Active board member and CEO interaction

Negotiation, understanding of the other member’s view and role are important ingredients to embrace, if the relationship between the CEO and the board is to succeed (Murden, 2012). It must be noted that both the Chief Executive Officer and the board are charged with separate and distinct roles. Nevertheless, they must work in liaison so as to achieve the goals of the organization. Clarification of roles is important in ensuring that the CEO and the board work in tandem. The board is intended to govern, to oversee managerial trends and opportunism. The board is focused on ensuring that the CEO works in the best interest of the members (Murden, 2012. The CEO, must serve the board, among other stakeholders, effectively. The board is charged with choosing the CEO and helping them to choose their management team (Murden, 2012). The board is, ideally, the employer of the CEO. The CEO is charged with management and administration (Murden, 2012). The board sets the parameters for the CEO to use in executing policies and directions expected, and desirable to the board (Murden, 2012).

The Role of the active member of the board
Advise the CEO. The substance of strategic decisions is explained and discussed by directors before they advise the CEO on the best way to transform such strategies into action (Russell Reynolds Associates, 2014).
They ask hard questions. The CEO is subjected to questions that may be probing and rather uncomfortable by the directors. The performance of the organization vis a vis the decisions made are always on the spotlight (Russell Reynolds Associates, 2014). Typically, directors demonstrate the ability to ask and query.

The act when needed to do so. The chairman gives the directors the green light to act whenever the future or present portfolio of an organization is under siege Russell Reynolds Associates, 2014). They act toughly and decisively when there is a crisis.
They are fully committed and engaged with the organization. Such a stance is always manifested in how they handle crisis and on matters that affect an organization’s performance (Russell Reynolds Associates, 2014).

Commitment to act in the interest of an organization(Russell Reynolds Associates, 2014).
Build a closely knit but independent relationship. There is a common effort to build productive professional relationships that give space to the CEO to execute their duties without interference. Objectivity is a core value (Russell Reynolds Associates, 2014).
Set expectations: the parties set both personal expectations and expectations for each other. The Endeavour to keep their promises.

Roles and responsibilities are established (Russell Reynolds Associates, 2014).
Show humility. A humble approach in presenting each party’s views. Parties are ready to allow their views to be challenged vigorously.

Show transparency, honesty and respect for each other. Mutual respect is a core factor in driving relationships (Russell Reynolds Associates, 2014).

In order that the relationship between the board and the CEO thrives, the board must be cognizant of the CEOs role towards the other parties and stakeholders in the organization (Murden, 2012). When the chair of the board relates well with the CEO, there is a good chance that the organization will reap benefits. A healthy relationship between the chair, the directors and the CEO is a suitable recipe for solving organizational challenges and crisis (Murden, 2012). Partnership between the CEO and the board must be mooted if an organization is to succeed (Murden, 2012).

A study by students at UMEA University, Björklund and Dahlström (2016), showed that an active board’s existence cannot be understood via the network roles and board service. An active board is partly sustained by the fact that they have control, especially in SMEs (Björklund & Dahlström, 2016). Nevertheless, such control impacted negatively on board activity. It suggested that when respondents hold internal control as an important ingredient, the number of outside directors and board members reduce, and thus not being helpful in having a board that is active(Björklund & Dahlström, 2016). Indeed, Ranft and O’Neil (2001) concur that organizations hesitate to include a big number of directors, particularly, those from outside for the fear of losing control over the organization. Furthermore, since there are contradicting outcomes on the issue of whether the boards are really active, it was not possible to find an answer that was concise.