Why Boardroom Alpha Looks Past Prestige to Track Real Governance Performance

The Wall Street Journal’s recent “Top 250 Directors” list aims to answer a compelling question: What makes a great corporate director? It’s a worthwhile goal—and one we share. But while the effort helps bring attention to boardroom quality, its approach leans more toward celebrating corporate status than offering a reliable measure of governance effectiveness.

At Boardroom Alpha, we believe governance performance must be earned, not assumed. It isn’t revealed through résumés, high-profile titles, or who knows whom. It’s about measurable impact. In this post, we explain why a data-driven, outcomes-based approach—like ours—offers a clearer, more actionable view of board performance. And why it’s time to look beyond the curated circles of corporate prestige.

What the WSJ Gets Right—and Where It Falls Short

The WSJ’s Top 250 list uses a mix of metrics spanning director attributes, company performance, and company “prominence.” It presents itself as a holistic tool to identify “the 250 most influential and effective corporate directors” in the S&P 500.

But peel back the methodology and a pattern emerges: it mostly elevates individuals who already sit atop the power structures of corporate America. It rewards qualities such as:

• CEO experience (with the claim that it makes directors more empathetic to executives)
• Chairing key committees like audit or compensation
• Board tenure between 5–11 years
• Serving on boards of Fortune 500 companies (i.e., “prominent” firms)
• Scoring high on the Journal’s own “Management Top 250” ranking

And, while some of these characteristics might correlate loosely with leadership potential, they aren’t indicators of governance quality. Nor do they reflect what investors value most—results.

Windows into the WSJ Top 250 Directors List

To better understand the methodology behind the WSJ’s director rankings, we took a closer look—focusing on two key areas: directors who have lost shareholders money and the track records of those ranked in the WSJ’s “Top 10.” What we found raises serious questions.

Despite their high-profile affiliations and lengthy resumes, many of the Top 10 directors have overseen disappointing shareholder returns, struggled in key leadership roles, or amassed board and committee seats without delivering results. From steep losses at Century Therapeutics and Blade to major stumbles at GE and Mandiant, the list includes plenty of red flags. This isn’t a ranking of performance—it’s a showcase of how prestige and tenure can obscure underperformance.

Directors in the WSJ Top 250 Who Have Lost Shareholders Money

WSJ Rank	Director	Current Boards	Boardroom Alpha Director Rating	Total Shareholder Return	Notes
187	Sima Sistani	Best Buy	D	-44%	Best Buy’s performance trails peers based on fundamental and market-based measures across her ~2 year tenure. Was CEO and Director during WW International’s failed pivot. Stock price dropped ~90% over her tenure.
203	Caryn Seidman-Becker	Clear Secure, Home Depot	D	-17%	Clear Secure down ~30% since IPO. Poor outcomes at previous boards: Lemonade -75% and Central European Media Enterprises -32%.
98	Philip Bleser	Progressive	C-	-13%	Apparel company FHC Holdings went bankrupt and dropped from $177 to $0.15 over his tenure.
45	Afshin Mohebbi	Digital Realty Trust	F	-5%	Delivered negative shareholder returns during tenures at both Dish Network and Bearingpoint. Tenure at Digital Realty Trust is only around peer median.
160	Manuel Kadre	Home Depot, NeueHealth, Republic Services	C	-3%	Mixed track record with NeueHealth down 74% since 2021 and negative returns while at Peiatrix Medical Group and Equity Media Holdings.
59	William E. Kennard	AT&T, Ford Motor, MetLife	D	-3%	Ford and AT&T been middle-of-the pack over long tenures. Was on AT&T’s board during the Time Warner acquisition. Multiple tenures – New York Times, Sprint, Handspring – with negative shareholder returns.
120	Carol Hayles	eBay	C-	-3%	Negative -7% TSR at Avantax over a 5-year tenure. Underperformance at Webster Bank (a current tenure at US public company that is unlisted by WSJ).
14	Kenneth D. Denman	Costco, Motorola	B-	-2%	Strong results at Costco and Motorola, but otherwise mixed track record. Multiple tenures as a director with negative shareholder return: iPass, LendingClub, United Online, Shoretel. Was CEO at iPass when it lost ~92% and ultimately went into bankruptcy.
61	Paulett Eberhart	Fluor, KORE, LPL, Valero	C-	0%	KORE has lost 50% since she joined in 2022. Prior board experience is checkered. For example, Ciber lost almost 99% as it fell into bankruptcy. AMD lost -74% over ten years before Lisa Su came in and turned it around.

 

The ”Top 10” WSJ Directors

WSJ Rank	Director	WSJ’s Current Boards	Boardroom Alpha Director Rating	Total Shareholder Return	Notes
1	Edward M Philip	United Airlines	B-	7%	Currently at Blade Air Mobility which has seen its stock drop over -55% and was omitted from the WSJ listing. Trupanion lost over -50% post-IPO before he left.
2	Stephanie Linnartz	Home Depot	C	9%	Has only been at Home Depot and Under Armour. Her short, failed CEO/Director tenure at Under Armour saw the stock lose -24% before she was ousted.
3	Debra L Reed	Caterpillar, Chevron, Lockheed Martin	A-	11%	Strong performance at Caterpillar and prior boards like Sempra (where she was also CEO). Lockheed Martin and Chevron underperforming peers over her tenures.
4	Joseph Jimenez	Century, GM, P&G	B-	3%	Century Therapeutics TSR is -82% over the past year. General Motors has been an average performer over an 11-year tenure. Lenz Therapeutics lost 83% over a 4-year tenure.
5	Gregory H Boyce	Newmont	C-	3%	Newmont has been a strong performer during his tenure. Peabody Energy stock lost -97% and went the company entered bankruptcy. Oversaw -42% shareholder return as a director at Marathon Oil.
6	John Joseph Brennan	American Express	C	8%	American Express has been especially strong, but GE stock lost -59% over his tenure. Hanover Insurance and LPL Financial Holdings tenures saw average performance.
7	Kevin Kennedy	Digital Realty Trust, KLA	B	3%	Strong results at Digital Realty Trust and KLA over long tenures. Viavi Solutions delivered negative -82% shareholder returns during his tenure (which included ~5 years as CEO). Was CEO and Director at Quanergy Systems which went into bankruptcy. WSJ listing omits his current tenure at UL Solutions.
8	Robyn M Denholm	Tesla	C-	7%	Tesla outperforming, but Echelon’s stock lost 82% over her tenure.
9	David G Dewalt	Delta Air Lines	B+	12%	CEO when FireEye acquired Mandiant and ended tenure with stock down over 60% Delta strong over his tenure. A number of other decent performers over the years.
10	Laura C Fulton	Targa Resources	B	15%	No track record beyond Targa Resources and boosted into the top 10 primarily based on a very high “Individual Profile” score from the WSJ.

These snapshots reinforce the need for deeper diligence and a more performance-focused approach to assessing directors and officers.

Boardroom Alpha: Measuring What Matters

Boardroom Alpha was built to solve this exact problem. We go beyond perception to deliver real, investor-focused insights. Our platform rates every public company director and executive officer in the U.S.—not just those in the S&P 500.

Objective Ratings, Based on Results

Every CEO, CFO, and director gets a Boardroom Alpha Rating, a forward-looking score grounded in performance—not pedigree. Our model evaluates company outcomes across:

• Market Metrics like shareholder return and volatility
• Fundamental Metrics like revenue growth and profitability

For each executive’s tenure, we ask:

1. Is the company outperforming or lagging its peers?
2. Are those metrics improving or worsening since they joined?

We also factor in nuances—was a company in decline when the director joined? Did a turnaround occur? Was there a successful exit?

We then asked the most important question: Do these ratings matter? The answer: yes. Our backtests show companies with lower-rated boards tend to underperform their peers. Boards with higher ratings? They tend to outperform.

It’s a system that’s immune to name recognition. It rewards results and flags underperformance—regardless of résumé.

Radical Transparency and Broad Coverage

Unlike the WSJ’s focus on the S&P 500, Boardroom Alpha tracks more than 250,000 executives across thousands of companies. Our profiles include:

• Board and executive roles
• Shareholder voting outcomes
• Insider trading activity
• Real-time performance updates
• Red flags across all companies and tenures
• Activist engagement and contests

If a director resigns unexpectedly, receives low shareholder support, or is involved with a struggling company, it gets flagged—immediately.

Beyond the Rating: A Pointillist View of Governance

The Boardroom Alpha Rating is just one piece of the puzzle. We combine dozens of signals to create a rich, multi-dimensional profile of each board member, executive, and company. This includes:

• Shareholder alignment with stock ownership, buying, and selling
• Independence from management and interlocks
• Shareholder support across director elections and corporate actions
• Executive and director compensation alignment
• Risk of activism based on company underperformance
• Governance problems such as entrenched or staggered boards
• Performance warning signs like sharp drawdowns or persistent underperformance

Importantly, each data point and analytic provided in the platform is focused on answering specific, clearly defined questions. This enables both an understanding of the data and how to use it. When metrics combine disparate, unrelated types of data the signal can become muddled, confusing, and ultimately not useful.

We connect the dots, sharpen the picture, and help investors understand what the data actually means—not just how it looks in a glossy bio.

Conclusion: Governance Needs More Than Popularity Contests

We applaud the WSJ’s efforts to raise the visibility of governance and its attempt to answer a very difficult to answer question. But as the Journal promotes its inaugural list of Top 250 Directors, it’s worth asking: are we recognizing effectiveness, or just reaffirming elite networks?

Governance should be measured—not mythologized. Investors deserve transparency, accountability, and performance—not another hall-of-fame built on familiar names.

At Boardroom Alpha, that’s what we deliver. We provide real-time, investor-aligned insights—free from bias, based on evidence, and built to track what truly matters.

Good governance isn’t just about who you know and the job titles you’ve held. It’s about what you do.