至于董事会成员遴选的条件，并须具备商业经验、对这项角色有兴趣同时以股东利益为导向，只是目前大部分被遴选出来的董事，大多是因为他们的社会地位或只是为了增加董事会成员的多样化，这样的做法是错误的，更有甚至，这种错误还有后遗症，因为董事被任命之后就很难再加以撤消，好说话且没有意见的董事是不怕找不到位置的。
The second case is that existing at Berkshire, where the controlling owner is also the manager. At some companies, this arrangement is facilitated by the existence of two classes of stock endowed with disproportionate voting power. In these situations, it's obvious that the board does not act as an agent between owners and management and that the directors cannot effect chang，e except through persuasion. Therefore, if the owner/manager is mediocre or worse - or is over-reaching - there is little a director can do about it except object. If the directors having no connections to the owner/manager make a unified argument, it may well have some effect. More likely it will not.
第二种就像是发生在Berkshire的，具控制权的大股东本身也是经营阶层，在某些公司，经过特殊的安排，将公司的股权按投票权重的不同分成两类，也会产生这种情况，在这种情况下，很明显的董事会并非所有权人与经营阶层之间的中介，且除非经由劝说，否则董事会很难发挥改变的影响力，也因此要是老板经营者本身的能力平庸或很差劲或不顾他人，则董事除了表示反对以外，别无他法，而要是与老板经营者没有关系的董事碰巧做出相同的结论，有时或许还有用，但大部分的状况下是无济于事的。
