Comments
Getting academic here..
The search for impact of improved governance vs governance activity indicators (board hires etc..) will always be tough. This is due to the "prevented disaster" issue: Success is measured by the absence of incidents. In a young, data poor, secretive or poorly defined sector, statistical work with public data may end up with void or misleading result.
In industry , over the last 100+ years, the general trend has been to note the universality of the risks ( as we are all human), the regularity of serious incidents publicly reported and the noted consequences to the organizations involved. In short, prudent organizations invest in both a culture and system of good governance, as a recognised important survival trait.
At the lower level and within legal limits, governance/employee/participant behaviour is a metric to improve. At the CEO/board/key shareholder/donor level, major governance problems are better framed as an existential risk - something to be avoided at all costs via preventative measures.
So, I do not feel we need to further justify this specific effort: Not all that is worthwhile can be (quantitatively) measured.
Love this transparency Grayden.
Worth noting that Board hires are very rare (usually 1-2, happening only every 2-3 years), so plenty of time for this to land some impactful roles.
Agree that board hire impact could take some time to manifest. Though, in my experience (boards I serve(d) on and that my colleagues serve(d) on), we're bringing on a small number of directors every 1-1.5 years. So, I'd be surprised if it took 2-3 years for impact to be felt here. On a board with staggered terms for directors, typically every year there are directors with expiring terms. Some of those directors are renewed for an additional term. But it's also quite common for one or more directors to leave the board and create a vacancy every year.