The board is there to advise & CEO and provide support, and step in if things go wrong.
In this case it's worth noting that the CEO is also the largest shareholder, so it is difficult to argue they weren't representing shareholder interest.
Are they filled with other CEOs? I thought boards were filled with different people concerned with different topics. Where do you see that they're filled with other CEOs?
It's either that or they are referring to the board being useless against the CEO. Usually the board is the only group keeping a CEO in check. Honestly don't know from the tone of the comment though
The board's most important job is to figure out if the CEO should be fired. Your comment seems to imply that the board should never fire a CEO if that CEO is on the board. If that's the policy, then having a board with the CEO on it seems fairly pointless.
They do. In a healthy company board is a sort of dampening force that steers CEO away from bad moves and advice him/her so that opportunities are not missed. Elizabeth Holms would be at much better place if board had excercised its authority. They are legally required to be part of almost all big decisions that are being made and they have the authority to at least bring in stockholder vote if they lose confidence in CEO.
reply