1095
n
Liaisons and intrigues
In addition, Jim found that boardroom friends engaged a lot
in another type of behavior towards the CEO: ongoing advice
and counseling. They gave their CEO informal feedback about
the formulation of the rm’s strategy: they acted as a ‘sounding
board’, continuously provided general feedback and sugges-
tions, etc. All this happened outside the company’s formal
board meetings. Directors who were not personal friends hardly
engaged in this type of behavior.
Usually CEOs don’t easily do this; accept or even ask for ongoing
counselling and opinion. It is well known from research that
a primary inhibitor to seeking advice is the perceived effect it
could have on the advice-seeker’s status. People often believe
that others will view their need for assistance as an admission of
uncertainty or dependency, and as an indication that they are
less than fully competent or self-reliant.
There is little doubt that CEOs – who are
expected to be condent, proud, and self-
assured – have these tendencies too! Fierce,
testosterone-driven CEOs may not take
criticism or even advice easily, but if the
director is a personal friend, it might be
easier to swallow. Psychologically, it is easier
to listen to criticism from someone you
know and trust than from a stranger. Hence, having your friends
in the boardroom may not be such a bad thing after all.
CEOs and their stock options . . . (oh please . . .)
Let me now turn my attention (and hopefully yours too . . .) to
the topic of how CEOs generally are rewarded by their boards.
And a major element here is, of course, the illustrious stock
options. Any idea why we continue to reward top executives with
stock options? We accept it, nowadays, as a given, but why do we
have that practice in the rst place?
You might say “because it constitutes performance-related pay;
through them, you nancially reward top managers for their
‘‘
having your
friends in the
boardroom may not
be such a bad thing
after all
’’