The Chair And Ceo Relationship

Another central feature of the board of directors is the question of whether the CEO is also the chairman of the board. When the CEO is also the chairman this is often referred to as “CEO duality”. In the US the CEO is often the chairman of the board. Studies have shown that the board in most cases

The school principal performs the role of CEO and is ultimately responsible for the management of the school. The relationship between the Chairman and Principal is extremely important, as the school can actually be a very lonely place for the Principal. They are often unable to discuss strategy, contentious issues or confidential information such as financials, succession planning or HR issues with others, as to do so would be unethical and the Principal should try to maintain a professional distance from the teachers. This is where a good working relationship with the Chairman can be extremely valuable.

As Canadian Coalition for Good Corporate Governance indicates that the good governance of a corporation is essential to creating long-term sustainable value and reducing investment risk. In other words, the high quality performance of board directors plays a key role in the success of a corporation. We evaluate it based

To the extent of prevention of corporate failure, I argue that three ASX principles and recommendations could halt the demise of Dick Smith. Firstly, the 2nd principle which is “Structure the board to add value” by structuring the board with a majority of independent directors would prevent CEO dominance because some suggest that independent outside directors can reduce the influence of dominant individuals (ASX, 2014, p. 17). In accordance with Gallagher and Bennie (2015, p. 20), the independent directors are likely to focus on the company’s objectives and not to make decision relying on others. Furthermore, an addressing of independent directors would reduce the reliance on management, and create the effectiveness on monitoring (Dechow et al. 1996 cited in Christensen, Kent, and Stewart (2010)), as well as capability to lessen the conflict of interest between managers and shareholders (Hardjo & Alireza, 2012, p. 4). Thus, DSE’s board would be more active to monitor the CEO’s performances because independent directors pay attentions to the interest of company (Gallagher & Bennie, 2015, p. 20) and shareholders (Hardjo & Alireza, 2012, p. 4)

In any organization the personal and professional relationships between board of directors, CEOs, management and staff play a critical role in how effectively an organization’s operational goals and objectives will be fulfilled. Personal relationships between the board of directors and CEOs can be especially problematic when personal perceptions and emotions are influencing decisions of the organization. Singleton and Nail (1986) indicated in some situations professionals are able to handle business and personal relationships with the same individuals while others see the relationships as dichotomous. Board members that are family or long-time personal friends can create personal bias based on incentives to individual members rather than pursuing the best interest of the organization.

Directors have awarded compensation packages that go well beyond what is required to attract and hold on to executives and have rewarded even poorly performing executives. These executive pay excesses come at the expense of shareholders as well as the company and its employees. Furthermore, a poorly designed executive compensation package can reward decisions that are not in the long-term interests of a company. Excessive CEO pay is essentially a corporate governance problem. When CEOs have too much power in the boardroom, they are able to extract what economists' call "economic rents" from shareholders (Economic rent is distinct from economic profit, which is the difference between a firm's revenues and the opportunity cost of its inputs). The board of directors is supposed to protect shareholder interests and minimize these costs. At approximately two-thirds of US companies, the CEO sits as the board's chair. When one single person serves as both chair and CEO, it is impossible to objectively monitor and evaluate his or her own performance.

It is the board's responsibility to consider and authorize a suitable remuneration package for the company's chief executive officer (CEO), make recommendations with respect to the attractiveness of dividends and dividends pay out, approve stock splits, form the audit committees, approve the company's financial statements, oversee management’s involvement in the shareholders and other stakeholders long-term interests and recommend or discourage major decisions such as acquisitions and mergers.

As Murphy (1998) rightly points out, CEO compensation has become one of the most debated issues in the recent past. A lot of research in this field has been conducted to determine the relationship between CEO pay levels with the corporate performance, firm size, board vigilance, CEO’s human capital, tenure & age. But the results of these researches are not very hopeful and have yielded conflicting results. This review aims at understanding these relationships and also tries to provide an ethical perspective on CEO compensation.

Organizational structure and compensation should be two areas of concern for any chief executive at ARC. In most corporations, the board members and stakeholders are narrowed to investors looking to make a profit. The CEO is paid to make decisions that produce results. Many times in these corporations we see where a CEO is let go with an enormous severance package when they have failed at their job. This has caused a backlash by the American people.

According to the experiment when social relationships were disclosed as part of director-independence regulations, board members didn’t toughen their oversight of their chief-executive pals. Rather, the directors went easier on the C.E.O., perhaps believing that

Hanesbrands Inc. implemented strategy to have Richard A. Noll to hold the Chairman and CEO position. Considering that the Board of Director acts as an advisor and counselor to the CEO and senior management and oversees their activities and performance, this policy has a disadvantage for the company because it can lead to conflict interests. It is still a weakness of this policy, although this weakness is minimized by the rule that the non-management directors will undertake a formal evaluation of the CEO annually and the Compensation Committee along with other independent directors should be responsible for reviewing and approving the compensation program for the CEO (Hanesbrands Inc. Corporate Governance Guidelines, 2016).

The Office of the Chairman is responsible for the overall operation of the Company and implementing the policies set by the Board of Directors (Elliott 34). See Appendix B for the names and positions of top managers.

Given the effect a CEO can have on a company's success, we can understand why their compensation packages

✓ Meeting: the CEO arranges the meeting to meet all directors and discuss about the business strategies or solving problems that the company have in this time or in the future. The advantage is the meeting allows multiple opinions to be express, discuss and resolve a wide range of issues. The disadvantage is the meeting can highlight differences and conflict if not managed efficiently and leading to wasting time for the meeting.

There is extensive research on board composition and the importance it places on different aspects of organisation performance. (Kang H, et al 2007).