The words in themselves mean the same.In relation to an organization, they mean giving direction to that organization.
Companies, also very large with thousands of employees and operating in several countries, used to have a board of directors, consisting of a director and Deputy directors.That was not what the directors thought. They did not want to be under, but above, director so. But the director did not see a good plan: there is only one boss here and I am. And he ordered a sign with “President-director” and dropped it on his door.
Sometime in the nineties of the last century, they found it time to put a scoop on top of it.The president’s director, adorned himself with the title: Chairman of the Board of Directors. And the other directors were members of the board of Directors. That’s not pretty enough again, and now the real director has become a CEO, a Chief Executive Officer. And the directors are CFO and what are the most generous C… O They can think even more.
And now that they have given themselves such a beautiful English name, the board of Directors has become a Board of course.
Government and non-profit organizations are hall a bit back there.A death single has a director, but a little club has a board and as soon as they have a little technical or international character they play business and have a board with a CEO etc.
For instance, you have one-man directorates of which the only member is the chairman of a board of directors where no one else is in.I do not know how this Council meets. I think that the president opens the meeting, decides on the agenda, takes the decisions and closes the meeting again after the round. Perhaps he or she occasionally takes a disgraceful decision from the agenda. Childish? Yes, sorry though, but a child is needed to say that the emperor has no clothes.
There are institutions that have both a board and a board of directors. Foundations must have a board, whose members do their job unremunerated and some foundations have a large work organisation that must be led by one or more paid forces.For example, many hospitals have such a structure. But if the Directorate has transformed itself into the board of directors, the supervision of that Directorate must of course be exercised by another body. See the supervisory board there.
All these things are laid down in legal requirements for companies (in all sorts of forms) and foundations and associations.
The so-called public-law organs, which are public companies, have thus again their own structures.
If there is a director in an organisation, there is always a higher body and if that is called higher organ administration, it always stands above the director.And in twenty years the title inflation has struck again, and then everything will have been passed on.
But it is of all time though.I know foundations whose administration has traditionally been is adorned with the title ‘ College of Regents ‘ or ‘ College of Protectors ‘ and the president is of course the praeses or president.
Thanks, Lorenzo, for requesting my reply.
The board determines what goals are pursued by the organisation and why.And makes the necessary resources available for this.
The Executive Board determined, in order to meet those goals , the direction in which the performers should do their work.And how it should be implemented.(Boss of the executors Or: CEO Chief Executive Officer)
This requires a very comprehensive answer if you want to involve all aspects and all legal entities as laid down in the law.I am very brief on the private company (de BV) and leave other forms aside.
The difference between a board and management is that the Board represents the interests of all stakeholders (generally the shareholders in a simple model) (in theory) and also nominates ‘ the statutory director ‘ (SD) who, on behalf of the shareholders, Operates.This SD should not only serve the interest of the shareholders but should weigh the interests of employees and creditors in a balanced way.
The statutory director is final responsible (may make agreements on behalf of the shareholders) for the daily business of the company and is made by his/her and is bounded by what is in the statutes and what is in the law about that role Recorded.
The SD is appointed (and deposited) by a majority of the shareholders and does not know the normal ‘ dismissal protection ‘ as an ordinary employee knows.The management (line managers for example) can be formed by ‘ ordinary ‘ employees who do not have an administrative responsibility (legally defined) task. Everyone can call themselves director, but ‘ the statutory director ‘ is legally established and is also displayed in the registers. In Many countries one consults each other’s statutes and gives each other the circulars (excerpt from the Chamber of Commerce) before any agreements are signed.
In a board of directors, you need to think about the representation of all stakeholders who are in balance and whose roles have a legal/legal basis and more to the daily management of the internal agreements Bound.
These roles often run together in practice and are often not distinguished in the popularly.
If the crap is going to hit the fan it is handy to find out how those proportions were already in place and who on behalf of whom, for which was allowed to make appointments and to put scraps under contracts.
In practice, I oppose Dgas (directors of large shareholders and also some director) who do not realise that the law obliges them to make an integral balance of interests In which their ‘ own ‘ direct interest is only one of the interests.