A rising level of shareholder activism is driving changes in board oversight at corporations of all sizes around the country, according to governance experts.
Mid-market firms must have policies in place to ensure they are neither promoting nor bearing the brunt of governmental favoritism.
While private companies are not required to have boards of directors, some may want to. Here are 6 reasons why having a board in a private company is a good idea.
Is it possible for a CEO to bear the brunt of responsibility with a crisis that festered before she was in charge? Can a company with a poor track record in corporate integrity ever do enough with new transparency measures to acquire a good reputation?
Sheryl Sandberg may have prompted a new conversation across business about “leaning in,” but surely the Facebook COO and champion of female CEOs everywhere didn’t actually mean to create a silly season for gender-policing pundits. There are lessons here for companies that sincerely try to elevate women executives.
Another knock-on effect of the ACA is that healthcare and hospital systems are struggling to cope with new managerial changes demanded of them. Increasingly, hospital boards want an outside perspective, along with different skill sets—and they are willing to go outside the industry to get it.
Company leaders who overstay their welcome ultimately hurt their organization's performance new research suggests. In addition, management expert Ram Charan argues in his latest book, “Boards that Lead,”that CEO tenure is dropping in part because of boards are no longer reluctant to pull the trigger, but also due to the fact that more and more CEOs are unable to navigate a necessary change of course.
Grumbling about corporate boards -- about long-tenured directors too cozy with management, for example -- may be inevitable among investors, but new research by a young accounting scholar suggests surprisingly that at least one aspect of corporate organization suits Wall Street fine. Company performance actually rises with board tenure—but only up to a point--indicating there’s a tradeoff between knowledge and entrenchment.
Since he announced his intention to step down as CEO of Microsoft Steve Ballmer has triggered a world wide betting game as to who will succeed him. Microsoft’s board has appointed a special committee to help decide if the next chief executive will be an insider like Julie Larson-Green, or the prodigal Stephen Elop of Nokia. (Ladbrokes, the London betting agents give Elop a 5 to 1 advantage.) But the central issue of concern is what the company needs to do to transform since it lost its dominate position in computing. Microsoft once ruled the tech world. Now it’s one player among many. Will the new CEO have his or her options foreclosed?
Why are business leaders –even those who consider themselves of high integrity--prone to ethical missteps? What can organizations do to protect themselves from possible lapses? And don’t kid yourself by thinking, “It can’t happen to me.”
12Page 1 of 2