The implementation of good governance is the responsibility of the directors in accordance with their fiduciary obligations to the company, and the board is required to behave cooperatively. In this instance, each director made an effort to use their unique expertise, knowledge, and experience in the boardroom. Additionally, this instance demonstrated how successful governance aims to encourage the exchange of ideas, pinpoint important problems, weigh different solutions, and reach well-informed judgments.
There were numerous occasions when it was essential to have discussions that occasionally turned into disagreements which should be settled quickly because they can affect the efficacy of the board and the way the company runs. The correct flow of information was a critical value since nothing may damage the relationship between the board of directors and management more than a lack of knowledge (Hasson, 2006). However, due to the major differences between the management and board duties, the values cannot always be precisely defined. Before taking active action, boards should speak with management to see how they are resolving problems and to see if they can change the pattern for the better (Hasson, 2006). The CEO and other managers handle day-to-day management tasks, whereas boards of directors focus on more general mission-oriented operations (Hasson, 2006). As a result, misconceptions result because the board mostly oversees the larger picture while management focuses on short-term perspectives.
Overall, it has been demonstrated that a company gains significantly when boards and management maintain a good and open working relationship. In order to achieve success in the business with great efficiency, the connection between the boards of directors and management should be deliberately planned. An organization may thrive and expand if each of the parties concentrates on its duties and does not engage in unnecessary conflicts.
Reference
Hasson, R. (2006). How to resolve board disputes more effectively. MIT Sloan Management Review, 48(1), 77–80.