The illusion of prestige

The phenomenon is familiar: a company announces the appointment of a new director with a dazzling résumé — former minister, former CEO of a multinational, world-renowned academic. The stock rises, the media applaud, stakeholders are impressed. But are we really strengthening corporate governance, or just buying an expensive illusion of security?

The mirage of the star director

The appeal is understandable. A prestigious name on the board seems to offer multiple benefits:

Yet the reality is usually more complex and less brilliant.

The hidden costs of the celebrity director

1. The paradox of time

The very prestige that makes the celebrity director attractive usually means they carry multiple commitments. Their calendar is saturated with:

The uncomfortable question is: how much real attention can they devote to understanding and overseeing the business?

2. The risk of superficial knowledge

Celebrity directors are often “brilliant generalists” — people able to speak eloquently on any subject. But in a world where business complexity grows exponentially, is that enough?

Depth matters:

3. The ego trap

Celebrity directors arrive with a reputation built over decades. This can create problematic dynamics:

4. The halo effect

The presence of a celebrity director can dull the critical judgment of the rest of the board:

The real value of a director

A director’s real contribution lies not in their CV but in:

Rethinking director selection

Criteria that really matter

  1. Real commitment: genuine availability of time, capacity to focus on the company, willingness to go deep, consistent presence.
  2. Relevant competencies: specific knowledge of the sector, experience in critical areas, capacity to learn, ability to work as a team.
  3. Personal qualities: intellectual humility, moral courage, independence of judgment, ethical commitment.

The director we need

The effective board needs fewer celebrities and more:

The networking trap

One of the most common arguments for celebrity directors is their network of contacts. However:

For board reflection

  1. Are we selecting directors for their capacity for real contribution, or for their prestige?
  2. How much effective time do our most “prestigious” directors devote to understanding the business?
  3. Is there an adequate balance between prestige and real commitment?
  4. How do we measure effective contribution versus perceived contribution?
  5. Are we falling into the trap of the name over the substance?
  6. Do our celebrity directors really add value beyond their reputation?

The future of the board

The board of the future needs less shine and more substance. We need:

The question is not “How impressive is their CV?” but “How much real value can they — and do they want to — add?”

References

Leer en español →

This essay also appeared in