I was recently introduced as a “leading” advocate of an “expertise” board. I guess I am pleased to be described as “leading,” because “lagging” probably would connote that I am deceased!
I am delighted that the concept of an expertise board is becoming known: A board composed of persons each having particular competencies (i.e., knowledge, skills, experience, and expertise) needed for the board to have as a whole all of the competencies necessary to achieve its future objectives. This is in contrast to a “constituency” board which is composed of persons who represent the view of a particular constituency (such as the US Congress or a state legislature).
In this month's issue of Acredula, we advocate “The Case for the ‘Expertise’ Board: Selecting Board Members on the Basis of ‘Competencies’ rather than ‘Constituencies.’”
Although “words are my business” now, many do not know I have a background in mathematics and statistical analysis. I conducted public opinion polls and focus groups before practicing law, and I have continued to review and extrapolate the empirical data from such polls and groups to the present day. I believe that both existing law and changes in law should be supported by empirical data.
So “The Case for . . .” article begins with empirical data supporting the expertise board. It then discusses basic tenants of corporation law also in its support.
I passionately believe that governing boards are not only the first line of defense against mismanagement and fraud, but also the best line of offense for good governance. Recent failures over the last dozen years show that all organizations can do a better job selecting their board members. Doing so, upon the basis of the collective expertise and competencies of the board as a whole, may reinvigorate confidence in corporate America.
Read past issues of Acredula.