Finally companies are realising that it is necessary to pay for Directors who have both the ability and experience but also the time to devote to the important work of the Board. While companies continue to try to do it on the cheap, they will receive what they pay for.
Directors should have no more than one non-executive chairmanship and no more than two other directorships. Also, all of these are not compatible with additional full-time employment.
In addition, remember that the days calculated for Board and Committee meetings needs to de doubled and tripled, to calculate the actual days dedicated to a Board position to cover many other aspects required by this role. Meetings with company officials, customers and suppliers, visits to installations, even meetings with government and statutory authorities on behalf of the company are all part of the role and do not often count in the 'number of days' requirement. Even proper preparation for the formal meetings needs to be counted.
Let us take this role seriously, finally. This is not and should not be just about the money and the contacts!
OAM
See article:
Companies are finding it increasingly hard to recruit non-executive directors - because potential candidates fear that the risks and the workload will be excessive. The days of the serial non-exec are numbered, reports Robert Watts
There was a time when a gentleman could put his ample bottom on the chairs of a few boardrooms and not be terribly taxed. This notion of the non-executive directorship as sinecure, was most resonantly expressed in the 1960s by the late Lord Boothby, the former Tory MP: "No effort of any kind is called for," he said.
See full Article.
Also see: Jorma Ollila overdoes it on Boards and What is the right price for a Non-Executive Director?
Posts
