What is the “collective” interest of the board members’ view towards success of the corporation?

In your second “Discussion Board” (DB No. 2), I’ve “heard” (er, read) a lot of posts regarding strategy and the role of the CEO, Board of Directors, SOX, and the “upper echelons” of the company — examples: 1) “Board of directors’ the prosperity of the firm by directing the affairs whilst safeguarding shareholders’ interests. The board of directors should not be overly involved and should not rubber-stamp every decision. Sarbanes-Oxley places special requirements on the requirements of the board of directors including skills and the need to increase transparency in organizations” (“Sarbanes-Oxley and Board of Directors” by Muhammad Mamun, July 16, 2020), and we also had: 2) “The Board of Directors are elected representatives of the owners who ensure that the interests & motives of management are aligned with those of the owners. The Board’s involvement in the decision-making process serves as a middle ground for all parties and confirm agreement including the appointing of the CEO. Sarbanes-Oxley set regulations on appointing audit committees to combat fraud and help with transparency within the organization” (“Strategic Management” by Jefrie Medina, July 18, 2020).So that begs the question, “How involved should the Board of Director be?” Is there any way that they can be too much involved??? The role of the Board of Directors could go from being “passive” (i.e., rubber-stamping) to becoming so overly involved (with minutia) that they are a “hindrance.” How much is too much??? Look for examples. Also, let’s focus on these elements of “corporate governance” for a moment:1) What if there is an “Interlocking Board of Directors”? (Mizruchi, 8/1996). This entity refers to the practice of members of a “corporate board of directors” that serve on other “corporate boards of directors” for multiple corporations at the same time, e.g., a board member on McDonald’s board “interlocks” (or serves) as board member of Burger King’s board. Could this be? What’s wrong with this picture? Why? Why not?2) What regulations exist that govern this area of corporate governance? Also, “which” board (of the 2 or more boards that he/she is on) “means” more to that member? Or, maybe, which board will benefit the member most?3) What is the “collective” interest of the board members’ view towards success of the corporation? Isn’t that superseded by each board member’s “individualistic” interest? Are both equally important? Could that be?4) Does culture matter? And, which culture matters: 1) “national” or “individualistic” culture, or, 2) his/her “organizational” culture? Are both cultures the same? “Google-around a bit”!!5) Also, any thoughts on the following interesting post by a former student of mine: “The problem of “Chairman of the Board-CEO” duality is no one is willing to challenge his (her) decisions on an everyday basis” (Anthony Annunziata, 3/16/2012). So, what are the problem(s) with the CEO being Chairman of the Board too? Are there any benefits? And, finally, what do you think of Jamie Dimon, who is currently Chairman, President, and CEO of JP Morgan Chase?