Upload
dora-vell
View
229
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
1/46
www.vell.com 1 Vell Executive Search
ENTREPRENEURIAL BOARDS
TECHNOLOGYBOARDSSURVEY
www.vell.com
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
2/46
www.vell.com2Vell Executive Search
Material in this book is or educational purposes only.
For legal advice, please consult your lawyer.The views expressed by individuals (or companies)
in this book do not necessarily reect
the views shared by the companies they reer to.
1050 Winter Street, Suite 1000, Waltham, MA 02451General: 781-416-4003 eFax: 781-207-0553
www.vell.com
I interested in purchasing a download o this report or need additionalcopies, please visit the Vell Executive Search Board Website
www.vell.com/boards
Copyright, 2007 by Vell & Associates, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States o America.No part o this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any orm or by any means, or stored in adatabase or retrieval system, except as permitted under sections 107 or 108 o the United States Copyright Act,without prior written permission o the publisher.
Vell & Associates, Inc., 2007
Published by Vell Executive Search
For corrections, company/title updates, comments or any other inquiries,please email [email protected].
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
3/46
Vell Executive Searchwww.vell.com i
ENTREPRENEURIALBOARDS COMPOSITION
& COMPENSATION SURVEY
Findings rom the Vell Executive Search
Published byVell Executive Search
www.vell.com
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
4/46
Vell Executive SearchVell Executive Search www.vell.comii
Dora Vell, PresidentVell Executive Search
Dora Vell is Managing Partner o Vell Executive Search, a
boutique executive search irm in Boston. Ms. Vell has
successully completed numerous board member and C-level
executive searches including CEOs, COOs, CIOs, and Vice
Presidents at both public and VC-unded companies.
Ms. Vell was a partner in the Heidrick & Struggle s technology
practice or seven years. Prior to her career as a search
proessional, Dora Vell successully managed both a
100-person development project and a $150 million sales
organization at IBM. Her sales and P&L experience at IBM has proven useul in sales and
marketing searches as well as with GM, CEO, and COO searches.
As the holder o seven worldwide patents, Dora has an unusually technical background ora search executive, but one that helps her better under stand the needs o technology clients
and technical executive roles as well as probe candidates or the depth o their technical
experience and expertise.
Ms. Vell has published and been quoted in numerous articles including the Wall Street
Journal, Global CEO magazine, Mass High Tech, the OPUS or the World Economic Forum,
Boston Business Journal, Globe and Mail, CIO.com and IEEE. She has been a eatured
speaker on leadership at numerous conerences.
Ms. Vell currently serves on the advisory board o garage.com in Canada, and is a membero the Boston Chapter and board o Entrepreneurs Organization. She is a member o the
Boston Club and the NACD, having completed the NACD director proessionalism class.
She previously served on the boards o Goodwill, Mary Centre or developmentally
handicapped individuals, and on RBC Capital Partners Telecommunications Practice.
Ms. Vell received an MBA rom the University o Toronto, a Master in Computer Science
rom the University o Waterloo and a Bachelor in Computer Science rom Carleton.
Contact Ms. Vell at [email protected].
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
5/46
Vell Executive Searchwww.vell.com iii
Boston-based Vell Executive Search, a premier retained executivesearch frm, specializes in fnding high-level, top-ight technology
executives. Each o the frms proessionals bring a distinctiveknowledge o and experience in the technology industry. Vell ExecutiveSearchs credentials, experience, and unrelenting ocus on satisaction
and execution empowers the frm to connect exceptional leaders, withproven track records, to the best companies.
Vell Executive Searchs mission is to build the best leadership
teams in the world in the technology and IT services
marketplace. Whether large or small, private or public,
global or local, every company requires an effectiveleadership team at the top.
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
6/46
www.vell.comivVell Executive Search
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
7/46
Vell Executive Searchwww.vell.com 1
List o Illustrations ........................................................................................................2
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................3
Foreword ........................................................................................................................4
Introduction ..................................................................................................................5
Executive Summary .....................................................................................................7
About the Survey ...........................................................................................................10
Demographic Characteristics o Sample Firms .........................................................11Global Geographic Concentration .............................................................................11U.S. State Geographic Concentration ........................................................................11Canadian Province Geographic Concentration ........................................................12Industry Concentration ..............................................................................................13Years in Operation ......................................................................................................14
Revenue o Sample Firms ........................................................................................... 14
Survey Results ...............................................................................................................15Characteristics o Boards & Members ........................................................................15Board Composition o Private Companies .................................................................15Board Composition o Public Companies .................................................................. 17Director Tenure ...........................................................................................................18Directors Highest Liquidation Experience ................................................................18Director Experience Industry Specialty ..................................................................19Size o Board ...............................................................................................................20Proportion o Boards with Empty Seats .....................................................................22Board Involvement .....................................................................................................22Number o Board Meetings ........................................................................................23Director Remuneration ..............................................................................................23The Relative Importance o Cash and Equity ...........................................................23Cash-Based Meeting Attendance Fees ........................................................................24Annual Cash Retainer ................................................................................................26
Equity-Based Remuneration ......................................................................................27
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................31
Appendix Survey Questions ......................................................................................34
Entrepreneurial Boards Composition Survey
CONTENTS
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
8/46
Vell Executive Search www.vell.com2
List o IllustrationsFigure 1a: Global Geographic Concentration ...............................................................11
Figure 1b: State Geographic Concentration ..................................................................12
Figure 1c: Canadian Firm Geographic Concentration .................................................12
Figure 2: Industry Concentration ..................................................................................13
Figure 3: Number o Years Since First Incorporated ..................................................... 14
Figure 4: Size (Revenues) ..............................................................................................14
Figure 5a: Board Composition o Private Companies: Spread in Representation ....... 16
Figure 5b: Board Composition o Public Companies: Spread in Representation ........ 17
Figure 6: Director Tenure Number o Years on Present Board..................................18
Figure 7: Directors Highest Liquidation Experience ....................................................18
Figure 8: Director Experience Industry Specialty ...................................................... 19
Figure 9: Board Size by Company Size ..........................................................................21
Figure 10: Proportion o Boards with Empty Seats ......................................................22
Figure 11: Number o Board Meetings...........................................................................23
Figure 12a: Director Remuneration:Cash/Equity or Private and Public Companies ...............................................24
Figure 12b: Board Meeting Fees.....................................................................................25
Figure 12c: Distribution o Board Meeting Fees Among Firms that Pay Such Fees ..... 25
Figure 13: Distribution o Additional (Non Chairman) Committee Feesor Firms That Pay Such Fees ............................................................................26
Figure 14: Board Member Annual Cash Retainer ........................................................27
Figure 15a: Equity Award Structure and Vesting ........................................................... 28
Figure 15b: The Structure o Equity-Based Remuneration .......................................... 29
Figure 16: The Percentage o Companies o Full Value Stock in theEquity Portion Compensation ...........................................................................30
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
9/46
Vell Executive Searchwww.vell.com 3
AcknowledgementsI extend special thanks to Karen Dumaine, Vell Executive Search, or
coordinating everything; David Maber, Harvard Business School, or statistical
analysis and insights o the data; Jennier Leclaire, Revelation Media, or herwriting and editing skills; Heather Maxey, Maxey Interactive, or advice on
running the survey; and Ozzie Ciliberti, Vision Design & Advertising Inc.,
or the design and layout.
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
10/46
www.vell.com4Vell Executive Search
FOREWORDOur goal with this survey is to oer a pivotal guide or leaders who are considering a
change to the structure o their board and corporate governance activities. There is a bona
fde shortage o qualifed, executive board members to fll the seats o growing companies,
especially as the private sector unveils vital issues that impact executive board director
searches or companies o all sizes.
It is important to note prior work in this area, so we can compare and contrast changes
in the entrepreneurial board landscape. In 2001, the National Association o Corporate
Directors (NACD) joined Ernst & Youngs Emerging Growth Markets practice to study thegovernance practices o entrepreneurial boards.
The NACD study oered valuable perspectives on executive board directors. However, the
market or board directorships has changed over the past six years. By painstakingly
fnding and analyzing new acts about entrepreneurial boards, we have brought you the
latest thinking on this topic at a time when executives want to careully examine the value
and make-up o boards.
The 2001 NACD study measured the extent to which board practices at entrepreneurial
companies dier rom board practices at more mature companies and, more importantly,it defned the most pivotal reasons or disparities.
The Vell Entrepreneurial Boards Composition Survey oers a narrower ocus and an
updated perspective relevant or todays business climate. The results corroborate what
some widely experienced corporate directors and advisors have been saying or some years:
The boards o entrepreneurial companies are dierent in many ways rom the boards
o large public companies. Surprisingly, the Entrepreneurial Boards Composition
Survey on which this report is based showed that even within the ranks o entrepreneurial
company boards, there are notable dierences between private and public boards.The fndings are relevant to corporate directors serving entrepreneurial companies with a
talent shortage that aects rank-and-fle workers, the executive suite, and board members.
The results will also be helpul to many directors serving mature companies, as well as
companies seeking to fnd the best and brightest board members who add real value to
the companys bottom line.
We invite your comments or uture entrepreneurial board o directors surveys.
Dora VellVell Executive Search
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
11/46
www.vell.com 5 Vell Executive Search
INTRODUCTION
Only about one-hal o Inc. 500 companies report active, engaged boards o directors.
Yet, in my experience, boards o directors are a critical success actor in ast-growing
companies. So says William Payne, o the Kauman Foundation.
Payne would know. Hes an entrepreneur and an angel investor. He ounded an electronic
materials company in 1971 and sold it to DuPont in 1982. Hes made angel investments
in 30 early-stage companies and served on the boards o a dozen such frms.
When the CEO runs into an obstacle hes never aced beore, a quick call to the board odirectors can oer invaluable advice. Board directors can turn difcult situations into
opportunities, steer CEOs clear o legal liabilities, and mediate disputes among leadership
with the companys best interest at heart. Far rom being a burden, boards composed o
the right directors are an asset to an entrepreneurial company.
Indeed, board directors spell success and there are business gurus out there who are
willing to fll a vacant seat. How then do you compete or top talent that will take a
company to the next level? There are some common denominators among boards o
directors that are worth noting. TheEntrepreneurial Boards Composition Survey willoer you insights.
One key area that aects all boards is compensation. Barbara Hackman Franklin, a
corporate director and ormer U.S. Secretary o Commerce, said: While there is no
prescriptive answer to the right ormula or a CEO pay package, we believe there is an
identiiable set o practices that boards can apply to their deliberations. Coupled
with a spirit o courage and rigor, these practices can help ensure that we motivate and
retain the best talent while minding the long-term interest o the organization and its
shareholders.
Another area: How can you build a board with a diversity o experience to gain the broadest
knowledge base? Jeremy Curnock Cook and Georey Vernon, directors o Rothschild
Asset Management Ltd., an investment banking group headquartered in London, agree:
appointing only recruiting directors rom a small, amiliar circle o associates is a common
mistake early-stage companies make. This practice, they assert, tends to create a cozy club
rather than a decisionmaking group that adds real value.
Tenure is another area o concern or a board. How much board experience does a director
need? The Vell Entrepreneurial Boards Composition Survey not only investigates this
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
12/46
www.vell.com6Vell Executive Search
topic but also concerns about the size o the board, how requently the boards meet, what
percentage o the board is independent, cash and equity compensation, and the prevalenceo empty board seats.
By employing best practices in corporate governance, companies can assemble and
maintain boards that help corporate executives drive greater profts and growth.
Governance oers a level o accountability that keeps entrepreneurial companies on
target with unbiased advice, insights into new and changing market opportunities, and
warnings o potential pitalls. The board o directors becomes the CEOs personal advisor.
Directors help level the playing feld or entrepreneurial companies seeking to compete
with larger frms. Indeed, board directors have never been more important to a small,growing company as they are in todays global business environment.
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
13/46
www.vell.com 7 Vell Executive Search
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThere is little research to help companies develop best practices or attracting, retaining,
rewarding and drawing value rom their boards. Oten, chie executives are unsure o
the appropriate: intervals or board meetings, compensation, and diversity o the boards
members.
As a way to cogently and concisely answer these questions, the Vell Entrepreneurial
Boards Composition Survey identifes trends in boards o directors. We surveyed 150
CEOs, venture capitalists and vice presidents o human resources and board directors rom
various industries more than 18 in total with a special ocus on small sotware and
technology companies in the United States. Approximately 50% o responding companies
had average annual revenues o less than US$10 million and have been in operation
between fve and 10 years. Most are privately held.
To put these trends in context, where appropriate, we benchmarked our fndings against
the National Association o Corporate Directors (NACD) Effective Entrepreneurial
Boards 2001 Survey. We also drilled down into our data to expose dierentials based on
size, ownership structure, length o time in business, and revenues. By comparing fndings
to the NACDs survey, and by comparing private and public companies where possible,
we were able to highlight board practices at entrepreneurial frms, especially small
technology companies. We also discovered a diversity o remuneration structures worth
noting.
The ollowing oers key indings rom the Vell Entrepreneurial Boards Composition
Survey, and provides eight recommendations or entrepreneurial boards.
Entrepreneurial Board Composition
The median proportion o independent directors is 20% at private companies. Thatnumber skyrockets to nearly 70% at public companies. Venture capital representation is
much more prevalent at private companies.
Industry Specialties
Approximately one ourth o all directors represented in the survey reported signifcant
experience in the sotware industry. More than 20% came rom the fnancial services
sector, while more than 10% came rom telecommunications. Consumer products and
service experience represented less than 5%.
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
14/46
www.vell.com8Vell Executive Search
Director Tenure and Experience
The median director in the surveys sample o small technology frms reported a 3year tenure. In 2005, the median director among S&P 1500 frms had six years tenure.
Althoughless than 10% of respondents reported greater than US$100 million in
revenue, the median director has at least $100 million in liquidation experience.
Entrepreneurial Board Size
The average board represented in the survey hosts six members. The median number o
directors at the smallest frms within our survey (i.e., frms with less than US$5 million in
annual revenue) is fve. The median number o directors at the largest frms within our
sample (i.e., frms with greater than US$25 million in annual revenue) is seven. When
we compare public and private companies with the same revenue, we fnd similarly sized
boards.
Entrepreneurial Board Vacancies
Roughly 1 in 3 private companies have at least one empty seat on the board.
By contrast, only one in six public companies has a vacant board seat.
Board Involvement
The number o board meetings at respondent companies ranged between one and 28meetings per year. 80% o companies had between 4 and 12 meetings. The median
(mean) number o meetings among respondent frms was six (seven) meetings per
year. The median number o ace-to-ace meetings was 4 per year.
Cash and Equity Overview
Private companies are much more likely than public companies to either not pay their
directors, or rely exclusively on equity awards, such as annual awards or awards upon
appointment. Only 27% o our survey respondents pay a board meeting ee. Nearly
50 % o the irms that pay or board attendance pay exactly US$1,000 per meeting.
60% o frms that pay board member meeting ees also pay additional ees to non-chair
committee members. The median cash payment among companies that make such
payments is US$1,000.
Annual Cash Retainers
There is a strong association between a companys revenues and the dollar fgure o the
annual cash retainers they pay to board directors. Specifcally, among the size-matched
public frms that pay a cash retainer to board members, the median retainer is US$12,500or public entities, and US$20,000 or private ones.
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
15/46
www.vell.com 9 Vell Executive Search
Equity-Based Remuneration
In 44% o private companies, board members receive equity awards only upon joiningthe board. Only 4% o public companies employ the same policy. The board receives an
annual equity award and equity upon joining the board at 71% o public frm respondents.
Only 18% o private companies ollow such a policy. Equity remuneration, when it is part
o the overall package, is higher on average than prior samples taken o entrepreneurial
companies.
Recommendations:
Vell Executive Search suggests the ollowing approaches or entrepreneurial frms:
Fill empty board seats. Empty board seats devalue overall production o the board and
rob your company o the opportunity to draw rom the wealth o experience that seat
could oer.
Maintain a diversity o skill sets and industry experience on your board. This oers you a
well-rounded perspective on the opportunities and challenges your company aces.
Ensure that the skill sets on your board match your company strategy and complement
the skill sets on the management team and the board.
Pay close attention to the candidates overall industry experience and credentials.Seek to grow your board to about six to eight members. Too many members can breed
conusion; too ew can leave important perspectives buried.
Direct boards, especially in ast-paced industries, such as sotware and
telecommunications, hold board meetings more requently than companies in
traditional industries.
Deine your ideal board candidate and pursue them. Experienced board directors
will oten agree to serve or stock options rather than large cash-based compensationpackages.
Make equity compensation part o the package in order to attract and retain the interest
o top-level executives. Only 50% o our survey respondents oer stock options/RSUs or
some other type o equity compensation.
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
16/46
www.vell.com10Vell Executive Search
Entrepreneurial Boards Composition SurveyFindings rom the Vell Entrepreneurial Boards Composition Survey
ABOUT THE SURVEY
Vell Executive Search set out to reexamine the state o board director membershipin entrepreneurial companies. Our goal in this document is to:
Identiy trends in board practices and corporate governance o entrepreneurial
technology companies
Provide a baseline to benchmark practices and compensation
Compare and contrast practices o private companies and public companies
Analyze the reasons or the dierences in practices
Establish a benchmark to measure uture trends in board membership.Over the course o our months, Vell Executive Search contacted a non-random sample
o companies and 150 responded. The survey was conducted through a targeted e-mail
distribution to ensure optimal response. Vell Executive Search sent invitations to participate
in the survey to CEOs, venture capitalists, vice presidents o human resources and board
members.
The survey questionnaire posed roughly 25 questions, requiring over 150 separate data.
These questions spanned three broad categories: (1) company characteristics, such as
size, industry, and ownership structure, (2) board composition and background, and (3)board remuneration. These responses represent the primary data on which this reports
indings are based. (Note: Approximately 150 companies completed at least one
section on the electronic survey. )
For a detailed view o the geographic and industrial sectors o the respondents, see
the charts displayed on the ollowing pages. Approximately 50% o the companies
had average annual revenues o less than US$10 million. That makes the revenue o
the sample frms much smaller than those studied in earlier research. The majority
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
17/46
www.vell.com 11 Vell Executive Search
o responding frms were privately held companies. Two thirds o frms have been
operating or more than 10 years.Demographic Characteristics of Sample Firms
Vell Executive Search purposely chose a broad range o companies in terms o
varied locations, industries, ages, sizes, and ownership structures in order to deine
both corporate-wide and more granular trends.
O the 93% o survey respondents with headquarters in North America, 63% are located
in the U.S. and 30% are located in Canada. (See Figure 1a.) The remaining 7% o
participating frms are headquartered Europe and in Japan.
Figure 1a: Global Geographic Concentration
France 2%
Hungary 1%UK 2%
Greece 1%Japan 1%
Canada30%
USA63%
U.S. State Geographic Concentration
O the 63% o responding frms that are headquartered in the U.S., the majority are
based in Massachusetts. Caliornia, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania
are also represented in the survey results. (See Figure 1b.)
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
18/46
www.vell.com12Vell Executive Search
Figure 1b: State Geographic Concentration
Connecticut6%
California6%
Other 33%
Pennsylvania5%
New Hampshire5%
Massachusetts45%
Canadian Province Geographic Location
O the 30% o frms that are headquartered in Canada, the majority are located in Ontario.
However, Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta are also represented in the survey.
(See Figure 3.)
Figure 1c: Canadian Firm Geographic Concentration
Ontario
69% Quebec13%
BC and Alberta18%
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
19/46
www.vell.com 13 Vell Executive Search
Industry Concentration
Vell Executive Search elicited responses rom a wide variety o industries, rom education
and healthcare to hardware and telecommunications. In act, the survey represents the
practices in more than 18 industries, which include utilities, retail, fnancial services,
banking, insurance, real estate, consumer products manuacturing and consumerservices,
manuacturing, aerospace and automotive, business services, and sotware.
More than 40% o the frms represented in the survey serve the sotware industry.
Approximately 9% o the participating frms are involved in producing telecom
equipment, while another 7% provide telecommunications services. (Figure 2summarizes the industry concentration among respondent companies.)
Figure 2: Industry Concentration
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Education
Utilities
Retail
Healthcare
Financial Services, Banking, Insurance, Real Estate
Consumer Products Manufacturer & Consumer Services
Manufacturing, Aerospace, Automotive
Hardware
Telecommunications Services
Business Services
Telcommunications Equipment
Other
Software
Years in Operation
The irms that responded to the survey have a common thread: most are younger
businesses. One third o the companies represented in the survey have been
incorporated or less than ive years. Two thirds o the irms have been incorporated
or ive to ten years. None o the respondents have been incorporated or longer
than ten years. (See Figure 3.)
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
20/46
www.vell.com14Vell Executive Search
Figure 3: Number of Years Since First Incorporated
5.1 - 10 Years
3.1 - 5 Years
2.1 - 3 Years
1.1 - 2 Years
< 1 Year
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Revenue of Sample Firms
Most o the responding frms have revenues o less than US $10 million. Only 11% o the
sample frms had annual revenues o over US$100 million. By contrast, the average frm
in the NACDs study oEffective Entrepreneurial Boards had average annual revenues o
US$122 million. The proportion o respondents that are privately held 77% is similar
to the NACD Survey.
Figure 4: Size (Revenues)
> $100M
$50.1M - 100M
$25.1M - 50M
$10.1M - 25M
$5.1M - 10M
$1.1M - $5M
< $1M
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
21/46
www.vell.com 15 Vell Executive Search
SURVEY RESULTSCharacteristics o the Boards & Members
The characteristics o the boards who completed the survey were dramatically dierent,
even among companies doing business in the same industry. Perhaps one o the most
insightul dierences is the make up o the board members proessional backgrounds
and industry experience. For example, there were large variances among companies in
the proportion o board members who are company ofcers, venture capitalists, major
investors and independent outsiders.
Much like NACDs study, our results revealed public company boards are signifcantly
more independent than private company boards. The median proportion o independent
directors is 20% at private companies. That number skyrockets to nearly 70 percent at
public companies. There are our reasons why:
First is the talent myth. CEOs and investors believe that they cannot attract world-class
talent to a privately held company. That premise is awed. Our experience has been that
senior executives want to give back and enjoy contributing to entrepreneurial companies
or reasons beyond compensation.
A second reason it is common to see ewer independent directors on the boards o private
companies is the lower level o external scrutiny or the independence o board members
in private companies.
A third reason is control. VCs and private equity players sometimes want to maintain tight
control o the boards o privately held companies.
A fnal reason is that this is not top o mind or the board members or the CEO. Typically,
the boards frst concern is attracting a management team. Later, the board ocuses on
its own makeup. This ties back to the frst premise that CEOs and investors mistakenlybelieve that they cannot woo top talent to entrepreneurial frms.
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
22/46
www.vell.com16Vell Executive Search
Figure 5a: Board Composition of Private Companies: Spread in Representation
Independent
Consultant
Supplier
Customer
Investor
VC
Attorney
Ofcer
0.00 0.05
KEY:
REPRESENTATIVE
Denotes the median
representation, among
all boards in the sample
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65
Not surprisingly the proportion o venture capitalists on private company outstrips
public company boards. VC representation is much more prevalent at private
companies. At the median private frm, almost one in fve board members brings a
VC afliation. At the median public frm, there is no VC representation on the board
o directors. With VCs ocused on private companies, it stands to reason that VCs who
have invested in private companies will take a seat on the board o those companies
and exit the board when the company goes public.
Proportion of Board that has given relationship with the company(Bottom of Bar = 10th percentile; Top of Bar = 90th Percentile)
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
23/46
www.vell.com 17 Vell Executive Search
Figure 5b: Board Composition of Public Companies: Spread in Representation
Independent
Consultant
Supplier
Customer
Investor
VC
Attorney
Ofcer
0.00 0.05
KEY:
REPRESENTATIVE
Denotes the median
representation, among
all boards in the sample
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85
Considering the relatively short liespan o the responding companies most frms
were in operation or less than 10 years and none have been doing business or more
than 10 years it ollows that director tenure at the surveyed frms is short.
Specifcally, the median director in the surveys sample o small technology frms
reports a mere 3 years tenure. By contrast, in 2005, the median director among S&P
1500 frms had a 6 year tenure. Given that more than 65% o respondent companies
have been in business or 5 to 10 years, we can conclude that many directors were not
members o the board when the companies they serve were initially launched.
Proportion of Board that has given relationship with the company(Bottom of Bar = 10th percentile; Top of Bar = 90th Percentile)
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
24/46
www.vell.com18Vell Executive Search
Figure 6: Director Tenure Number of Years on Present Board
Less than 1 Year
3%
One Year
15%
Two Years
21%
Three Years
14%
Four Years
11%
5 Years
8%
Six Years
8%Seven Years
7%
Greater than Seven Years
13%
The survey discovered a welcomed disparity, though, between the directors tenure on
the board and his/her experience in the technology sector. Although less than 10% o
respondents reported greater than US$100 million in revenue, the median director has at
least $100 million in liquidation experience. (See Figure 7.)
Figure 7: Directors Highest Liquidation Experience
0 - $10M21%
> $100M49%
$50.1M - 100M10%
$25.1M - 50M11% $10.1M - 25M
9%
Massachusetts is a technology hotbed. Given that the greatest concentration o surveyed
companies are located in the state, its not surprising that approximately one ourth o all
directors represented in the survey report signifcant experience in the sotware industry.
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
25/46
www.vell.com 19 Vell Executive Search
More than 20% o board members come rom the fnancial services sector, while more
than 10% come rom telecommunications. About 8% are in the business servicesfeld, while about 7% are in the hardware sector. 5% are in the health care and
pharmaceutical feld. Less than 5% are in the education, manuacturing, aerospace,
and automotive felds. Consumer products and services were least represented, with
less than 5% o directors coming rom that sector o the economy. (See Figure 8.)
Figure 8: Director Experience Industry Specialty
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30
Consumer Products and Services
Education
Manufacturing, Aerospace and Automotive
Health Care & Pharmaceuticals
Business Services
Hardware
Telecommunications
Other
Financial Services
Software
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
26/46
www.vell.com20Vell Executive Search
Size o the Board
The average board represented in the survey hosts six members. This mirrors the NACDs
survey o entrepreneurial boards. The fnding suggests that boards o small technology
frms are substantially smaller than boards at most public corporations. For example, a
2006 study conducted by Spencer Stuart, a global executive search frm headquartered
in Chicago, showed that the average S&P 500 frm has 10.7 members on its board. That
same study shows a mere 15% o S&P 500 frms have eight or ewer board members.
To put these statistics into perspective, consider the practices o S&P 500 frms. SpencerStuart ound that 57% o S&P 500 companies pay a board meeting ee and 58% o
S&P 500 companies pay a committee meeting ee (both down rom 72% and 68%,
respectively, in 2001). According to Spencer Stuart, the average meeting attendance
ee paid by S&P 500 corporations was US$1,955 in 2005. Although it is possible that
the lower prevalence o meeting ees in our sample frms is due to a greater adoption
o good governance guidelines, we eel that the decreased emphasis on meeting ees
likely reects the act that many small technology frms are cash constrained and
have directors with signifcant equity stakes.Drilling down into the survey results or small technology frms participating in our
study shows a clear relationship between the size o a company and the size o its
board. For example, the median number o directors at the smallest frms within
our survey (i.e., frms with less than US$5 million in annual revenue) is fve. The
median number o directors at the largest frms within our sample (i.e., frms with
greater than US$25 million in annual revenue) is seven. The size o boards varies
considerably at companies o similar size, especially among frms with less than $25
million in annual revenue. (See Figure 9.)
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
27/46
www.vell.com 21 Vell Executive Search
Figure 9: Board Size by Company Size
Greater
than
25 Million
Between
5 and
25 Million
Less
than
5 Million
1 2
KEY:
Revenue($
US)
Denotes the median
size, among all boards
in the sample
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Given that the public companies in our sample are signifcantly larger than the private
companies, the public companies had much larger boards. However, when we comparedpublic and private companies with the same revenue, we ound that the median size o
boards was virtually identical. Using this sub-sample o revenue-matched frms, we fnd
that the median dierence in board size is zero. In other words, holding revenue constant,
hal o private frms have boards that are at least as large as those o public companies, and
hal o private frms have boards that are at least as small as those o public companies.
However, in cases where public boards are larger than private boards, public boards tend
to be much larger than the private boards. And when private boards are larger than public
boards, the discrepancy is generally smaller (by approximately one member).Noteworthy is the signifcant dierence in the number o empty board seats across public
and private companies. Roughly 1 in 3 private companies have at least 1 empty board seat.
By contrast, only one in six public companies have a vacant board seat. (See Figure 10.)
This fnding holds or both the revenue-matched and non-matched samples. Dierences
in company size or actors that are typically associated with size, such as the visibility o
the corporation, do not make a signifcant impact on the number o empty board seats.
Size of Board(Bottom of Bar = 10th Percentile; Top of Bar = 90th Percentile)
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
28/46
www.vell.com22Vell Executive Search
Figure 10: Proportion of Boards with Empty Seats
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Private:Public
Board InvolvementBoard involvement is airly consistent across industries, despite some swings in both
the high and low end o the spectrum. The survey demonstrates considerable diversityin the requency o board meetings, or example: The number o board meetings at
respondent companies ranged rom one to 28 meetings per year. However, 80% o
companies had 4 to 12 meetings. The median (mean) number o meetings among
respondent frms was six (seven) meetings per year. The median number o ace-to-
ace meetings was 4 per year. (See Figure 11.)
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
29/46
www.vell.com 23 Vell Executive Search
Figure 11: Number of Board Meetings
Face
to
Face
Total
1 2
KEY:
TypeofMeeting
Denotes the median
representation, among
all boards in the sample
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Interestingly, the survey reveals that the requency o meetings at small technology-
oriented companies is similar to the requency o meetings at larger, more complex,
organizations. For example, Spencer Stuarts 2006 survey reports that, among S&P
500 frms, boards had as ew as 3 meetings and as many as 39 meetings per year.
According to Spencer Stuart, the average S&P 500 company holds 8.4 meetings per
year, up rom eight meetings per year in 2001.
Director RemunerationThe Relative Importance o Cash and Equity
The Entrepreneurial Boards CompositionSurvey unveiled broad dierences in the
remuneration structures o public and private technology frms. In particular, the study
revealed private companies are much less likely to use cash-based remuneration, such
as cash-based meeting ees or a cash retainer. In act, private companies are much more
likely to either not pay their directors, or rely exclusively on equity awards, such as annual
awards or awards upon appointment.
Number of Meetings(Bottom of Bar = 10th percentile; Top of Bar = 90th Percentile)
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
30/46
www.vell.com24Vell Executive Search
Figure 12a: Director Remuneration: Cash/Equity for Private and Public Companies
Public Companies
Private Companies
Cash Only8%
No Cash and No Equity25%
Equity Only40%
Cash and Equity27%
Cash and Equity
58%
Equity Only17%
No Cash and No Equity0%
Cash Only25%
Cash-Based Meeting Attendance FeesConsistent with the good governance guidelines that groups like the Council o
Institutional Investors have publicized, theEntrepreneurial Boards Composition Survey
fnds most small technology frms do not pay meeting attendance ees to board members,
committee members, or committee chairs. Only 27% o companies that responded pay
a board meeting ee. Among the respondents that pay board members to attend, the
mean meeting attendance ee is US$1,600. The median cash compensation or meeting
attendance is US$1,000. In act, nearly 50% o the frms that pay or board attendance pay
exactly US$1,000 per meeting. (See Figure 12b).
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
31/46
www.vell.com 25 Vell Executive Search
Figure 12b: Board Meeting Fees
Greater
than
25 Million
Between
5 and
25 Million
Less
than
25 Million
2
KEY:
Size(Revenue)
Denotes the median
fee, among all
boards in the sample
400 800200 600 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2,200 2,400 2,600 2,800 3,000
Figure 12c: Distribution of Board Meeting Fees Among Firms that Pay Such Fees
$200013%
Between $1,000 and $2,00016%
$1,00046%
Less than $1,000
16%
Greater than $20009%
60% o frms that pay board member meeting ees also pay additional ees to non-
chair committee members. Among the respondents that pay such ees, 35% pay exactly
US$500 extra per meeting, while 40% pay exactly US$1,000 extra per meeting.
(See Figure 13.) And o the irms that pay augmented non-chair committee ees,
40% provide additional payment to committee chairmen. Among frms that make
these awards, the median cash payment is US$1,000.
Meeting Fee (US $)(Bottom of Bar = 10th percentile; Top of Bar = 90th Percentile)
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
32/46
www.vell.com26Vell Executive Search
Figure 13: Distribution of Additional (non Chairman) Committee Fees for
Firms that Pay such Fees
Exactly $1,00040%
Between $500and $1,0004%
$500 Exactly35%
Greater than $100017%
Less than $5004%
Annual Cash RetainerAccording to the survey, there is a strong association between a companys revenues and
the dollar fgure o the annual cash retainers it pays to board directors. (See Figure 14.)The corporations ownership structure, however, appears to be the most signifcant actor
in the payouts. In order to determine whether the size o annual cash retainers varies
across public and private frms, the survey drilled down into the revenue-matched sub-
sample data o the companies described earlier.
Based on this sample, the survey revealed public frms are three times more likely to
pay an annual cash retainer to board members. In other words, when the size o the
companies remain constant, approximately three quarters o the public frms in the size-
matched sample pay a retainer. By contrast, only one quarter o the private frms pay anannual cash retainer to board members.
Drilling down deeper, the survey oers fnancial data to fll in the big picture. Specifcally,
among the size-matched public frms that pay a cash retainer to board members, the
median retainer is US$12,500. Among the size-matched private frms that pay a cash
retainer to board members, the median retainer is US$20,000. The act that the median
retainer among private frms is larger than the median retainer among public frms may
seem odd at frst glance. However, this anomaly occurs because more public companies
provide cash-retainers, and, thereore there are a greater number o small retainers.
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
33/46
www.vell.com 27 Vell Executive Search
Figure 14: Board Member Annual Cash Retainer
Greater
than
25 Million
Between
5 and
25 Million
Less
than
25 Million
0 4,000 8,000 12,000 16,000 20,000 24,000 28,000
KEY:
Size
(Revenue)
Denotes the median
retainer, among all
boards in the sample
32,000 36,000 40,000 44,000 48,000
Equity-Based RemunerationTheEntrepreneurial Boards Composition Survey discovered signifcant dierences in
the structure o equity-based compensation across public and private frms. In 44% o
private companies, board members receive equity awards only upon joining the board.
By contrast, only 4% o public companies employ the same policy. Instead, individuals
receive an annual equity award and equity upon joining the board at 71% o public frms.
Only 18% o private companies ollow such a policy. (See Figure 15a.)
Not surprisingly, the survey confrms public and private frms dier in the emphasis
they place on stock options vis--vis ull-value awards, such as restricted stock, deerredstock, and unrestricted shares. In particular, public companies rely much more heavily
upon stock options than do private frms. This increased emphasis is present in both
appointment awards and annual awards. (See Figure 15b.)
Annual Retainer (US $)(Bottom of Bar = 10th percentile; Top of Bar = 90th Percentile)
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
34/46
www.vell.com28Vell Executive Search
Figure 15a: Equity Award Structure and Vesting
No Equity RetainerBut Equity Upon Joining44%
Equity RetainerBut No Equity Upon Joining5%
Equity Retainer& Equity Upon Joining18%
No Equity Retainer &No Equity Upon Joining33%
No Equity RetainerBut Equity Upon Joining4%
Equity RetainerBut No Equity Upon Joining0%
No Equity Retainer& No Equity Upon Joining25%
Equity Retainer& Equity Upon Joining71%
Equity Awards: Private Companies
Equity Awards: Public Companies
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
35/46
www.vell.com 29 Vell Executive Search
Figure 15b: The Structure of Equity-Based Remuneration
OptionAwards Only65%
OptionAwards Only70%
OptionAwards Only
100%
OptionAwards Only88%
Full Value Awards& Option Awards
15%
Full Value Awards& Option Awards
12%
Full Value Awards& Option Awards
9%
Full ValueAwards Only
20%
Full Value
Awards Only21%
Equity Retainer:Private Companies
Equity Retainer:Public Companies
Equity Upon Joining:
Private Companies
Equity Upon Joining:
Public Companies
The data or equity compensation shows the median percent o shares outstanding
upon joining as well as an annual retainer or board members and or the board chair.
Only 50% o companies give out stock options. This data is or companies providing
stock options. In terms o board members, a typical option grant would be 0.3% o the
shares outstanding upon joining and 0.1% per year. In terms o the median or the
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
36/46
www.vell.com30Vell Executive Search
chair, a typical stock grant would be 0.5% upon joining and 0.1% per year. Figure 16
provides a more detailed breakdown o equity grants. The implied option price or privatecompanies is the most current price available, oten the price o the stock at the last round
o fnancing. Many times, i there is an upcoming round o fnancing, then the option
price could be a blended rate o the current and past rounds o fnancing. The number o
total shares outstanding in a cli is typically consistent with the option price blended
rate. It is interesting to note that the vesting schedule or option awards varies rom 3 to
5 years, with a median o 4 years. These numbers are typical and very expected.
These numbers are surprising and we consider them to be on the high end o what
we have experienced beore. They are reective o very senior board members. A priorrandom sample o equity stock option grants showed 0.19%. It is important to note
however that i our statistics included companies that paid no equity, the numbers in
Figure 16 would be lower.
Figure 16. Percent of Equity Compensation
Note: This is the median or companies oering equity as part o compensation.
Roughly 50 percent o our sample oers equity as part o the board members,
compensation package.
Remuneration Upon Joining:
Board MemberBoard Member N Median
Restricted Stock Units 9 1
CommonShare Grants
14 2
Stock Options 65 0.3
Deerred Stock 1 1
Annual Retainer:Board Member
Board Member N Median
Restricted Stock Units 7 0.75
CommonShare Grants
5 1
Stock Options 32 0.1
Deerred Stock 0 N/A
Remuneration Upon Joining:
Board ChairBoard Member N Median
Restricted Stock Units 6 1
CommonShare Grants
8 1.25
Stock Options 25 0.5
Deerred Stock 0 N/A
Annual Retainer:Board Chair
Board Member N Median
Restricted Stock Units 3 1.75
CommonShare Grants
3 0.1
Stock Options 13 0.1
Deerred Stock 0 N/A
Equity Compensation ( % of Shares Outstanding )
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
37/46
www.vell.com 31 Vell Executive Search
CONCLUSIONSThe evidence is in and the overarching conclusion is this: Entrepreneurial companies are
ying solo, with little in the way o best practices or their boards. The Entrepreneurial
Boards Composition Survey reports a wide variance in board practices, such as a broad
range in the requency o board meetings (rom 4 to 12). It is clear that small- to mid-
sized companies must take action to develop and incorporate best o breed practices or
their boards o directors in order to derive the maximum beneft rom members and to
attract world-class talent.
David Thomson, author o Blueprint to a Billion analyzed the seven essentials ogrowing companies rom zero to $1 billion in revenues. What he discovered is proound.
Tier 1 board members are common to every single company in his research that grew to
$1 billion in revenue. He oers some valuable advice or companies looking to revamp
their boards, or create them or the frst time:
Blueprint company boards were heavily weighed with alliance partners, customers and
CEOs who had scaled a business. Companies with investor-dominated boards tended to
struggle. Blueprint company boards were a much valued extension o the companys
business strategy and management team. These external members provide cross-industryexperiences that can greatly beneft a company. We thought that smart investors would
dominate the most successul boards. While exceptions existed, Blueprint company boards
predominantly eatured some combination o customers, alliance partners and CEOs.
Whether an entrepreneurial company is seeking to break the billion-dollar revenue mark
or not, theEntrepreneurial Boards Composition Survey oers fndings in avor o
careully selected boards that draw rom a diverse base o industry experience. Selecting a
board member needs to be based on company strategy and complementing the existing
skill sets o the leadership and governance team. Given the act that one-third o companiesthat participated in the survey have at least one board seat open, there seems to be either
a lack o recognition o a boards value, or a lack o understanding that entrepreneurial
companies can attract top talent.
In public companies there are ewer empty seats than in private companies. That seems
to suggest litigation concerns are not necessarily a large challenge in recruiting talent
to the board. It stands to reason that smaller, private companies are not as visible in
the marketplace and thereore may have a more difcult time gaining the attention o
qualifed board members. This can be remedied with an aggressive strategy to seek out
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
38/46
www.vell.com32Vell Executive Search
veteran board members. Cook and Vernon assert, The strength o the boards composition
should be regarded as a critical success actor that will aect the quality o incominginvestment as well as the quality o decision making.
While some frms may shy away rom taking on the cost o board members and the
time or meetings the data shows that it doesnt take a billion dollars to attract a billion-
dollar mind. In act, most o the cash outlay is nominal or cash-sensitive companies. The
return on the investment is great. The risk is low. The data also shows that entrepreneurial
companies do not have to settle or inexperienced board members. The sample o survey
participants reveals small companies are consistently attracting veteran executives to their
boards.The high prevalence o option-based rewards is surprising in light o liability concerns
at large, public companies adhering to Sarbanes-Oxley. Many larger companies are
beginning to move away rom distributing stock to directors. However, the lions share o
the compensation rom small technology companies in the survey appears to be option-
based rather than cash stipends. The data oers some guidelines as to remuneration
requirements or board members, which may be less than many small companies
expected.
To the Sarbanes-Oxley issue, small private companies may not make the ront page oThe Wall Street Journal i there is an accounting scandal, but the repercussions are still
potentially devastating or an entrepreneurial organization and its stakeholders. Boards o
directors, and their audit committees, help to establish and maintain proper accounting
protocols.
The overarching conclusion rom theEntrepreneurial Boards Composition Survey is
this: Building and maintaining a strong board o directors is just as important i not
more important or private companies as it is or public companies. Keep in mind that
the underlying reason or corporate governance rules, such as independence o the boarddirectors, is or the companys general health. Entrepreneurial companies in any industry
typically cannot aord to hire the cadre o C-suite executives that make up a dream team.
But a board o directors oers a steppingstone that benefts the company today and into
the uture.
Roger Raber, past president and CEO o the NACD, put it this way: Todays engaged
director is more committed than ever to providing rigorous analysis and decision making,
as well as adding strategic value to the company and shareholders.
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
39/46
www.vell.com 33 Vell Executive Search
APPENDIX: Survey QuestionsGoverning Board
1.1. Composition of Board
1.2. # Board Members who are family members of CEO
1.3. # of Board Meetings Per Year
1.4. # of Meetings Face to Face
1.5. Do you also have an Advisory Board?
Yes No
Background o Board MembersInstructions: This survey aims to identiy which aspects o corporate governance
(e.g., committees, unctions, and competencies) are currently ollowed. Even though the
company may not employ all aspects, please complete the survey questions that ask or
your view o the importance o each aspect.
# o each typecurrently
# o each typeopen
Company OfcerOutside corporateattorney/counsel
VC representative
Other signifcant investor
Customer
Vendor
ConsultantsIndependent
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
40/46
www.vell.com34Vell Executive Search
2.1. Background of Board Members
For each board member
Country/State o Residence
Principal Industry Background
Job Function
Check i Board Chair
# o Years on Board
Highest Value o Prior Liquidation Experience
International Experience
Board Compensation
3.1. Board Member Compensation on Joining Board
% o total sharesoutstanding
(Fully diluted)
VestingPeriod(Years)
Vesting Period(Schedule)
Restricted Stock Units
CommonShare Grants
Stock Options
Deerred Stock
3.2. Board Member Annual Retainer
% o total sharesoutstanding
(Fully diluted)
VestingPeriod(Years)
Vesting Period(Schedule)
Restricted Stock Units
CommonShare Grants
Stock Options
Deerred Stock
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
41/46
www.vell.com 35 Vell Executive Search
3.3. Board Member Per Board Meeting Fee
3.4. Board Member Annual Retainer Cash amount3.5. Board Member Per Committee Meeting Fee
3.6. Vesting Period Years
3.7. Board Chair - Compensation on Joining Board
% o total sharesoutstanding
(Fully diluted)
VestingPeriod
(Years)
Vesting Period(Schedule)
Restricted Stock Units
CommonShare Grants
Stock Options
Deerred Stock
3.8. Board Chair Annual Retainer (In 1000 USD)
% o total sharesoutstanding
(Fully diluted)
VestingPeriod(Years)
Vesting Period(Schedule)
Restricted Stock Units
CommonShare Grants
Stock Options
Deerred Stock
3.9. Board Chair Annual Retainer - Cash
3.10. Board Chair Fee per Board Meeting - Cash
3.11. Board Chair Fee per Committee Meeting - Cash
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
42/46
www.vell.com36Vell Executive Search
Demographics
4.1. Company Type
Public Private
4.2. If Private, Amount of Capital Raised to Date:
< $1M
$1.1M - $5M
$5.1M - $10M
$10.1M- $20M
$>$20M
4.3. If Public, # of Years Since Going Public:
< 1 Year
1.1-2 Years
2.1-3 Years
5.1- 10 Years
>10 years
4.4. # of Years Incorporated
> 1 Years
1.1 - 2 Years
2.1 - 3 Years
3.1 - 5 Years
5.1 - 10 Years 4.5. Whats your Principal Industry
Other
4.6. Company Size (Revenue)
< $1M
$1.1M - $5M
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
43/46
www.vell.com 37 Vell Executive Search
$5.1M - $10M
$10.1 - $25M $25.1 - $50M
$50.1M - $100M
> $100M
N/A
4.7. Headquarters of Company
Country:
State/Province:
4.8. Contact Information for Report Results
Name:
Title:
Organization:
Phone:
Email:
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
44/46
www.vell.com38Vell Executive Search
NOTES
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
45/46
www.vell.com 39 Vell Executive Search
NOTES
8/8/2019 Technology Boards Compensation & Composition - Entrepreneurial Boards
46/46
www.vell.com
$175.00