Tussle in the Boardroom

Folks,

Recently I had a personal lunch with a couple of company's headhonchos (mostly chief executive officers [CEOs]).

Of course, being a journalist has its own perks than say, being something else.

The fact of the matter is that some of the CEOs are not comfortable running the company if the board starts to behave like  executive body than being an oversight body.

This, by the way, does not apply if the company is wholly-owned or partly-owned by an executive chairman.

In such situation, the CEO has little choice but to follow the business directions as set out by the major shareholder who has interest in the company.

But then again, if you are at the board level, you should not meddle in petty executive issues of running day-to-day operations.

The board -- with all the wisdoms, conscience and experiences of its member compositions -- should concentrate on the business and strategic directions of the company, and oversee in critical and crucial areas such as financial performance and audit issues.

Hiring of staff (other than the CEO), and answering management-related questions should solely be in the hand of the CEO and/or CFO.

After all, why hire top patriarchs to complete the echelons of runnning the team, if the board is going to meddle in daily operations?

Such "unseen hands" is detrimental to the company's progress to the next level of growth.

And it goes against the principle of good corporate governance.

And it is for this matter that I, as a financial journalist with such a privilege to heard those personal and off-the-record stories, pity those CEOs being put in such situation.

Even if the CEO is a strong man or woman that can academically challenge the board in the most professional manner, but in the end, if the board does not like him or her, then it will be hard for them to steer the company in rough course of challenging operating environment.

I can only wish the best for them.