Hi Rogues,
It appears to me that the influence of Board members on company decisions varies considerably among companies. I suspect it is very common that the Chair and the CEO occupy the driving seat, and the opinions of other Board members may or may not be significant, through no fault of their own. My personal view is that any precise separation of strategic and operational matters is often not so clearcut; how can Board members dismiss as "an operational matter" a range of important decisions? Examples would include appointment of senior managers (or sales persons), the nature of company leadership, the quality of staff morale, staff remuneration . . . My point is that each Board member needs to understand at the operational level, what is happening. Board members can't simply rely on what they are told by the CEO alone. Of course the CEO is highly responsible for accurate reporting, but no matter how genuinely the CEO operates, there will be other views that should also be heard, so that overall assessments are improved, and comment or guidance enhanced.
Otherwise, if things blow up - oh well, just sack the CEO . . . and the Chair while we're about it. Oh, great! What a pathetic response. No, we need a change of mindset, and direct Board members to get out there on the floor on a regular basis, to listen and observe. This is not to weaken the CEO, but strengthen that position by providing broader advice. Too many individuals think they know just what is needed. (One can look at posts on this site to see some pertinent examples.)
As CEO, Geoff exercised his greatest direct influence on the company. As a Board member, he has needed to work indirectly, and in my view has done so with the best interests of the company and its shareholders at the forefront. I have a deliberate approach with my investment in AnteoTech - I get to every AGM (I missed only one over the last fourteen years), so I can meet the directors and senior management regularly, make some assessment of the character of each, and where possible, get to know them better. After all, I am asking them to be my representative on the direction of the company. I pay a great deal of attention to character. In my view, Geoff is the one I know best, and he a very honest and capable person, and has my strong support. I have come to know the Chairman, not to the same extent, but I trust his character and capability. The other three i know less, but I support them in their roles, quite satisfied with their intent and competence.
Another issue is assessing direction, at the time, and in hindsight. Take DiaSource as an example; yes, it was too big a mouthful to swallow, but at the time Anteo Diagnostics as it was then, seemed unable to get out of the bind of continuing CRs; it was hoped that DiaSource would provide a revenue stream. It did, but not enough. In retrospect, it was a distraction. At the time, I supported the rationale, so I am in no position to criticise in retrospect. And I don't. It's all too easy to say in hindsight "well, that was a wrong move", and go on to blame unfairly.
Sack the whole Board! And the CEO for good measure! Sure, let's do that. By the way, what decisions for the company would you make today that would immediately solve all our problems? Not generalisations - specific decisions? And who should replace those Board members? Too often we are barracking from the sidelines.
Ah well, enough vitriol from me over my morning cuppa.
Expand
(20min delay)