“The principal virtue of a leader is to accomplish great things with the least resources.”
~ Athenian general Nicias in Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War (5th century BC)

Great leadership has always demanded the ability to achieve more with less: limited time, limited money, limited information — and yet it requires rising to meet complex, urgent needs. 

In the realm of acquiring new board leadership, a corporation and an aspiring leader face the same reality: a scarcity of time, a scarcity of opportunities, and limited information about fitting opportunities for the aspiring director and limited knowledge of relevant pools of talent for the corporation. 

Given scarcity, the stark truth is this: board selections, are rarely made through formal applications or public postings- but through networks that are at hand and in easy reach — human pathways of trust, familiarity, and credibility. To win a seat at the boardroom table, it is not enough to be ready or worthy. You must be known. 

What does board readiness look like?
A well-prepared director will often possess the following: 

• Industry and Sector Experience: Depth of understanding within relevant business sectors. 
• Functional Expertise: Mastery in disciplines such as finance, operations, legal, technology, regulatory matters, or risk management. 
• Corporate Situational Experience: Leadership in turnarounds, mergers, IPOs, significant corporate shifts, bankruptcy, crisis management, proxy fights, and governance challenges. 
• Boardroom Experience: Committee chairmanship/service, committee actions in corporate situations, significant board matters, decision-making in complex and uncertain contexts. 

These qualifications are necessary — but they are not enough. Without visibility in the right networks, even a fully qualified candidate may remain unknown to those who decide. 

Now That You Are in the Network, How Does Your Worth Become Known? 

The great Yale sociologist Seymour B. Sarason, credited with founding the discipline of community psychology, extended this reality of scarcity and value of resources into the societal realm. In his 1983 work Redefining Self As a Resource, Sarason observed that societies face limited resources and limitless problems. His call was for individuals not to view themselves as passive beneficiaries of opportunity, but to recognize their role as active resources — contributors to the shared well-being of the community. 

Sarason’s call is especially relevant in the boardroom setting. An aspiring board member is not a job seeker. A director is — or must become — a vital resource for an enterprise and for society: offering judgment, experience, and leadership to address challenges far greater than any single individual or company. An aspiring director’s contributions within the network must make this higher standard visible — not just in intent, but in action. It is not about self-promotion, but rather about preparing oneself and ideally seeking ways to contribute purposefully within the network — so that others see you as a trusted resource — visible, known, trusted, and ready to serve at that elusive time when your unique experiences are most needed. 

Instrumental vs. Expressive Networks: Choosing the Right Kind of Visibility

All human beings form networks, but not all networks serve the same function — especially when it comes to advancing into board service. 

All human beings naturally form expressive networks — relationships of emotional support: family, friends, trusted colleagues. These networks are essential to personal well-being and provide affirmation and familiarity. But they are rarely designed to introduce us to new professional worlds and are often insufficient for career advancement into intensely competitive realms like board service. 

By contrast, instrumental networks are formed with a purposeful intent – to advance knowledge, opportunity, and professional growth. They connect individuals through shared work, industry expertise, decision-making experience, and strategic value. These are the networks where opportunity flows — where candidates are discovered, endorsed, and validated. 

Most people lean heavily on expressive networks throughout their lives, even in executive roles where access and familiarity are built into the organizational structure. But aspiring directors must confront a hard truth: the network that supported their operational ascent is not the same network that will surface their name for a board role. 

The key is not to abandon expressive relationships, but to deliberately cultivate instrumental networks that extend your reach. These are the relationships that can connect you to board selection committee members, trusted advisors, and those with influence who shape the outcomes of director nominations.

At Lyceum, we work with this distinction intentionally. Our Circle of Leaders is a purpose-built instrumental network — designed not to replace your existing relationships, but to expand them into “another world” of relevance, trust, and perhaps even opportunity in board service. 

Professor James M. Cook 

Sociologist and expert is in the field of social network analysis. 

Network Architecture: Nodes, Paths, and the Role of the Weaver 

A network is not just a list of names. It is a structure — made up of nodes (people) and paths (the relationships or channels connecting them). In a well-functioning network, value does not sit idle; it flows — moving along paths shaped by trust, relevance, and mutual recognition. 

Some networks are dense but closed — filled with familiar faces, but lacking the bridges to new ideas, opportunities, or influence. Others are sparse but potent — a few carefully formed paths that open doors into entirely new domains. What makes the difference is not how many people you know, but how well you are connected to the people who matter — and how well they are connected to others. 

This is where network architecture matters. Being in the network is not the same as being positioned within it. The most valuable network members are those who serve as connectors — people who link otherwise separate circles, create access across boundaries, and facilitate mutual discovery. 

At Lyceum, we call this role the weaver. The weaver is not a matchmaker. They understand context, relevance, and timing. They help identify latent synergies and bring people together where contributions can be made, reputations earned, and needs met — often before those needs are publicly acknowledged. 

In our Circle of Leaders, Lyceum is the weaver. We don’t leave the network to chance. We cultivate it intentionally — forming new paths, bridging fragmented clusters, and helping members become visible to those seeking readiness, insight, and trust. This is the difference between a network that passively holds names and one that actively delivers opportunity. 

The Board Selection Process: How Networks Shape the Outcome 

Despite the governance structures and official charters that define how directors are selected, the actual process of nominating and appointing board members is far more human, informal, and network-driven than most realize. 

While every board conducts its process differently, there are familiar patterns — and at nearly every point in the process, personal networks exert quiet but decisive influence. Here, we limit the search steps to only those that involve network actions. They are, in chronological order:

• Identification of Potential Candidates: Through the networks of the nominating and governance committee members, broader board members, professional service providers to the company, and a third-party search firm’s network and systematic identification methods. 
• Confidential Sourcing and Validation: Gathering discreet feedback through trusted sources in the industry and beyond.  
• Assembly of a Long List: Presenting a broad set of candidates, that have gone through some level of qualification process (depending on the level of search firm involvement and its practices).  
• Shortlisting: The selection committee narrows the long list to a smaller shortlist of candidates to be interviewed.  
• Interviews and Informal Validation: Shortlisted candidates are interviewed by the committee, and committee members may independently consult their trusted networks for additional insights. 
• Nomination for Board Approval: The committee identifies and recommends a nominee to the full board for approval. 
• Inclusion in the Proxy Statement: If following the proxy timeline, upon board approval, the nominee is included in the slate of directors presented to shareholders and is subject to election at the annual meeting. 

You will quickly glean from this sequence that at multiple stages, being known and trusted by various networks — those of committee members, board members, professional service providers, search firm consultants, and ultimately shareholders — becomes decisive. No matter how distinguished a candidate’s resume, without personal familiarity, a candidate risks remaining invisible. Networking ensures that board readiness is not merely possessed — it is recognized and vouched for. 

Without a presence in the right network, even the most qualified candidate may never surface. But for those who are known — and positively remembered — the path to consideration is shorter, smoother, and more natural. 

Psychological Barriers to Networking

For many highly qualified individuals, internal barriers to instrumental networking can be significant. Those who lean toward introversion, or who are deeply conscientious, often hesitate to reach out. They fear they are imposing. They question whether they have anything of value to offer. This hesitation reflects two forces: self-effacement and anticipatory rejection — the sense that one’s outreach is unwelcome, or that one has nothing to offer. 

At Lyceum, through the Circle of Leaders, we intentionally lower these barriers by acting as curators and conveners. Rather than expecting individuals to initiate uncertain outreach on their own, we bring people together around shared subject matter relevance — common leadership experiences, governance challenges, and industry-specific insights. 

Through careful convening of groups and smaller gatherings within the larger Circle, members find natural points of entry to engage with one another around subject matter relevant to them. By bringing together participants into discussions where their expertise is relevant and welcome, we reduce the psychological barriers of self-effacement and fear of imposition, allowing for authentic connections. 

Nourishing Networks: Building the Flywheel of Reciprocity 

A network, no matter how promising at the outset, cannot thrive without nourishment.
Relationships must be maintained, refreshed, and deepened through thoughtful interaction. Without care, even strong connections wither into irrelevance. 

In his study of corporate networking, Robert K. Mueller emphasized that the vitality of any network depends on constructive environments that encourage meaningful exchanges. It is not the sheer number of contacts that matters, but the quality of engagement among individuals who respect, assist, and invest in one another’s advancement. 

At the heart of every healthy instrumental network lies a powerful dynamic: reciprocity.
When you offer help, insight, or introductions to others without immediate expectation of return, you activate a principle as old as human society — what we call the Flywheel of Reciprocity. 

Social psychologist Robert Cialdini, in his seminal work Influence, identifies the rule of reciprocity as one of the most universal and powerful forces in human behavior. Anthropologists and sociologists have shown that no human society exists without it. Cialdini quotes archaeologist Richard Leakey, who wrote, “We are human because our ancestors learned to share their food and their skills in an honored network of obligation.” This deeply ingrained sense of obligation is what allows people to give resources without fear of loss — trusting that in time, those contributions will be returned. It is this future orientation that transformed human evolution: individuals began to cooperate, specialize, and depend on one another in complex ways — producing the division of labor, interdependence, and efficiency that define successful societies.

The Flywheel of Reciprocity operates similarly in professional networks: 

• Action begets reaction. 
• Help offered plants the seed for help returned. 
• Visibility, trust, and influence accumulate over time, compounding with each act of generosity and engagement. 

Networks are sustained by mutual contribution — by the collective will to help one another succeed. Over time, these reciprocal currents lift all participants higher than they could ascend alone. In the context of board aspirations, this principle is doubly critical. Selection committee members and influential connectors naturally gravitate toward individuals who have a reputation for generosity, wisdom, and engagement — not self-promotion or opportunism. Networking for board service, then, is not a transaction. It is the art of nourishing relationships — investing in the network itself, trusting that in due time, the network will invest in you. 

At Lyceum, through the Circle of Leaders, we have designed an environment where the Flywheel of Reciprocity can spin — an intentional network of those willing to invest in collective advancement, knowing that mutual success depends on individual contributions. 

The Circle of Leaders: A Purpose-Built Instrumental Network 

For those serious about board service, networking cannot remain accidental. It must become intentional — built with clarity, humility, and contribution. 

The Lyceum Circle of Leaders is a living instrumental network designed to empower purposeful connection, and to unlock the hidden doors of board opportunity. While we do not promise appointments or direct placements, the Circle offers the single most important precondition for success: being visible, valuable, and connected to those who influence board composition and leadership selection. 

Questions to Ask Yourself About Your Network Position

If board service is your goal, your qualifications are only part of the equation. Equally important is where you sit in the network that makes decisions — or influences those who do. 

Use these questions to assess your current network position: 

1. Who knows that I am board-ready?
   It’s not enough to be ready — you must be remembered, recommended, and respected. Do decision-makers know you?

2. Am I relying mostly on expressive relationships?
   Are your most active relationships based on emotional support and familiarity? Or are you building ties based on shared challenges, governance experience, and strategic insight?

3. Can my current network open doors to board opportunities?
   Have you mapped whether those around you — or their connections — sit on boards, advise boards, or influence those who do?

4. When was the last time I contributed meaningfully within my network?
   Visibility is not gained by self-promotion, but by purposeful contribution. Have you shared insight, made introductions, or helped others in ways that revealed your capabilities applied to matters of interest to them?

5. Who would vouch for me — without being asked?
   Influence often moves through backchannels. Who in your extended network would naturally and confidently recommend you when no one is watching?

If your answers feel uncertain or revealing, you’re not alone. Most people don’t manage their network position with intent — until a board opportunity is already in motion.  

One advantage of the Lyceum Circle of Leaders is it may place the right people into the right conversations, at that elusively unpredictable moment — before the decision is made.