Corporate Governance & Organization Life Cycle: The Changing Role ...

practitioner’s perspective is, to some extent, limited by extensive but unique personal experience. In order to combine the strengths of these two outlooks and offset their weaknesses, a qualitative method based on interviews was selected as this appeared to be the best approach to observe this unique environment. To better understand the world of a board, the theoretical tools developed by academics were used to prepare a framework and protocol for field interviews. These interviews with directors in their own environment allowed exploration of the business phenomenon from their perspective.

As discussed in chapter 5, 34 board members were interviewed from organizations of different sizes, in different phases of their life cycle and operating in different business settings. These included directors of for-profit business organizations, as well as not-for-profit and government entities. Some directors were on more than one board in various organizations operating in different sectors of activity. This diversity of background was necessary to discover whether the selection criteria to bring on new board members was similar or different in various settings. In this regard, the model developed in chapter 2 explores the relationship between the various phases of an organization’s life cycle and the level of difficulty of a director’s functions during those phases. The posited changes in the selection criteria for directors over time are also examined.

In addition, and in light of the recent changes in the regulatory framework in the United States and Canada, the conflicting requirements of independence, board experience, and the corollary issues of multiboard seats or interlocks were also discussed with the interviewees to assess their potential impact on the recruitment process. Chapters 6 and 7 discuss these conflicting governance requirements that on the one hand demand more competence, knowledge, and independence and yet on the other acknowledge the need for experience to gain competence that may, circularly, require a seat on multiple boards. Unlike the regulatory situation in the United States, the implementation of the governance framework in Canada is mostly voluntary, with the notable exception of Bill 198.⁷In this environment, being a director on many boards is perceived