In your second “Discussion Board” (DB No. 2), I’ve “heard”


In your second “Discussion Board” (DB No. 2), I’ve “heard” (er, read) a lot of posts regarding strategy and the role of the CEO, Board of Directors, SOX, and the “upper echelons” of the company — examples: 1) “The Board of directors is the shareholders of the business/corporate. They have a legal responsibility to govern on behalf of the stockholders and help companies prosper” by Georgeta Stan (July 16, 2021), and we also had:  2) “The Sarbanes-Oxley Act attempted to regain American trust in public markets bypassing regulations and new commitments on the corporation’s Board of Governance (Directors)” by Scott Hakimian (July 16, 2021).

So that begs the question, “How involved should the Board of Director be?”  Is there any way that they can be too much involved???  The role of the Board of Directors could go from being “passive” (i.e., rubber-stamping) to becoming so overly involved (with minutia) that they are a “hindrance.”  How much is too much???  Look for examples.  Also, let’s focus on these elements of “corporate governance” for a moment:


1) What if there is an “Interlocking Board of Directors”? (Mizruchi, 8/1996). This entity refers to the practice of members of a “corporate board of directors” that serve on other “corporate boards of directors” for multiple corporations at the same time, e.g., a board member on McDonald’s board “interlocks” (or serves) as board member of Burger King’s board. Could this be? What’s wrong with this picture? Why? Why not?


2) What is the “collective” interest of the board members’ view towards success of the corporation? Isn’t that superseded by each board member’s “individualistic” interest? Are both equally important? Could that be?

3) Does culture matter? And, which culture matters: 1) “national” or “individualistic” culture, or, 2) his/her “organizational” culture? Are both cultures the same? “Google-around a bit”!!