Jason M. Lemkin and a CEO discuss a new board meeting format that splits speaking time 50/50 between board and management. The meetings are shorter and cover more ground, but they question whether the two-day time commitment is worth it, and debate whether boards should shift from compliance-focused oversight to actively advising on company decisions.
They're great. I said, I want 50% of the words to be out of the board's mouth and 50% of the words out of my mouth. Anyway, we put those Jason M. Lemkin— it was really good. And normally you run like way over and we skip lunch and we skip the breaks and no one goes to the bathroom. Like we finished early and we covered everything. It was a terrific board meeting. Yeah. I don't know why I get on that, but I'm still on a little bit of a high of our new format.
Let me ask you two questions about that. One, flipping around now as the executive chairman. Yep. Was it worth two days of Yamini's time? Two days of the CEO's time. I get that the, there's a lot to do, but she has a big job.
See, I would've argued historically a lot of her board's job is compliance, right? Yeah. And, and a lot of what a board does is make sure you don't back up over a cliff. And what I want the board to add more value. The board's given a lot of context and a lot of experience. Can the board help us navigate a little bit? And so historically it's been a lot of readout and it's been a little bit of, okay, so I'll give you a little inside baseball. One of the management team members criticized the board meeting and said, the board meeting, Brian doesn't, isn't CEO anymore, so he doesn't get a QBR. It's basically Brian's QBR. And so we said, let's move from Brian's QBR to an actual board meeting. And I think it was mostly compliance and for the board, and this board meeting was much more for the management team.
