on point. I don't know the situation on modern Boards. I can only tell you that in the late 90s and early 2000s I worked for someone who sat on several boards. He had a lot of experience in banking and management. He took it very seriously. He had a high regard for others on these boards. In advance of board meetings he had huge binders he studied, and he went prepared. My dad also sat on a couple of boards in his lifetime; not nearly as many as my boss.
You have to ask yourself about a Board like Tesla. Do they worry about Musk? Are they just cronies, or is it the kind of board that can confront him and say: "Your behavior is bad for our stock price. It's terrible for the reputation of our company?" I don't know. I know that the major agencies in Hollywood were very assertive about reining in crazy behavior. If they had to send top management to rehab for a month they'd do it immediately. (Not so much with the talent--but the suits, yes)
Look at Theranos. Somehow Elizabeth Holmes convince a lot of smart people to sit on that board. They didn't know anything about the products that company made. They appear not to have known the products were worthless frauds. Did they do research? Did they read those thick binders and find things that didn't make sense or were hard to believe? How about those absurd financial projections? Did Holmes deliberately not pick any Board members who knew anything about finance? Was that a competent board, despite the credentials of the people sitting on it?
I think there's a very good chance that many Boards have members on them who love the paychecks and prestige but don't do any homework. Recent events make me wonder about Boeing. What was going on at the board meetings at Worldcom? Also, should board members be held liable for the misconduct of senior management? (Maybe in some cases they are)
Sorry to blather on, but this is a really interesting topic.
= new reply since forum marked as read