If the power was equitable, then our boards, then our commissions, our contracting, our wealth-building opportunities would all look very different.
I'm willing to have two directors on the DuPont board, me being one of them.
Benchmark has threatened to block investments that could bolster Uber's competitive position in global markets by bargaining over board seats and its own control.
I'd like to see women get on to boards and run companies despite the fact that men occupy the citadels of power.
I don't love it when people come in and say, 'We need a woman on our board,' or 'Can you invest in this new shopping app because you like to shop?' But whatever gets me in the deal.
Having women on boards is good for women, good for the economy and good for society. A win-win-win outcome: how rare.
My objection to interlocking directorates is not on the assumption that men mean to do wrong. It is because it is humanly impossible for a man representing conflicting interests on two boards and do right by both, no matter how pure his purpose is.
Corporate governance is a huge issue too. We don't have women on these corporate boards. More than half of the students in law school are women, more than half of the women, I think, in medical school now are women.
Being on a board is not just about showing up for the meetings. A board member needs to materially contribute to the success of the business.
When I participate in a Series A deal with VCs, entrepreneur-friendly terms go out the window. VCs remain attached to age-old traditional industry terms. 'Ratchet,' 'carry,' 'vetoes' - you name it.
One of the management imperatives in the '90s is managing diversity. Whatever the organization, when the constituents of that organization look at the board and management staff, they need to find themselves.
I don't believe in quotas for quotas sake, but I think companies without any women on their boards should write to their shareholders and explain why - explain how many women they've interviewed, why they haven't taken anybody on.
