement. With so much at stake - so many jobs, so much money, and such an impact on communities - it seems that harmony would take a back seat to asking difficult, challenging, critical questions. The interviewee doesn't mention any of that happening. Also:<p>> Each year, all of our names are put up for voting by the shareholders. Shareholders say yes or no and vote [to keep the director]. If the shareholders vote yes, we have automatically put our name in for resignation and the board determines if they are going to accept [the resignation].<p>Shareholders almost never vote no. Effectively, the system above means that the board determines its own members. Again, the board member who challenges consensus or engages in threatening oversight might not last long (or be invited to join another board).<p>It confirms other things I've read about boards, but certainly someone knows more than I do ...
It's always fun to learn about the workings of small systems that have such disproportionate effects on larger systems -- the random articles and comments flowing through HN gave me a better education than what I got in public schooling and university.