Corporate board service isn’t charity. It’s risk capital

Recent headlines about a major technology company’s board compensation have reignited a familiar, and often reflexive, debate: how much is too much? It is an easy question, and the wrong one. 

The more consequential issue for boards and shareholders alike is whether director compensation frameworks are still “fit for purpose” in a governance environment that has grown materially more complex, more adversarial, and more global. If board service has quietly evolved into a role that requires greater time, sharper judgment, and higher reputational risk, then our assumptions about compensation deserve a closer look. 

For decades, we have wrapped board service in the language of altruism. Directors “give  back.” They “serve.” Compensation is something one accepts politely, not something one interrogates. That framing may once have reflected reality. It no longer does. 

The quiet transformation of board service 

Modern independent directors are underwriting risk with three forms of capital: time, judgment, and reputation. 

The workload has expanded dramatically. Boards now oversee cyber and AI risk, geopolitical exposure, regulatory volatility, activist preparedness, executive succession under pressure, and culture as a leading indicator of enterprise risk. Learning curves are  shorter. Expectations are higher. Mistakes, especially visible ones, come with greate...