The leaders of Japan and China got off to a tense start but have made significant progress in turning around their relations in recent years.Asia Politicsread more
Tech's hottest IPOs of the year, including Beyond Meat and Zoom, dropped on Monday, falling more than the broader market.Technologyread more
"We do not seek conflict with Iran or any other country," Trump tells reporters in the Oval Office.Politicsread more
Stocks in Asia were tepid in Tuesday morning trade, while investors looked toward to a meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping set to...Asia Marketsread more
Chinese Vice Premier Liu He held a phone conversation with U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, China's Ministry of Commerce...World Economyread more
Sen. Bernie Sanders announced a plan Monday to forgive the country's $1.6 trillion outstanding student loan tab, intensifying the higher education policy debate in the 2020...Personal Financeread more
While earnings usually come in substantially ahead of expectations — as much as 4 or 5 percentage points is not unusual — the downward direction in the outlook doesn't speak...Earningsread more
U.S. President Donald Trump's senior adviser Kellyanne Conway will not testify before the House of Representatives Oversight Committee this week on her alleged violations of...Politicsread more
"We missed being the dominant mobile operating system by a very tiny amount. We were distracted during our antitrust trial. We didn't assign the best people to do the work,"...Technologyread more
PatientsLikeMe was bought by UnitedHealth following a review by Trump's Treasury Department, which scrutinized the start-up because it's backed by Chinese cash.Technologyread more
Some traders think the energy rally is about to wane, despite the sector being one of June's big winners.ETF Edgeread more
There's a lot of mystique about what happens at board meetings and a lot of imagined board-room drama. I read commentary or Twitter or blogs and realize that there are also strongly held convictions that there are these evil VCs who do terrible things to mostly altruistic founders.
The image of boards and of investors vs. founder conflicts has been so at odds with my experiences on dozens of boards over the past 20 years that I thought it was worth sharing what I actually see.
As a starting point, the board is intended to have legal and financial responsibilities to a few key constituencies: shareholders, debt holders, creditors, employees, government and major parties with whom the business operates.
In some ways being a board member is like how I've heard people describe learning to become a pilot: Many hours of boredom followed by some brief moments of absolute panic and fear. In fact, in response to the question "What do boards do?," one Twitter commentator had it mostly right: "Often, not much." That's true.
Executives run the day-to-day, so often the board is more involved as a sparring partner at key intervals.
The administrative work we actually do at board meetings?
Between board meetings we do calls to discuss performance or major initiatives. Often we are asked to get involved in executive-level recruiting. And of course we help with business development introductions and with fund raising events.
Board work does involve a lot of conflict at moments throughout the company. Sometimes conflict comes because a company isn't hitting its expected targets and investors vs. executives have different views in the causes or the consequences of under-performance. Sometimes conflict comes because executives want to increase personal compensation and investors aren't in favor of this. Sometimes it comes because investors believe the company needs more experienced leadership to run the company or more often to help run the company.
But unlike the popular press reporting of this conflict , 80% of the time it is founder-to-founder conflict and not investor-to-founder conflict. The overwhelming majority of conflicts that I've seen on boards over the years are a result of the tensions of either:
In nearly 20 years of sitting on boards I have seen:
Of course I'm not saying most founders have problems — I'm just pointing out that when you're involved with scores of companies you see every kind of human behavior. But importantly, non-founders who are often major contributors to the success of a company and would be interested to know that it's not unheard of to see founders:
I point out the worst that I've seen in 20 years for a reason. Boards are not appointed to be founder-friendly lapdogs for the 1 to 3 founders who start companies and usually own the largest equity positions in the company. Boards are fiduciaries to represent the interest of all shareholders — big and small — and this includes employees who bet with their careers and with reduced pay in order to have equity they hope will be valuable.
To be clear — most founders I've ever worked with have been super ethical, very conscientious, not overly greedy and take their personal responsibilities very seriously. I also want to be clear that some investor board members can act like total jerks at times.
I am usually loyal to the founders I've backed above all else. I consider myself founder friendly. I will work evenings or weekends to help a founder in need. I prefer to leave the passionate, mission-driven founder in charge for as long as is possible. If the founder has limitations in running a company I will normally try any other option other than removing them from the CEO role. And if I believe they aren't the best suited person to run the company I will always sit down and walk the founder through why I believe the company might be better suited with somebody else at the helm. I will see if I can get him or her to see this herself.
But in the end , a board's ultimate loyalty must be to the company and all of its shareholders. The board is there to represent the interests of all shareholders & creditors and to put the interests of the company before their own interests. At times being "founder friendly" can mean protecting many founders from a CEO, or it can even mean providing tough guardrails to protect a CEO's own personal interests from his or her worst instincts. I saw this firs- hand with a CEO who tried to get into numerous company-betting lawsuits that we knew weren't in his best interest.
What prompted this post? It has nothing to do with any individual company. I have been meaning to write this for a while as I've noticed that much of my board time is involved in trying to be an independent referee for founders who themselves are trying to resolve their own conflicts. Those seldom get reported.
The rise of crowdfunding saw the first wave of founders gleeful that they could raise capital without having to deal with terrible VCs. I think we're far enough into this trend to see that having strong board members — including VCs — is a healthy alternative to party-rounds of crowd funding with no oversight.
Lately I've noticed that there is a second wave that many fantasize about a world in which ICOs drive all funding and founders and employees never have to deal with venture capitalists. ICOs certainly have a place in startup financing.
But having a board of directors and having some of those board members be large financial owners in the business with shared corporate governance forces a tension in businesses that I believe is healthy. This is similar to the role that public markets play in helping shape publicly traded companies. At times I'm sure it feels terrible to be a publicly traded company but ultimately I believe the sunshine of publicly reported numbers produces better results. So, too, a healthy and skeptical board.
This post previously appeared on the Both Sides blog and is duplicated here with the author's permission. It has been lightly edited.