Look at the composition of some of the boards of ‘big’ businesses in NZ and you will see a ‘mates club’ that defies belief. An old friend in the UK, who has been a ‘professional director’ for the last 10 years, insists that being a chairman takes 2 days per week, and being a director at least six hours a week; in other words he thinks being chair of one and director of three more is as much as he can handle (you should be aware he was chairman of Beecham’s International at the ripe old age of 29, and so now at 62 has a bit of a perspective on this stuff!).

We have people in New ZEaland who sit of over eight boards, most of them with at least one ‘colleague’ in common. When the company goes to sh1 t, the board tend to dump the CEO and pay themselves additional ‘consulting’ fees to ‘sort it out’. An example – Just look at Telecom, where the CEO who bought AAPT was the Chairman who wrote off $2 BILLION in shareholder value, and wen’t on to be the chairman who has seen shareholder value plunge in three other listed companies. Just look at his ‘croney’ list!

“Where’s that $60 million now? Stoking the hype only ensured that the tech media would have more shit to write about. In this perspective, Digg could do no wrong. Digg didn’t need to be a business, it just had so many users that it could continue to raise money forever without consequence. Party on.”

I just don’t think it’s fair that CEO’s bask in the limelight when they do well, but are also able to take their money and keep a low profile when they turn everything to custard.

I’m all for the limelight but think you need to have the other side there too.