> Alphabet expects that its board will appoint a new, non-executive chairman at its next meeting in January, meaning that it will join the ranks of Apple and Microsoft as major companies with non-executive chairman.
Could someone provide some context around this topic of executive/non-executive chairpersons?
> Could someone provide some context around this topic of executive/non-executive chairpersons?
An executive chairman is something of a weird beast; they are both chairman of the board and an executive employee involved in managing the firm (as an employee, they usually report to the CEO, but the CEO is accountable to the board, which the chairman, well, chairs.) The exact division of duties between an executive chairman and the CEO is different in every firm using the arrangement, I would expect.
A non-executive chairman is just the head of the board and not involved in day-to-day executive management of the firm, only oversight of management.
Chair and CEO is less weird than separate executive chairman and CEO. The executive chairman model is more analogous to if, say, the CIO or CFO was also the board chair.
Its considered best practice for corporate governance - mainly as the independent non exec chairman can hold the CEO to account on behalf of the share holders - this should have happened in the HP scandal a while back.
Could someone provide some context around this topic of executive/non-executive chairpersons?
Edit: The above quote is taken from the original link which this HN post pointed to - https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/21/eric-schmidt-is-stepping-dow...