Management: Crashing the Boards

When hotel giant Marriott International needed a new board member last year, it nominated investment banker George Munoz, 51, an amiable, meticulous Texan who runs a private investment firm in Washington. It isn't hard to see why Munoz got the nod: he went to the right school (Harvard Law, class of '78), he knows the right people (Marriott CEO Bill Marriott is a friend), and he has managed multibillion-dollar portfolios. But Munoz doesn't simply fit the profile of the traditional corporate director: he's an expert on Latin America, where Marriott hopes to expand aggressively, and he's a CPA who can truly read a financial statement--what's on the lines and what's between them.

Balance sheet? CPA? Regional expert? Since when do such things really matter in the boardroom? Since Enron and Tyco and WorldCom. Munoz is one of a new breed of director that just might change corporate governance permanently and for the better. The corporate scandals of the past few years have inspired a flurry of strict new government and industry rules on board composition and responsibility. These rules could do much to dismantle the old-boy, do-little director network--in other words, to make directors work for their money.

This has not been welcome news for many of the old boys (or girls) or for many of the executives who had hoped to succeed them in sinecures. Paul Lapides, director of the Corporate Governance Center at Kennesaw State University in Atlanta, estimates that 15% of sitting directors of U.S. public companies will give up their seats over the next 18 months--triple the usual rate of turnover. Recruiting firms say the number of director searches they have been asked to conduct has already shot up--20% to 50% over the number a year ago--and that several hundred director seats will be added in the next two years by S&P 500 companies alone. Despite all the talk of no one wanting to be a director these days, "none of those seats will go empty," says Sarah Teslik, executive director of the Council of Institutional Investors, an association of pension funds. "It is still the most sought-after job in America. You're playing with the big boys."

But now the job will include demands and risks that many candidates among the ranks of traditional recruits--current and retired top executives, say--aren't willing to accept. Congress, the New York Stock Exchange and NASDAQ all answered calls for reform last year with their respective rule changes. The most substantial changes involve audit committees and outside directors (those without significant financial or family relationships to a company). To help avoid an Enron-like scenario, in which an audit committee doesn't adequately vet auditors' reports, the chairman of that committee must be a financial expert: either a CFO of a public company or someone who has audited one. Three powerful board committees--audit, compensation and nominating (which finds new directors and senior managers)--must now be made up entirely of outside directors. And even the definition of outside has changed: recent employees are barred.

Most corporate boards will not be able to meet these new standards without shuffling or adding directors. IBM, for instance, may have to replace American Express CEO Kenneth Chenault as a member of its compensation committee because AmEx is a $4 billion customer of IBM's.