Okay. I know I was on a major rant a few months ago about all the magazines and newspapers I subscribed to, and how I was going to cut back. I did indeed cut back, but there's one magazine I decided to hang on to: The New Yorker. I love how you'll be reading a story about some topic -- say, Edgar Allan Poe, or the Parrot Panic of 1930 -- and just when you think the article is going to end, it goes on for another page, and then another, and another, and another. I find myself learning a LOT about some very interesting topics. Anyway, that was a long way of saying that one article in last week's issue caught my eye -- Board Stiff -- which explores how the nature of corporate boards has changed as people have tried to improve them over the past couple of decades.

Fact is, corporate boards may now look a lot different than they did 20 or 30 years ago, but they don't act much different.

For example, in 1950 half of all directors were insiders, while today fewer than 20 percent are. However, while boards are more professionally diverse (and presumably less likely to rubber stamp the decisions of the executive team), they are actually LESS likely to challenge the CEO. As it turns out, collegiality among board members tends to trump independence.

There are some very interesting findings in the article. If you've got an interest in corporate governance or about how to make your board work better, I suggest you have a look.