I did not say these were representive of Corporate board meetings. I said they were representive of corporate boardrooms (where all kinds of meetings are held). Sorry for the nuance. Like you, I have plenty of experience with Corporate boards (Fortune 250 in my case) and of course they are different and, yes, there is plenty of push back in those sessions, which I’ve personally experienced. But at least the White House had a relatively open and transparent Cabinet meeting, which has not been the case very often the past four years. That was my point, and why many Americans may have found it refreshing, regardless of their political stripes.
Like it or not, the comparison is stark to the previous administration’s Cabinet meetings . . . Wait, there weren’t any, except ones led by his wife. What would be the significance of that? While many may consider the broadcast of the meeting performative - of course it was - the fact that such a 2-hour meeting was held was rather remarkable. These types of meetings are held all the time in corporate boardrooms without the transparency.
The only thing I'll comment on is that this is representative of corporate board meetings behind closed doors. That's a topic to which I can speak with some authority. No board meeting of a healthy company would be run like this. Real board meetings have real deliberation and push-back. There might be some self-congratulatory remarks, but anything approaching the level of this cabinet meeting would be cut off by any competent and serious CEO. Any self-respecting person would resign if a board meeting went like this, and probably sell their holdings because the company would be a on a path to failure. Also, particularly for publicly traded companies, board meetings can't be public because they have to be able to have difficult conversations, to make real decisions, and would want to discuss future plans, which cannot be shared when they are in development (forward-looking statements and all that).
I did not say these were representive of Corporate board meetings. I said they were representive of corporate boardrooms (where all kinds of meetings are held). Sorry for the nuance. Like you, I have plenty of experience with Corporate boards (Fortune 250 in my case) and of course they are different and, yes, there is plenty of push back in those sessions, which I’ve personally experienced. But at least the White House had a relatively open and transparent Cabinet meeting, which has not been the case very often the past four years. That was my point, and why many Americans may have found it refreshing, regardless of their political stripes.
Like it or not, the comparison is stark to the previous administration’s Cabinet meetings . . . Wait, there weren’t any, except ones led by his wife. What would be the significance of that? While many may consider the broadcast of the meeting performative - of course it was - the fact that such a 2-hour meeting was held was rather remarkable. These types of meetings are held all the time in corporate boardrooms without the transparency.
The only thing I'll comment on is that this is representative of corporate board meetings behind closed doors. That's a topic to which I can speak with some authority. No board meeting of a healthy company would be run like this. Real board meetings have real deliberation and push-back. There might be some self-congratulatory remarks, but anything approaching the level of this cabinet meeting would be cut off by any competent and serious CEO. Any self-respecting person would resign if a board meeting went like this, and probably sell their holdings because the company would be a on a path to failure. Also, particularly for publicly traded companies, board meetings can't be public because they have to be able to have difficult conversations, to make real decisions, and would want to discuss future plans, which cannot be shared when they are in development (forward-looking statements and all that).