Talk:Celebrity board director

Am I missing something?
Apart from the fact that it has the words celebrity sprinkled throughout, this article just seems to be about the the roles and responsibilites of Boards of Directors. And a lot of it seems to be verging on Gibberish. For example "Lastly, stewardship theory is another building block that provides a foundation for an effective governance body. In stewardship theory and corporate governance, directors maximize value for the company where the allocation of the board is by shareholders in agency theory and by managers in stewardship theory".

What doess this mean? "In the case of a celebrity board director and corporate governance practice, the shareholders’ wealth potential is at stake."?

Or what does this have to do with celebrity? "A person’s leadership skills associated with a directorship are essential for holding a governance position at a company. Leadership is the ability to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness of the organizations of which they are members. Leadership and management are both stressful during times of economic downturns yet an opportunity for optimizing operations, and it is not necessary to be in a formal leadership position to exert leadership behavior. A director as leader must (a) involve the right people in the decision, at the right time, in the right way; (b) use a process that keeps people engaged and on track; (c) recognize the power of shared decision making; and (d) ask a series of key questions to avoid ineffective decision making."--Alchemist Jack (talk) 13:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * While useless as an encyclopedia article, this crap does provide excellent evidence of the utter uselessness of business administration degrees and the jargon-distilled idiocy that passes as scientific text in that field. 80.221.2.14 (talk) 11:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It isn't entirely useless as an article if it demonstrates said uselessness of the idiocy and corrpution of the corporate body, where corporate leaders are appointed, not for their abilities to contribute to the organisation at an executive level, but for their previously-gained status in the public eye. They may run an organisation into the ground, but they make it look good while doing so. (This is why I've added Dick Cheney to the list.) -Kain (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Some refs...
I'm not entirely convinced this article merits inclusion. Regardless I did find two links that *might* (or might not) justify the term:


 * NY Mag
 * Bloomberg

Manning (talk) 03:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)