Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T04:43:39.727Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in Corporate Governance

Board Dynamics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 June 2021

Philip Stiles
Philip Stiles
Affiliation:
Cambridge Judge Business School

Summary

Boards of directors are at the apex of organisational decision-making and so are central in ensuring effective corporate governance. But boards are under increasing scrutiny due to the continuing prevalence of scandals and failures. Boards have been viewed as set up to fail because the demands placed upon them cannot effectively be delivered. In this Element, I examine this tension and look at the board as a working group, one which has an input, a process and an output. Through looking at the board as a group, the dynamics of how boards, and the potential for effective and ineffective operation, are highlighted. I conclude with outlining how the future of board dynamics may evolve.
Get access

Keywords

board of directorsunitary boardboard compositionboard dynamicsboard performanceaccountability
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in Corporate Governance
Online ISBN: 9781108974875
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 12 August 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acharya, A., Kehoe, C., & Reyner, M. 2008. Private equity vs PLC boards in the UK: A comparison of practices and effectiveness. European Corporate Governance Institute, Finance Working Paper No. 233/2009.Google Scholar
Aggarwal, R.K., Evans, M.L., & Nanda, D. 2012. Non-profit boards: Size, performance and managerial incentives. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 53: 466–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almandoz, J., & Tilcsik, A. 2016. When experts become liabilities: Domain experts on boards and organizational failure. Academy of Management Journal, 59: 1124–1149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, R. 2013. Well-trained directors are key to keeping stakeholders happy. The Guardian, May 30th. www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/blog/well-trained-directors-stakeholders-happyGoogle Scholar
Baysinger, B. D., Kosnik, R. D., & Turk, T. A. 1991. Effects of board and ownership structure on corporate R&D strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 34: 205–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BBC. 2019. Barclays sees off Edward Bramson as rebel investor concedes defeat. May 2nd. www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48133531Google Scholar
Bebchuk, L. A., & Fried, J. M. 2010. Tackling the managerial power problem. Pathways, Stanford University Press: 9–13.Google Scholar
Bebchuk, L. A., & Fried, J. 2004. Pay without performance: the unfulfilled promise of executive compensation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Becker, G. 1975. Human capital. Columbia University Press: New York.Google Scholar
BEIS. 2017. Corporate governance reform: The Government response to the Green Paper consultation, London: Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.Google Scholar
Berle, A., & Means, G. 1932. The modern corporation and private property. Commerce Clearing House, New York.Google Scholar
Bertrand, M., Black, S.E., Jensen, S., & Lleras-Muney, A. 2019. Breaking the glass ceiling? The effect of board quotas on female labour market outcomes in Norway. Review of Economic Studies, 86: 191–239.Google Scholar
Bhagat, S., & Black, B. 2002. The non-correlation between board independence and long-term firm performance. The Journal of Corporation Law, 27: 231–274.Google Scholar
Bhagata, S., & Bolton, B. 2008. Corporate governance and firm performance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 14: 257–273.Google Scholar
Bjornberg, O., & Feser, C. 2015. CEO succession starts with developing your leaders. McKinsey Quarterly, May. www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/leadership/ceo-succession-starts-with-developing-your-leadersGoogle Scholar
Blair, M. M., 1995. Ownership and control: Rethinking corporate governance in the 21st century. New York: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Blair, M. M., & Stout, L.A. 1999. A team production theory of corporate law. Virginia Law Review, 85: 247–328.Google Scholar
Blair, M. M. & Stout, L.A. 2001. Trust, trustworthiness, and the behavioural foundations of corporate law. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 149: 1736–1810.Google Scholar
Block, D., & Gerstner, A. M. 2016. One-tier vs two-tier board structure: A comparison between the United States and Germany. Comparative corporate governance and financial regulation. Paper 1. http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/fisch_2016/1Google Scholar
Boivie, S., Bednar, M. K., Aguilera, R. V., & Andrus, J. L. 2016. Are boards designed to fail? The implausibility of effective board monitoring. Academy of Management Annals, 10: 319–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bøhren, Ø. & Staubo, S. 2016. Mandatory gender balance and board independence. European Financial Management, 22: 3–30.Google Scholar
British Academy. 2018. The future of the corporation: Reforming business for the 21st century: A framework for the future of the corporation. www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Reforming-Business-for-21st-Century-British-Academy.pdfGoogle Scholar
British Private Equity and Venture Capital Association (BVCA). 2018. Industry Activity. www.bvca.co.uk/Research/Industry-ActivityGoogle Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. 1987. Politeness: some universals in language usage. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bullock, A. 1977. Report of the committee of inquiry on industrial democracy (‘the Bullock Report’). Cmnd 6076, London, HMSO.Google Scholar
Burt, R. S. 1992. Structural holes. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Business Roundtable. 2019. Statement on the purpose of a corporation. August 19th. https://opportunity.businessroundtable.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/BRT-Statement-on-the-Purpose-of-a-Corporation-with-Signatures.pdfGoogle Scholar
Cai, J., Nguyen, T., & Walkling, R. 2020. Director Appointments – It is Who You Know. 28th Annual Conference on Financial Economics and Accounting.Google Scholar
Cannella, A. A. Jr., & Lubatkin, M. 1993. Succession as a socio-political process: Internal impediments to outsider selection. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 763–93.Google Scholar
Carpenter, M. A., & Westphal, J. 2001. The strategic context of external network ties: examining the impact of director appointments on board involvement in strategic decision-making. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 639–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, D. A., Simkins, B. J., & Simpson, G.W. 2003. Corporate governance, board diversity, and firm value. Financial Review, 38: 33–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, D. A., D’Souza, F., Simkins, B. J., & Simpson, G.W. 2010. The gender and ethnic diversity of US boards and board committees and firm financial performance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 18: 396–414.Google Scholar
Catalyst, 2020. Women CEOs of the S&P 500. Catalyst Research www.catalyst.org/research/women-ceos-of-the-sp-500/Google Scholar
Chatterjee, S., & Harrison, J. S. 2001. Corporate governance. In Hitt, M., Freeman, R. E., & Harrison, J. (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of strategic management, 543–563. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Clarke, T. 2010. Recurring crises in Anglo-American corporate governance. Contributions to Political Economy, 29: 9–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, T., O’Brien, J., & O’Kelley, C. (Eds.). 2019 The Oxford handbook of the corporation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cloyd, A. 2014. What is a board’s role in a family business? Harvard Law School Corporate Governance Forum. July 30th. https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/07/30/what-is-a-boards-role-in-a-family-business/Google Scholar
Cohen, L., Frazzini, A., & Malloy, C.J. 2012. Hiring cheerleaders: board appointments of ‘independent’ directors. Management Science, 58: 1039–1058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coles, J. L., Daniel, N., & Naveen, L. 2014. Co-opted boards. The Review of Financial Studies, 27: 1751–1796.Google Scholar
Commonsense Principles of Corporate Governance 2.0. 2016. Millstein Centre, Columbia Law School, www.governanceprinciples.org/Google Scholar
Conference Board, 2019. CEO succession practices. Conference Board USA. www.conference-board.org/topics/ceo-succession-practicesGoogle Scholar
Craig-Smith, N., & Soonieus, R. 2018. How board members really feel about ESG, from deniers to true believers. Harvard Business Review Digital Article. April 19th. https://hbr.org/2019/04/how-board-members-really-feel-about-esg-from-deniers-to-true-believersGoogle Scholar
Daily, C. M., Dalton, D. R., & Cannella, A.A. Jr. 2003. Corporate governance: Decades of dialogue and data. Academy of Management Review, 28: 371–382.Google Scholar
Dalton, D. R., Daily, C. M., Certo, S. T., & Roengpitya, R. 2003. Meta-analyses of financial performance and equity: Fusion or confusion? Academy of Management Journal, 46: 13–26.Google Scholar
Dalton, D. R., Daily, C. M., Ellstrand, A. E., & Johnson, J. L. 1998. Meta-analytic reviews of board composition, leadership structure, and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 19: 269–290.Google Scholar
Dalton, D. R., & Dalton, C. M. 2011. Integration of micro and macro studies in governance research: CEO duality, board composition, and financial performance. Journal of Management, 37: 404–411.Google Scholar
Davidson, R., Goodwin-Stewart, J., & Kent, P. 2005. Internal governance structures and earnings management. Accounting & Finance, 45: 241–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Donaldson, L. 1997. Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22: 20–47.Google Scholar
Demb, A., & Neubauer, E. F. 1992. The corporate board: Confronting the paradoxes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deschamps, J. P. 2010. Innovation governance: How proactive is your board? IMD Global Board Centre. www.imd.org/contentassets/885dd6fb1a99422bad3fd15567d41ce9/innovation-governance–how-proactive-is-your-board.pdfGoogle Scholar
Desender, K. A., Aguilera, R. V., Crespi, R., & García-Cestona, M. 2013. When does ownership matter? Board characteristics and behaviour. Strategic Management Journal, 34: 823–842.Google Scholar
Dhanrajani, S. 2019. Boardroom strategies redefined by algorithms: AI for CXO decision making. Forbes, March 31st.Google Scholar
Donaldson, L. 1990. The ethereal hand: Organisational economics and management theory. Academy of Management Review, 15: 369–381.Google Scholar
Economist, 2018. Ten years on from Norway’s quota for women on corporate boards. February 17th. https://www.economist.com/business/2018/02/17/ten-years-on-from-norways-quota-for-women-on-corporate-boardsGoogle Scholar
Edmondson, A. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behaviour in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 350–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellstand, A. E., Tihanyi, L., & Johnson, J. L. 2002. Board structure and international political risk. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 769–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eminet, A., & Guedri, Z. 2010. The role of nominating committees and director reputation in shaping the labour market for directors: An empirical assessment. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 18: 557–574.Google Scholar
Empson, L., & Chapman, C. 2006. Partnership versus corporation: Implications of alternative forms of governance in professional service firms. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 24: 145–176.Google Scholar
Erel, I., Stern, L .H., Tan, C., & Weisbach, M. 2018. Selecting directors using machine learning. European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI) – Finance Working Paper No. 605/2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Trade Union Institute (ETUI). 2017. Benchmarking working Europe. www.etui.org/Publications2/Books/Benchmarking-Working-Europe-2017Google Scholar
Ezzamel, M., & Watson, R. 1997. Wearing two hats: The conflicting control and management roles of non-executive directors. In Keasey, K., Thompson, S. and Wright, M. (Eds.) Corporate governance: Economic, management and financial issues. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 54–74.Google Scholar
Fainshmidt, S., Judge, W.Q., Aguilera, R.V., & Smith, A. 2018, Varieties of institutional systems: A contextual taxonomy of understudied countries. Journal of World Business, 53: 307–322.Google Scholar
Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. 1983. Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26: 301–325.Google Scholar
Ferrari, G., Ferraro, V., Profeta, P., & Pronzato, C. 2018. Do board gender quotas matter? Selection, performance and stock market effects. IZA Discussion Paper No. 11462.Google Scholar
Fich, E. M., 2005, Are some outside directors better than others? Evidence from director appointments by fortune 1000 firms. The Journal of Business, 78: 1943–1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Financial Reporting Council (FRC), 2018. The UK corporate governance code. London, HMSO.Google Scholar
Financial Reporting Council (FRC), 2018a. Guidance on board effectiveness. London, HMSO.Google Scholar
Fink, L. 2018. Letter to CEOs: A sense of purpose. Harvard Law School Corporate Governance Forum. January 18th. https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2018/01/17/a-sense-of-purpose/Google Scholar
Finkelstein, S., & D’Aveni, R. A. 1994. CEO duality as a double-edged sword: How boards of directors’ balance entrenchment avoidance and unity of command. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 1079–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fogel, E. M., & Geier, A. M. 2007. Strangers in the house: Rethinking Sarbanes-Oxley and the independent board of directors. Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, 32: 33–72.Google Scholar
Forbes, D. P., & Milliken, F. J. 1999. Cognition and corporate governance: Understanding boards of directors as strategic decision-making groups. Academy of Management Review, 24: 489–505.Google Scholar
Fragale, A. R., Sumanth, J. J., Tiedens, L. Z., & Northcraft, G. B. 2012. Appeasing equals: Lateral deference in organizational communication. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57: 373–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, H. K., & Peterson, R. S. 2019. Back channels in the boardroom. Harvard Business Review, September-October, 106-113.Google Scholar
Garg, S., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 2017. Unpacking the CEO-Board relationship: How strategy-making happens in entrepreneurial firms. Academy of Management Journal, 60: 1828–1858.Google Scholar
Gill, M., Flynn, R. J. & Reissing, E. 2005. The governance self-assessment checklist: An instrument for assessing board effectiveness. Non-profit Management and Leadership, 15: 271−294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilson, R. J., & Gordon, J. N. 2019. Board 3.0: An introduction. The Business Lawyer, 74: 351–366.Google Scholar
Gold, M., Kluge, N., & Conchon, A. 2010. In the Union and on the board: experiences on board-level employee representatives across Europe, Brussels: ETUI.Google Scholar
Govindarajan, V., Rajgopal, S., Srivastava, A., & Enache, L. 2018. Should dual-class shares be banned? Harvard Business Review Digital Article. March 12th: 1–6.Google Scholar
Guarino, A. 2017. Activist investors: More harm than good. Global Risk Insights, August 8th. https://globalriskinsights.com/2017/08/activist-investors-harm-good/Google Scholar
Guest, P. 2019. Does board ethnic diversity impact board monitoring outcomes? British Journal of Management, 30: 53–74.Google Scholar
Gupta, P. P., & Leech, T. J. 2017. Risk oversight: Evolving expectations for boards. Conference Board Group Governance Centre. www.fsb.org/wp-content/uploads/c_140206w.pdfGoogle Scholar
Hackman, J. R. 1987. The design of work teams. In Lorsch, J. (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behaviour, 315–342. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. 2001. Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hambrick, D., Misangyi, V. F., & Park, C. A. 2015. The QUAD model for identifying a corporate director’s potential for effective monitoring: Toward a new theory of board sufficiency. Academy of Management Review, 40: 323–344.Google Scholar
Hayes, R. M., & Schaefer, S. 1999. How much are differences in managerial ability worth? Journal of Accounting and Economics, 27: 125–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendry, J. 2002. The principals’ other problems: Honest incompetence and management contracts. Academy of Management Review, 27: 98–113.Google Scholar
Hermalin, B. E., & Weisbach, M. S. 2003. Boards of directors as an endogenously determined institution: A survey of the economic literature. Economic Policy Review, 9: 7–26.Google Scholar
Hesketh, A., Sellwood-Taylor, J., & Mullen, S. 2020. Are you ready to serve on a board? Harvard Business Review Digital Article, January 31st. https://hbr.org/2020/01/are-you-ready-to-serve-on-a-boardGoogle Scholar
Higgs Review. 2002. Review of the role and effectiveness of non-executive directors. Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.Google Scholar
Hillman, A. J. 2005. Politicians on the board of directors: Do connections affect the bottom line? Journal of Management, 31: 464–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillman, A. J., Cannella, A. A., & Paetzold, R. L. 2000. The resource dependence role of corporate directors: Strategic adaptation of board composition in response to environmental change. Journal of Management Studies, 37: 235–256.Google Scholar
Hillman, A. J., & Dalziel, T. 2003. Boards of directors and firm performance: Integrating agency and resource dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 28: 383–396.Google Scholar
Hillman, A. J., Shropshire, C., & Canella, A. A. 2007. Organizational predictors of women on corporate boards. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 941–952.Google Scholar
Hillman, A. 1., Withers, M., & Collins, B. J. 2009. Resource dependence theory: A review. Journal of Management, 35: 1404–1427.Google Scholar
Hodgson, P. 2009. A brief history of say on pay. Ivey Business Journal, Ivey Business Journal. Sep/Oct. 73: 1–1. https://iveybusinessjournal.com/publication/a-brief-history-of-say-on-pay/Google Scholar
Holland, T. 1991. Self-assessment by non-profit boards. Non-profit Management and Leadership, 2: 25−36.Google Scholar
Hoppman, J., Naegele, F., & Girod, B. 2019. Boards as a source of inertia: Examining the internal challenges and dynamics of boards of directors in times of environmental discontinuities. Academy of Management Journal, 62: 437–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoskisson, R. E., Castleton, M. W., & Withers, M. C. 2009. Complementarity in monitoring and bonding: More intense monitoring leads to higher executive compensation. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23: 57–74.Google Scholar
Houlder, D., & Nandkishore, N. 2016. Corporate governance should combine the best of private equity and family firms. Harvard Business Review Digital Article, December 22nd.Google Scholar
Huse, M. 2007. Boards, governance and value creation: The human side of corporate governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. 2005. From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56: 517–543.Google Scholar
Ingley, C.B., & Van der Walt, N.T. 2001. The strategic board: the changing role of directors in developing and maintaining corporate capability. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 9, 174–185.Google Scholar
Institute of Directors (IOD), 2018. What is the role of the senior independent director? IOD Factsheet. November 15th.www.iod.com/news/news/articles/What-is-the-role-of-the-senior-independent-directorGoogle Scholar
International Corporate Governance Network (ICGN). 2018. Ensuring effective board succession planning. www.icgn.org/ensuring-effective-board-succession-planningGoogle Scholar
Ittner, C., & Keutsch, T. 2015. The influence of board of directors’ risk oversight on risk management maturity and firm risk-taking. Management Accounting Section (MAS) Meeting. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2482791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Institutional Shareholder Service (ISS). 2019. ESG Review. www.issgovernance.com/esg/Google Scholar
Jensen, M.C. 1989. The eclipse of the public corporation. Harvard Business Review, September-October, 61–74.Google Scholar
Jeong, S. H., & Harrison, D. A. 2016. Glass breaking, strategy making, and value creating: meta-analytic outcomes of women as CEOs and TMT members. Academy of Management Journal, 60: 1219–1252.Google Scholar
Johnson, R., & Greening, D. 1999. The effects of corporate governance and institutional ownership on corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 564–580.Google Scholar
Joshi, A., & Knight, A. 2015. Who defers to whom and why? Dual pathways linking demographic differences and dyadic deference to team effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 58: 59–84.Google Scholar
Judge, W. Q., & Zeithaml, C. P. 1992. Institutional and strategic choice perspectives on board involvement in the strategic decision process. Academy of Management Journal, 35: 766–794.Google Scholar
Kaczmarek, S., Kimino, S., & Pye, A. 2012. Antecedents of board composition: The role of nomination committees. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 20: 474–489.Google Scholar
Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. 1993. The wisdom of teams. Cambridge, Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Kay, J. 2012. The Kay review of UK equity markets and long-term decision making. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, UK Government Publishing Service.Google Scholar
Keay, A. R., & Loughrey, J. 2015. The framework for board accountability in corporate governance. Legal Studies, 35: 252–279.Google Scholar
Kiel, G., Nicholson, G., Tunny, J.A., & Beck, J. 2012. Directors at work: a practical guide for boards, Thomson Reuters, Sydney, 2012.Google Scholar
Kiel, G. C., & Nicholson, G. 2005. Evaluating boards and directors. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 13: 613−631.Google Scholar
Kim, Y., & Canella, A. A. 2008. Toward a social capital theory of director selection. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16: 282–293.Google Scholar
Klarner, P., Probst, G., & Useem, M. 2019. Opening the black box: Unpacking board involvement in innovation. Strategic Organization, 1–33. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1476127019839321Google Scholar
Klein, K. 2017. Does gender diversity on boards really boost company performance? Knowledge @ Wharton, May 18th. https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/will-gender-diversity-boards-really-boost-company-performance/Google Scholar
Klemash, S., Doyle, R., & Smith, J.C. 2018). Effective board evaluation. Harvard Law School Corporate Governance Forum. October 28th. file:///C:/Users/pstil/OneDrive/Documents/Acer%20Files/Docs/Book%20Board%20dynamics/Effective%20Board%20Evaluation%20HBS.htmlGoogle Scholar
Klemash, S., Lee, J., & Pederson, K. 2019. How boards govern disruptive technology—key findings from a director survey. EY Centre for Board Matters.Google Scholar
Kollewe, J. 2018. Hedge funds pressure Whitbread to spin off Costa Coffee. The Guardian, April 15th. www.theguardian.com/business/2018/apr/15/hedge-funds-pressure-whitbread-to-spin-off-costa-coffeeGoogle Scholar
Kor, Y., & Misangyi, V. 2008. Outside directors’ industry specific experience and firms’ liability of newness. Strategic Management Journal, 29: 1345–1355.Google Scholar
Kor, Y., & Sundaramurthy, C. 2009. Experience-based human and social capital of outside directors. Journal of Management, 35: 981–1006.Google Scholar
Ferry, Korn, 2017. Three ways board members can think like activists. Korn Ferry Institute. file:///C:/Users/pstil/OneDrive/Documents/Acer%20Files/Docs/Book%20Board%20dynamics/Activist%20Boards%20Fall%202017%20Korn%20Ferry%20.pdfGoogle Scholar
Kozlowski, S.W.J., & Bell, B.S. 2003. Work groups and teams in organizations. In Borman, W.C., Ilgen, D.R., & Klimoski, R.J. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 12. Industrial and organizational psychology, 333–375. London: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krause, R., Semadeni, M., & Withers, M. C. 2016. That special someone: When the board views its chair as a resource. Strategic Management Journal, 37: 1990–2002.Google Scholar
Kroll, M., Walters, B. A., & Le, S. 2007. The impact of board composition and top management team ownership structure on post-IPO performance in young entrepreneurial firms. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 1198–1216.Google Scholar
Larcker, D., & Tayan, B. 2016. Corporate governance matters. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Lawrence, M. 2017. Corporate governance reform. Turning business towards long-term success. IPPR Commission on Economic Justice.Google Scholar
Libert, B., Beck, M., & Bonckek, M. 2017. AI in the boardroom: The next realm of corporate governance. MIT Sloan Management Review online, October 19th.Google Scholar
Lipton, M. 2019. It’s time to adopt the new paradigm. Harvard Law School Corporate Governance Forum. February 11th. https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2019/02/11/its-time-to-adopt-the-new-paradigm/Google Scholar
Lipton, M. 2018. The future of the corporation. Oxford University Business Law Blog, www.law.ox.ac.uk/business-law-blog/blog/2018/11/future-corporationGoogle Scholar
Lipton, M. 2015. Risk management and the board of directors. Harvard Law School Corporate Governance Forum, July 28th. https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2015/07/28/risk-management-and-the-board-of-directors-3/Google Scholar
Lipton, M., Niles, S. V., & Miller, M.L. 2018. Risk management and the board of directors. Harvard Law School Corporate Governance Forum, March 20th. https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2018/03/20/risk-management-and-the-board-of-directors-5/Google Scholar
Local Authority Pension Fund Forum (LAPFF). 2019. Employees on boards Modernising governance. www.lapfforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/LAPFFEOBSURVEY.pdfGoogle Scholar
Lopez, D., Kohn, A.H., & Mooney, M.G. 2019. Management duty to set the right ‘tone at the top’. Harvard Law School Corporate Governance Forum, May 28th. https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2019/05/26/management-duty-to-set-the-right-tone-at-the-top/Google Scholar
Lorsch, J. W., & MacIver, E. 1989. Pawns and potentates: The reality of America’s corporate boards. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Luoma, P., & Goodstein, J, 1999. Stakeholders and corporate boards: Institutional influences on board composition and structure. Academy of Management Journal. 42: 553–563.Google Scholar
Maak, T. 2007. Responsible leadership, stakeholder engagement, and the emergence of social capital. Journal of Business Ethics, 74: 329–343.Google Scholar
Magnuson, W.J. 2018. The public cost of private equity, Minnesota Law Review, 102: 1847–1910.Google Scholar
Marsh, P. 1993. Short-termism on trial. London: Institutional Fund Managers Association.Google Scholar
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. 2001. A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26: 356–376.Google Scholar
Martin, B. 2019. Activists target dozens of UK’s biggest companies. The Times, July 23rd. www.thetimes.co.uk/article/activists-target-dozens-of-uk-s-biggest-companies-8ws66lpsnGoogle Scholar
Mayer, C. 2018. The future of the corporation: Towards humane business. Journal of the British Academy, 6(s1): 1–16.Google Scholar
Mayer, C. 2018a. Prosperity: Better business makes the greater good. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McDonald, M. L., Westphal, J. D., & Graebner, M. E. 2008. What do they know? The effects of outside director acquisition experience on firm acquisition performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29: 1155–1177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinsey, . 2019. Private markets come of age. McKinsey Global Private Markets Review. www.mckinsey.com/~/Private-markets-come-of-age-McKinsey-Global-Private-Markets-Review-2019-vFashx.Google Scholar
McKinsey, , 2016. The CEO guide to boards. McKinsey Quarterly, September. www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/leadership/the-ceo-guide-to-boardsGoogle Scholar
McKinsey, . 2014. High-performing boards: What’s on their agenda? McKinsey Quarterly, April. www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/high-performing-boards-whats-on-their-agendaGoogle Scholar
Miller, D., Monin, T, M., & Prentice, D.A. 2000. Pluralistic ignorance and inconsistency between private and public behaviours. In Terry, D. J. and Hogg, M. A. (eds.), Attitudes, Behaviour, and Social Context: The Role of Norms and Group Membership, 95–113. Mahwah, NJ: Eribaum.Google Scholar
Miller, T., & Triana, M. D. C. 2009. Demographic diversity in the boardroom: mediators of the board diversity–firm performance relationship. Journal of Management Studies, 46: 755–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D. T., & McFarland, C. 1987. Pluralistic ignorance: When similarity is interpreted as dissimilarity. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 53: 298–305.Google Scholar
Monks, R. A. G., & Minow, N. 2011. Corporate governance (5th ed.). Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
Moore, M. 2016. Shareholder primacy, labour and the historic ambivalence of UK company law. University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series, No. 40/2016.Google Scholar
Moos, K., & Vecchio, A. 2012. Have we placed too much faith in corporate governance reform? Spencer Stuart, Point of View. www.spencerstuart.com/-/media/pdf-files/research-and-insight-pdfs/pov12_indart_govrnreformnew.pdfGoogle Scholar
Morris, P., & Phalippou, P. 2020. Thirty years after Jensen’s prediction: Is private equity a superior form of ownership? Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 36: 291–313.Google Scholar
Moss, J. 2016. Theresa May promises worker representatives on boards. Personnel Today, June 11th. www.personneltoday.com/hr/theresa-may-promises-worker-representatives-boards/Google Scholar
Munkholm, N.V. 2018. Board level employee representation in Europe: an overview. Annual Conference of the European Centre of Expertise (ECE), Directorate General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion.Google Scholar
NACD, 2018. 2017–2018 public company governance survey. NACD. www.nacdonline.org/files/2017%E2%80%932018%20NACD%20Public%20Company%20Governance%20Survey%20Executive%20Summary.pdfGoogle Scholar
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. 1998. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23: 242–266.Google Scholar
Nicholson, G., Kiel, G., & Tunny, J.A. 2012. Board evaluations: contemporary thinking and practice. In Sage Handbook of Corporate Governance. (Eds. Clarke, T., & Branson, D.M ) London: Sage. 285–324.Google Scholar
Nicholson, G., & Newton, C. J. 2010. The role of the board of directors: Perceptions of managerial elites. Journal of Management and Organization, 16: 201−218.Google Scholar
O’Brien, D. 2008. The private equity board: a good governance model? London: Egon Zehnder.Google Scholar
Ocasio, W. 1999. Institutionalized action and corporate governance: The reliance on rules of CEO succession. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 384–416.Google Scholar
Parker, J. 2017. The Parker Review: A report into the ethnic diversity of UK boards. Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Policy. www.gov.uk/government/publications/ethnic-diversity-of-uk-boards-the-parker-reviewGoogle Scholar
Parrino, R. 1997. CEO turnover and outside succession: a cross-sectional analysis. Journal of Financial Economics, 46: 165–197.Google Scholar
Peterson, R. 2020. Predicting the unpredictable. Harvey Nash/London Business School Annual Board Report. www.harveynash.com/group/mediacentre/AlumniHarveynashBoardResearch_2020.pdfGoogle Scholar
Pettigrew, A.M., & McNulty, T. 1995. Power and influence in and around the boardroom. Human Relations, 48: 845–873.Google Scholar
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. 1978. The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Pletzer, J .L., Nikolova, R., Kedzior, K. K., & Voelpe, S. C. 2015. Does gender matter? female representation on corporate boards and firm financial performance – a meta-analysis. PLoS One: 10 (6):e0130005. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4473005/Google Scholar
Posner, C. 2019. So long to shareholder primacy. Harvard Law School Corporate Governance Forum. August 22nd. https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2019/08/22/so-long-to-shareholder-primacy/Google Scholar
Post, C., & Byron, K. 2014. Women on boards and firm financial performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 58: 54–65.Google Scholar
Power, M. 1997. The audit society. Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pratley, N. 2018. Putting workers on the board is a bitter but necessary pill. The Guardian, September 5th. www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2018/sep/05/putting-workers-on-the-board-is-a-bitter-but-necessary-pillGoogle Scholar
PWC. 2018. What should corporate boards know about artificial intelligence (AI)? www.pwc.com/us/en/services/governance-insights-center/library/technology-hub-artificial-intelligence.htmlGoogle Scholar
Pye, A., & Pettigrew, A. 2005. Studying board context, process and dynamics: Some challenges for the future. British Journal of Management, 16: 27–38.Google Scholar
Rees, C. 2019. Worker directors increasingly prominent in debates on corporate governance reform. Involvement and Participation Association. June 3rd. www.ipa-involve.com/news/worker-directors-increasingly-prominent-in-debates-on-corporate-governance-reformGoogle Scholar
Rhee, J. 2017. A legal theory of shareholder primacy. Minnesota Law Review, 102: 1951–2017.Google Scholar
Rhoades, D. L., Rechner, P. L., & Sundaramurthy, C. 2000. Board composition and financial performance: A review and contingency model. Journal of Managerial Issues, 12: 76–91.Google Scholar
Rindova, V. P. 1999. What corporate boards have to do with strategy: a cognitive perspective, Journal of Management Studies, 36: 953–975.Google Scholar
Risso-Gill, J. 2018. It’s hard to get talent on board when non-executive roles don’t appeal. Daily Telegraph, August, 23rd. www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/08/23/hard-get-talent-board-non-executive-roles-dont-appeal/Google Scholar
Roberts, J. 2009. No one is perfect: The limits of transparency and an ethic for ‘intelligent’ accountability. Accounting, Organisations and Society. 34: 957–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, J. 2002. Building the complementary board: The work of the Plc chairman. Long Range Planning, 35: 493–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, J., McNulty, T., & Stiles, P. 2005. Beyond agency conceptions of the work of the nonexecutive director: Creating accountability in the boardroom. British Journal of Management, 16: S5–S26.Google Scholar
Roberts, J., & Stiles, P. 1999. The relationship between chairmen and chief executives: Competitive or complementary roles? Long Range Planning, 32: 36–48.Google Scholar
Romanelli, E., & Tushman, M. L. 1994. Organizational transformation as punctuated equilibrium: An empirical test. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 1141–1166.Google Scholar
Salesforce, 2018. Paula Goldman joins Salesforce as VP, Chief Ethical and Humane Use Officer. www.salesforce.com/news/stories/paula-goldman-joins-salesforce-as-vp-chief-ethical-and-humane-use-officer/Google Scholar
Schein, E. 2010. Organizational culture and leadership, 4th Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Schepker, D. J., Nyberg, A. J., Ulrich, M., & Wright, P. M. 2018. Planning for future leadership: Procedural rationality, formalized succession processes, and CEO influence in CEO succession planning. Academy of Management Journal, 61: 523–552.Google Scholar
Shattuck, M., & Carter, M. 2018. Future proofing the board: corporate culture on the agenda. Teneo, November 16th. www.teneo.com/future-proofing-the-board-corporate-culture-on-the-agenda/Google Scholar
Shekshina, S. 2018. How to be a good board chair. Harvard Business Review, March-April, 96–105.Google Scholar
Sikka, P., Hudson, P., Hadden, T., et al., 2018. A better future for corporate governance: Democratising corporations for their long-term success. http://visar.csustan.edu/aaba/LabourCorpGovReview2018.pdfGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, A., McCormack, D., & Lamm, B, 2018. The board’s role in corporate social purpose. Harvard Law School Corporate Governance Forum, July 20th. https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2018/07/20/the-boards-role-in-corporate-social-purpose/Google Scholar
Stuart, Spencer, 2019. US Board Index, www.spencerstuart.com/research-and-insight/us-board-indexGoogle Scholar
Stuart, Spencer, 2019. UK Board Index, www.spencerstuart.com/research-and-insight/uk-board-indexGoogle Scholar
Smale, A. 2013. Progress, but still a long way to go for women in Norway. New York Times, June 4th.Google Scholar
Spira, L., & Bender, R. 2004. Compare and contrast: perspectives on board committees. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 12: 489–499.Google Scholar
Statista, 2020. Number of companies trading monthly on the London Stock Exchange from January 2015 to January 2020. www.statista.com/statistics/324547/uk-number-of-companies-lse/Google Scholar
Stevenson, W. B., & Radin, R. F. 2009. Social capital and social influence on the board of directors. Journal of Management Studies, 46: 16–44.Google Scholar
Stiles, P. 2001. The impact of the board on strategy: an empirical examination. Journal of Management Studies, 38: 627–650.Google Scholar
Stiles, P., & Taylor, B. 2001. Boards at work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sundaramurthy, C., & Lewis, M. 2003. Control and collaboration: Paradoxes of governance. Academy of Management Review, 28: 397–415.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H. 1981. Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Terjesen, S., Aguilera, R. V., & Lorenz, R. 2014. Legislating a woman’s seat on the board: Institutional factors driving gender quotas for boards of directors. Journal of Business Ethics. 128: 233–251Google Scholar
The Purposeful Company. 2018. Intrinsic purpose definition. The Purposeful Company Steering Group.www.biginnovationcentre-purposeful-company.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/tpc_intrinsic-purpose.pdfGoogle Scholar
Thuraisingham, M. 2019. Identity, power and influence in the boardroom: Actionable strategies for developing high impact directors and boards. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Trainer, D. 2019. Verint: a tech laggard that is vastly overvalued. Forbes, July 24th. www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2019/07/24/verint-a-tech-laggard-that-is-vastly-overvalued/#4bb36dbb6e65Google Scholar
TUC. 2016. All aboard: making worker representation on company boards a reality. www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/All_Aboard_2016.Google Scholar
TUC. 2014. Beyond shareholder value: the reasons and choices for corporate governance reform. www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/BSV.pdfGoogle Scholar
Useem, M. 2006. How well-run boards make decisions. Harvard Business Review. November, 84: 130–138.Google Scholar
Vitols, S. 2010. Board level employee representation, executive remuneration and firm performance in large European companies. European Corporate Governance Institute and European Trades Union Institute.Google Scholar
Wagner, J. A., Steimpert, J. L., & Fubara, E. I. 1998. Board composition and organizational performance: Two studies of insider/outsider effects. Journal of Management Studies, 35: 655–677Google Scholar
Weill, P., Apel, T., Woerner, S. L., & Banner, J. S. 2019. It pays to have a digitally savvy board. MIT Sloan Management Review, 60: 41–45.Google Scholar
Westphal, J. D. 1999. Collaboration in the boardroom: behavioural and performance consequences of CEO-board social ties. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 7–24.Google Scholar
Westphal, J. D., & Bednar, M. K. 2005. Pluralistic ignorance in corporate boards and firms’ strategic persistence in response to low firm performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50: 262–298.Google Scholar
Westphal, J. D., & Fredrickson, J. W. 2001. Who directs strategic change? Director experience, the selection of new CEOs, and change in corporate strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 1113–1137.Google Scholar
Westphal, J. D., & Khanna, P. 2003. Keeping directors in line: Social distancing as a control mechanism in the corporate elite. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 361–398.Google Scholar
Westphal, J. D., & Stern, I. 2006. The other pathway to the boardroom: interpersonal influence behaviour as a substitute for elite credentials and majority status in obtaining board appointments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51: 169–204.Google Scholar
Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. 2013. A behavioural theory of corporate governance: Explicating the mechanisms of socially situated and socially constituted agency. Academy of Management Annals, 7: 607–661.Google Scholar
Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. 1995. Who shall govern? CEO/board power, demographic similarity, and new director selection. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 60–84.Google Scholar
Whitley, R. 2007. Business systems and organisational capabilities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiersema, M., Nishimura, Y., & Suzuki, K. 2018. Executive succession: The importance of social capital in CEO appointments. Strategic Management Journal, 39: 1473–1495.Google Scholar
Williams, K.Y., & O’Reilly, C.A. 1998. Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. In Staw, B.M. and Cummings, L.L. (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behaviour, Greenwich: JAI Press, 77–140.Google Scholar
World Economic Forum, 2016. The new paradigm: a roadmap for an implicit corporate governance partnership between corporations and investors to achieve sustainable long-term investment and growth. www.shareholderforum.com/access/Library/20160902_WLRK.pdfGoogle Scholar
Wu, H. 2008. How do board-CEO relationships influence the performance of new product introduction? Moving from single to interdependent explanations. Corporate Governance; An International Review, 16: 77–89.Google Scholar
Zajac, E. J., & Westphal, J. D. 1996. Who shall succeed? How CEO/board preferences and power affect the choice of new CEOs. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 64–90.Google Scholar
Zhang, Y., & Rajagopalan, N. 2004. When the known devil is better than an unknown god: An empirical study of the antecedents and consequences of relay CEO successions. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 483–500.Google Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Board Dynamics
  • Philip Stiles, Cambridge Judge Business School
  • Online ISBN: 9781108974875
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Board Dynamics
  • Philip Stiles, Cambridge Judge Business School
  • Online ISBN: 9781108974875
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Board Dynamics
  • Philip Stiles, Cambridge Judge Business School
  • Online ISBN: 9781108974875
Available formats
×