THERE are company directors, executive directors, independent directors, and then there are some 'super men'- people who hold more than six directorships in listed companies, well over the number (four, apparently) thought to be a fair cap for people with full-time jobs.
It's hardly any new phenomenon - the matter of multiple directorships has come up every now and then as an issue for debate, and even as a subject of academic interest, to see if there's any link between the level of directors' commitment and corporate performance.
A good number of directors here - more than 50, according to a recent study of some 3,800 Singapore directors - sit on at least six boards. Other surveys in past years also found an inordinately high number of directors here - as high as nine in 10 - holding more than one seat, quite unlike in Australia or the United States where the majority of directors are involved in just one company.
The phenomenon in Singapore, of course, reflects the relatively small pool of corporate and financial expertise, and experience available to provide guidance, checks and balances, and help steer the ship in today's challenging climate.
As company directors - whose duties are, in a nutshell, to oversee the strategic direction and management of the business, and promote its overall success - these corporate stewards must keep abreast of developments in the industry, have a handle on matters with impact on the business, apart from other obligations such as attending board meetings and company functions.
Given the scope of their duties - and quite aside from key imperatives such as the need to avoid conflicts of interests on the job - the desirability of 'excessive' multiple directorships is a valid concern. The question of over-commitment and over-stretching of directors should not be dismissed out of hand, even if we are talking about, in many cases, top-notch professionals who may have proven themselves capable in various fields.
Why, in a fairly bizarre if not outrageous case that should not go uncommented on, DBS Bank has said, in a public reprimand of an employee, that the job of its vice-president and head of credit cards marketing is one so challenging, 'with many responsibilities', that it doubts that she should have the 'time and energy' to meet the demands of the role of president of a women's advocacy group.
On the other hand, it is no coincidence that among the directors with the most number of corporate seats are Members of Parliament, who in fact hold down their constituency duties on top of a full-time professional or corporate job.
These super-men may insist that they have no problem multi-tasking and fulfilling their fiduciary and other duties as directors.
But, in so far as they have a duty to exercise due care, skill and diligence as directors, they are also held accountable for their companies' actions and outcomes - a responsibility, if not liability, that presumably ought to keep them on their toes.
