"The board" isn't exactly a single entity. Even if the current board made this decision unanimously, they were a minority at the beginning of the year.
I'm pretty sure the last point about the makeup of the board is quite common, its often random people who are former or current executive of similar companies. In this case 3 members recently quit leading to the current majority.
The board, like any, is a small group of people, and in this case a small group of people divided into two sides defined by conflicting ideological perspectives. In this case, I imagine the board members have much broader and longer-term perspectives and considerations factoring into their decision making than the significant, significant majority of other companies/boards. Generalizing doesn’t seem particularly helpful.
Unless they had a majority, that is not true. Having 1 or 2 workers on the board would be a good thing, I believe. Too many boards are out of touch with what goes on in the company.
They aren't as powerful as you think- it's not like they get a huge say in how things are run. If the board was a reorg they have the power to put the people in place to make it happen, regardless of what some random Director or VP has to say about it.
Wasn't that a proposal to increase view point diversity? My understanding was that they wanted more conservative board seats. That's different from the diversity this article discusses.
Yeah that's what I disagree with. And its not about board members only - rank and file employees regularly get fired for expressing opinions not endorsed by their orgs.
reply