According to Crawford (2007), the two principle roles within the board are those of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and the Chair of the board. Despite the fact that these roles are different, they are often held by the same individual. The role of the CEO is to lead the management. The role of the chair of the board is to lead the board. A key role of the board is to monitor the actions of the CEO. Crawford suggested that in the presence of an efficient CEO, the CEO and chairman of the board should be a single entity.
According to Nevels (2010), the chair of the board, has to maintain the relations between the CEO and the board and additionally, direct the tasks allocated to board and those of each director in order to maintain efficiency-a role that requires great negotiating and diplomatic skills effectively acting as the interface between the CEO and the board. Additionally, it is within the remit of the chair of the board to address underperformance by an individual director
Pointer and Jennings (2002) discussed the significance on the CEO in the construction of an efficient board and outlined a multi-point strategy aimed at the CEO in order to accomplish this. They wrote about the need for self-evaluation by the board in order to assess both its performance and contributions to the running of the corporation. In their experience it was often observed that the CEO was under the misconception that because the CEO understood the items in question, that this would be mirrored by the board. As the board is constructed of various individuals, not necessarily filed experts in the Operations of the corporation, it was suggested that communication needs to be strategically assessed, focussing on the issue at hand, and that over-communication was a positive approach.
According to Conlon and Smith (2010), there are three tiers in management; the CEO, the senior management team and specific roles dependant on the structure of the company. A principle role of the CEO within this construct, is the plan of succession management in order to maintain business continuity. The CEO must have contingency plans should anything happen to the CEO, thus there is a viable continuity even in the absence of a handover in a worst-case scenario. Conlon and Smith additionally proposed a six-step system to identify suitable candidates for the role. This involved a clear definition of the requirements of the role, evaluation of potential contenders and appropriate feedback, evaluation of development of the potential contenders, developing a list of suitable external contenders, reassessment of contenders and subsequent appointment.
Tucci (2004) wrote that all CEOs need to build rewards into the staff remuneration packages for both entrepreneurship and acceptance for failure which at some point is an inevitable occurrence. Conversely, promoting innovations with terminal intensity in the absence of severe scrutinization would inevitably result in foreseeable failure. Corporation culture is influenced by the input of the CEO. Adopting standard modus operandi restricts outliers and unconventional practices however it is no mat