The question is "what are appropriate performance targets for an independent director / independent chairman?"

Cash flow, adequate funding, suitable processes, strategy are all legitimate tasks undertaken or contributed to by boards and their members. However, the question is around "appropriate performance targets" and the difficulty relates to how you measure the contribution of an individual when a small or large group (including scores of management) have contributed to the task or outcome. How do you separate the CONTRIBUTION of a single individual in a group milieu?

I've seen directors make magnificent contributions by "merely" asking the right question, at the right time in the right way. Similarly, I've seen magnificent management tactfully overcome the idiocy or self-interest of some directors to still enable the required outcomes to be achieved. What and who then do you measure?

The comments of other commentators on this topic clearly demonstrate the point of the contextual nature of tasks. If a particular director was recruited to, say, oversight the selection and implementation of a new accounting system, then surely he/she should be assessed by his/her performance against that objective, among others.

There are of course other criteria that directors must satisfy and they can be assessed through the chairman's evaluation, 360 degreee evaluations or group discussions/workshops. Each have their advantages and disadvantages. Yet the core issue here I think is the measurement of a director's "core responsibilities" and those responsibilities that justified that director's appointment.

All of this reinforces the original comment that it depends on the context and the specific "roles" assigned to each director.