Like most things, it depends! Much depends on one's definition of "involved".


If one is a director of a listed company, and has been appointed to that position because of one's particular expertise (eg. legal, financial, IT, etc) then it is inevitable that one will "be involved" with management in order to provide suitable oversight and guidance, from one's board position.

If a director sits on a sub-committee, then it is inevitable that there will be "involvement" with staff in order to carry out the duties of that committee.

Where the company is not listed, it is pervasive that the roles of shareholder / director / manager are carried out by the same person/people. Director's "involvement" therefore cannot be avoided.

I suppose the key distinction needs to be made (for a listed entity) between communicating and interacting with staff versus directing their activity. If a director instructs a staff member to act, without going through the CEO, then the CEO is undermined, the staff member may be conflicted about priority and obligation, but more importantly, the director loses his/her ability to provide robust independent oversight, thus defeating the very purpose of his/her appointment as a director.