In my experience there are two types of boards in the for-profit space. If the company bootstrapped itself to profitability without taking any or very much investment, and especially not taking investment from experienced investors, the board will be a bunch of friends of the CEO who rubber-stamp everything.
For companies that either are already public or are in the pipeline of venture capital start up to acquisition or i p o, the board dynamics can be very interesting and well dynamic.
The main difference is that in this case the people who sit on the board, the startup founder CEO usually, and representatives of the various investor groups, have usually done this before and have a play book. Their objective is to maximize the return on their investment, and that's what they do professionally.
Unfortunately, in my experience, in spite of the fact that this should result in a much more functional and experienced Board of directors, somehow things still end up getting pretty weird in a lot of cases. It mostly comes down to Ego and head games various directors seam inclined to play, often having to do with previous interactions or rivalries between investor groups. Also, CEOs are often cut from a certain type of personality cloth that plays into this gamesmanship. I'm not talking about the founder CEO , I'm talking about the CEO that was brought in to scale the company up and prepare it for acquisition or public markets. He ( it's almost always a he) needs to think about his own career, especially if things aren't going as well as everybody would like to think they are. It often boils down to a game of prisoner's dilemma.
When this sort of thing gets out of hand, it can begin to feel like some sort of five dimensional poker game where you don't even know the rules. A bit like the game Mao if anyone remembers that.
For companies that either are already public or are in the pipeline of venture capital start up to acquisition or i p o, the board dynamics can be very interesting and well dynamic.
The main difference is that in this case the people who sit on the board, the startup founder CEO usually, and representatives of the various investor groups, have usually done this before and have a play book. Their objective is to maximize the return on their investment, and that's what they do professionally.
Unfortunately, in my experience, in spite of the fact that this should result in a much more functional and experienced Board of directors, somehow things still end up getting pretty weird in a lot of cases. It mostly comes down to Ego and head games various directors seam inclined to play, often having to do with previous interactions or rivalries between investor groups. Also, CEOs are often cut from a certain type of personality cloth that plays into this gamesmanship. I'm not talking about the founder CEO , I'm talking about the CEO that was brought in to scale the company up and prepare it for acquisition or public markets. He ( it's almost always a he) needs to think about his own career, especially if things aren't going as well as everybody would like to think they are. It often boils down to a game of prisoner's dilemma.
When this sort of thing gets out of hand, it can begin to feel like some sort of five dimensional poker game where you don't even know the rules. A bit like the game Mao if anyone remembers that.