Core Perspective - The debate surrounding board compensation is not about the amount but whether the compensation frameworks are suitable for the evolving governance landscape [2][3] Group 1: Evolution of Board Service - Board service has transformed into a role requiring greater time, sharper judgment, and higher reputational risk due to increased complexity and adversarial conditions in governance [2][4] - Modern independent directors are now underwriting risk with time, judgment, and reputation, as their workload has expanded to include oversight of cyber and AI risks, geopolitical exposure, and regulatory volatility [4][5] - The environment for board service has become more personal, with outside actors such as proxy advisory firms and social media influencing perceptions and increasing reputational exposure [5][6] Group 2: Market Dynamics - Independent directorships are now highly competitive, with a scarcity of directors who possess the necessary operating credibility and risk fluency [6] - The traditional method of filling board positions through CEO relationships has shifted, making the selection process more global and competitive [6] Group 3: Compensation Considerations - While board service should not be primarily motivated by financial compensation, it is no longer credible to ignore its importance in decision-making [7][8] - In a rational market, professionals consider the full equation of time commitment, risk exposure, and opportunity cost when deciding on board roles, making compensation a legitimate factor [8]