I understand where you are coming from but I respectfully disagree. I think there have been some cases where director ownership of shares has muddied the waters and caused incentive caused bias or unethical behaviour.Your obligation is to the owners (share holders). having your own shares in the company could bring a conflict where there may be a decision that could benefit you instead of the whole (or at least the majority). I would argue its better to have ppl who do not have a stake in the company to be as detatched and objective as possible.
A lot of boards do not pay, or if they do, its nominal. ASX listed companies, particularly those in the top, would pay. otherwise its reimbursement of costs or a few hundred per monthly meeting.
But if we are talking about what produces better outcomes on average when looking at a large number of companies I still believe heavy director ownership produces superior outcomes on average to no director ownership.