ATM - A2 Milk Corporation Limited

[winner69]

Couldn't agree more, she has no loyalty to the firm, being a Director and a CEO of the same company, isn't that called double dipping.

Doesn’t get Directors fees

Quite a common practice

Some companies even have the CFO on the Board

I have no issues ....a good thing

[BlackPeter]

Couldn't agree more, she has no loyalty to the firm, being a Director and a CEO of the same company, isn't that called double dipping.

Well, its definitely questionable governance. Given that the CEO reports to the board it means Ms Hrdlicka is reprorting basically into herself. I can see how this leads to very bad decisions (not for the board, but for the sharheholders). Its like using a fox (or ferret in the NZ context) to watch over your hen house ...

[dobby41]

Well, its definitely questionable governance. Given that the CEO reports to the board it means Ms Hrdlicka is reprorting basically into herself. I can see how this leads to very bad decisions (not for the board, but for the sharheholders). Its like using a fox (or ferret in the NZ context) to watch over your hen house ...

To be fair she is only one of many directors - not like she has the final say.
I'm not sure what the advantage of having the CEO as a MD also is. She should attend many, if not all, board meetings as CEO anyway - just not the same vote if she isn't a MD.

[winner69]

Greenslade of Heartland is one example of CEO also being a Director. Many others

Doesn’t seem to cause any angst

[BlackPeter]

To be fair she is only one of many directors - not like she has the final say.
I'm not sure what the advantage of having the CEO as a MD also is. She should attend many, if not all, board meetings as CEO anyway - just not the same vote if she isn't a MD.

Well, yes - that's what they always say.

In practise is it already difficult enough for a board to control a CEO who is not part of it. CEO (working full time in the business) will always have more and fresher information about said business. Board members are only working part time (for that paticular organisation) and, given that they hired the CEO in the first place have as well some emotional attachment following him/her (confirmation bias). Been there, seen that.

Having the Exec on the board just makes it harder. Obviously - it all depends on the personality of the CEO and there are exceptions, but in general does the NZSA not recommend to have the CEO as well on the board - and they should know.

[winner69]

Lewis Gardon of Fisher and Paykel Healthcare is one example of CEO also being a Director. Many other examples

Doesn’t seem to cause any angst

[BlackPeter]

Lewis Gardon of Fisher and Paykel Healthcare is one example of CEO also being a Director. Many other examples

Doesn’t seem to cause any angst

The fact that it does work in some cases does not mean it is a good idea to do so.

Many drivers used to dodge using a seat belt and most of them survived driving their car without buckling up. This fact is however no evidence, that it is a good idea not to use a seatbelt. Ask the ones who died ;

[Sideshow Bob]

If the lights flickered at A2 HQ, then that was because I just voted against on all on principle.

That should have them shaking in their boots (not)

[Sideshow Bob]

Lewis Gardon of Fisher and Paykel Healthcare is one example of CEO also being a Director. Many other examples

Doesn’t seem to cause any angst

I think in practicality, most CEO's need to sit in on the board meetings to provide information, perspective and context to proceedings, and more of the granular detail - that the board doesn't have. Not being on the board allows the board to then remove the CEO from any particular discussion as it wishes.

I don't think it really matters, but may mean that a seat is taken by the CEO whereas could have another on the board which may offer different perspective and expertise.

[Leftfield]

I've voted in favour. (I'm not a Jane knocker. Way too early to judge her performance IMO)