One.

That’s how many directorship candidates traditionally are presented for interviews to nominating committees of boards of directors. I was startled to learn this during research on the composition and selection processes of Fortune 1,000 boards.

After all, the typical executive search process is rigorous. It involves extensive interviews (not to mention psychological screenings, exhaustive background scrutiny, and reference checks) with three, five, or even more final candidates.

Why do so many directorship searches still boil down to a single candidate being interviewed by current directors?

There has been plenty of coverage on the overall improvement in the quality of public-company boards since the turn of the century. We’ve made great strides, these reports proclaim, because celebrity board members, spouses, and country-club pals no longer populate many board seats.

Well, more progress is required.

Some leading thinkers and doers say that board search processes at leading companies are starting to become more rigorous and thoughtful. This is of interest to corporate finance executives who have found themselves on the receiving end of more calls from board search consultants since the passage of Sarbanes-Oxley made “financial expertise” such a sought-after directorship capability.

But the quest for director candidates based on the exclusive “spec” of financial expertise (i.e., current and former CFOs and CEOs along with former Big 4 audit partners) may itself be a bit dated, even myopic. The most effective boards and nominating committees, according to new research, are expanding the boundaries of the traditional directorship selection process in innovative ways.

Here’s a sampling of this research:

• How to find uniquely qualified directors;

• The rise of the first-time director; and

• Contrarian thoughts on appearing independent vs. behaving independently

###