I do not wish to cast aspersions on the corporate takeover. On the contrary, it is a key facilitator of creative destruction and doubtless the most effective remaining means by which shareholder voices can mold a corporation. But while change in management is often necessary, you cannot effectively run a corporation with differing authoritative i voices espousing opposing corporate goals. It has to be one or the other. If the board s riven with conflicting interests, corporate governance will suffer. If directors cannot agree with the CEO's strategy, they should replace him. Corporate dissonance, of course, is unavoidable in periods of transition. But it is not a value to be pursued for its own sake. A cacophony produces only red ink.