Suchergebnisse

ABSTRACTManuscript Type:EmpiricalResearch Question/Issue:The increased attention to women on corporate boards presents new challenges to governance research. In this paper we go beyond demography and open the "black box" of board behavior by drawing upon theories of gender differences and group effectiveness.Research Findings/Insights:A unique survey of 201 Norwegian firms is used. The findings suggest that the ratio of women directors is positively associated with board strategic control. In addition, we find that the positive effects of women directors on board effectiveness are mediated through increased board development activities and through decreased level of conflict. However, our results show no evidence for a positive association between women directors and open debate. Nonetheless, open debate enhances board's strategic and operational control.Theoretical/Academic Implications:Recognizing the limitations of traditional governance theories to explain the role and contributions of women on corporate boards, this paper draws upon group effectiveness and gender differences theories to shed some light on whether and how women make a difference to board effectiveness in strategic and operational control.Practitioner/Policy Implications:Women's ability to make a contribution to the board may be attributable to their different leadership styles. The presence of women on corporate boards seems to increase board effectiveness through reducing the level of conflict and ensuring high quality of board development activities.

AbstractManuscript TypeEmpiricalResearch Question/IssueTo address the lack of a complementarities‐based approach in studies of board diversity, this paper seeks to understand whether and how certain country‐level factors are causally and jointly related to women on boards and the nature of their complementarities (are they synergic or substitutes?). Moreover, we intend to learn more about the adoption/diffusion of board gender quotas, by taking into account their role in the existing national configurations (whether they are necessary and/or sufficient conditions).Research Findings/InsightsUsing fs/QCA, our findings reveal a particular configuration of country‐level conditions that supports the existence of a joint causal relation between given institutional arrangements. Furthermore, we find that board gender quota legislation is not a sufficient condition on its own to achieve a higher number of women on boards. Such evidence suggests that its diffusion across countries could be the result of institutional isomorphism or social legitimacy more than to rational reasons.Theoretical/Academic ImplicationsFor scholars, our paper refines and expands insights from the extant comparative corporate governance literature. By finding support for the "bundled" or jointly causal nature of given institutional factors, we open a window for further research that investigates board‐level phenomena in a complementarities‐based perspective.Practitioner/Policy ImplicationsFor policy makers, this study provides some insights that could better drive their choice about which mix of policies is necessary to improve female representation on boards, and especially in which institutional areas they should be implemented. It is particularly relevant, because once gender quotas are endorsed at board level, they could have ambiguous effects on firm performance and corporate governance.

Board evaluations can contribute to effective boards and improved corporate financial performance. The increasing interest in the practice of board evaluations, however, calls for a more systematic and careful approach than has been employed in the past. While most attention has primarily been focused on the content of board evaluations, this article outlines the features of various possible board evaluation systems. Based on state‐of‐the‐art research on boards and governance, we contend that a comprehensive board evaluation system needs to include decisions about: (a) the agent who evaluates the board; (b) the content, or what the evaluation should deal with; (c) the addressee and other stakeholders for whom the board is evaluated; and (d) how the board is evaluated. These key decisions should not be seen as independent of each other as they have consequences for the kind of system that will be adopted. Following this argument, we present four different board evaluation systems: (i) board‐to‐board, (ii) board‐to‐market, (iii) market‐to‐board and (iv) market‐to‐market. The key message we communicate in this article is that there must be a fit between the purpose and the system of board evaluations. There is no universal or "one best way" to evaluate boards of directors. Board evaluations will not meet their purpose unless there is a fit between the agents, the addressees, the content and the modalities of the evaluation. It is important to know who is doing what for whom and how.

ABSTRACTManuscript Type: ReviewResearch Question/Issue: A coherent alternative to an economic approach of corporate governance is missing. In this paper we take steps towards developing a behavioral theory of boards and corporate governance.Research Findings/Results: Building upon concepts such as political bargaining, routinization of decision making, satisficing, and problemistic search, a behavioral theory of boards and corporate governance will focus more on (1) interactions and processes inside and outside the boardroom; (2) the fact that decision making is made by coalitions of actors and objectives are results of political bargaining; and (3) the notion that not only conflicting, but also cooperating, interests are parts of the boards' decision making and control over firm resources.Theoretical Implications: The consequences are a new research agenda for boards and corporate governance. The agenda will focus on actual instead of stylized descriptions of board behavior. In a behavioral perspective the emphasis on problems of coordination, exploration, and knowledge creation may dominate over problems of conflict of interest, exploitation, and the distribution of value. A future research agenda based on a behavioral framework calls for novel and adventurous research designs.Practical Implications: A behavioral theory of boards and corporate governance will be closer to actual board behavior than the traditional economic approach and research about boards and corporate governance may thus become more actionable for practitioners.

PurposeThe objective of this article is to examine and conceptualise gender‐related boardroom dynamics that affect how women can make contributions on corporate boards.Design/methodology/approachStories were collected from eight women directors about their experiences from more than 100 corporate boards. Narrative methods were used in the data analysis.FindingsWomen as well as men need to understand the power game inside and outside the boardroom. Their contribution depends on the ability and willingness to make alliances with the most influential actors, to spend time on preparations, being present on the most important decision‐making arenas, and to take leadership roles.Practical implicationsThe study has implications for theory as well as practice. Process‐oriented theories should be included in studies of boards and governance, and the study showed that boardroom dynamics are not neutral to gender. Concepts and relationships are suggested that should be included in further theory development. The study has also given several practical examples and suggestions on how women can make contributions on corporate boards.Originality/valueThe study has value for developing the role of women directors.

"Research Question/Issue: Boards' involvement in strategy is generally seen to be an indicator of board effectiveness but less is known about the relationship between board leadership and strategy involvement, especially in small firms. This study analyses board leadership from a team production perspective as an antecedent to board strategy involvement in small firms.
Research Findings/Insights: Using survey data from 140 small firms in Norway collected in two different time periods, we demonstrate that leadership behaviors and processes have a greater impact on boards' strategy involvement than structural leadership characteristics alone.
Theoretical/ Academic Implications: The study provides empirical support for a team production perspective on boards. Our data show that: 1) board members' knowledge, board development and board chairperson leadership efficacy positively influence boards' strategy involvement, and 2) chairperson leadership efficacy enhances boards' strategy involvement under structural conditions of combined CEO/ chairperson leadership and changes in board composition. These findings expand the traditional understanding of structural leadership conditions.
Practitioner/ Policy Implications: The study offers insights to small business owners and managers on how to improve the strategy involvement of boards. For policy makers, the study has implications for the content of codes of good governance practice relevant to small firms, specifically in relation to board development initiatives and board evaluations." (author's abstract)

Prior cross-country governance studies mainly built on agency theory's governance model. Recently, the use of this theoretical perspective has been criticized from both institutional theory as well as the behavioural perspective. Institutional theory would predict that a significant part of the variation in board behaviour could be attributed to the institutional context of a country. In contrast, the behavioural perspective follows the reasoning that board behaviour is expected to be determined by firm-specific challenges and needs rather than the broader institutional context and hence, predicts that the institutional context of a country does not explain variation in actual board behaviour. The aim of this study is to examine the empirical validity of these opposing predictions about board behaviour. Using a database of SMEs of three countries with a different governance system (Belgium, the Netherlands and Norway), our statistical analyses mainly support the predictions of the behavioural perspective.

ABSTRACTManuscript Type:ReviewResearch Question/Issue:Over the last four decades, research on the relationship between boards of directors and strategy has proliferated. Yet to date there is little theoretical and empirical agreement regarding the question of how boards of directors contribute to strategy. This review assesses the extant literature by highlighting emerging trends and identifying several avenues for future research.Research Findings/Results:Using a content‐analysis of 150 articles published in 23 management journals up to 2007, we describe and analyze how research on boards of directors and strategy has evolved over time. We illustrate how topics, theories, settings, and sources of data interact and influence insights about board–strategy relationships during three specific periods.Theoretical Implications:Our study illustrates that research on boards of directors and strategy evolved from normative and structural approaches to behavioral and cognitive approaches. Our results encourage future studies to examine the impact of institutional and context‐specific factors on the (expected) contribution of boards to strategy, and to apply alternative methods to fully capture the impact of board processes and dynamics on strategy making.Practical Implications:The increasing interest in boards of directors' contribution to strategy echoes a movement towards more strategic involvement of boards of directors. However, best governance practices and the emphasis on board independence and control may hinder the board contribution to the strategic decision making. Our study invites investors and policy‐makers to consider the requirements for an effective strategic task when they nominate board members and develop new regulations.