"Noses in, fingers out" has become a bit of a governance cliche, and it makes sense.  But shouldn't directors sometimes get their fingers in at least a little?

We tend to put big, widely-held and publicly listed companies on a governance pedestal, but haven't they actually been the root of some of the biggest failures?

Clearly, an overburdened director is an ineffective director.  But is overboarding really a good indicator of governance risk?

The more I think about director independence, the more weird questions arise.  Ever wonder if you need to be wealthy to be independent?  I have.

Should we do away with the idea of volunteer board members?

Does paying directors just create a new opportunity for self-dealing?

Do executives belong on the board, or is it just asking for self-dealing shenanigans?

What exactly is director independence, and why (if at all) does it matter?

There's a lot of talk about whether organizations should prioritize shareholders or a broader group of stakeholders.  How do we figure out the answer?

To whom - exactly - do you owe a duty as a director?