Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:35:19.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Towards a dynamic theory of boards: An organisational life cycle approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2015

Ingrid Bonn  and
Andrew Pettigrew
Ingrid Bonn
Affiliation:
School of Business, Bond University, Gold Coast QLD, Australia
Andrew Pettigrew
Affiliation:
Dean - School of Management, University of Bath, Bath, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We propose a research agenda that can assist in developing a dynamic and comprehensive theory of boards of directors. It is based upon the concept of temporality, with time being organised around the life-cycle metaphor, and integrates research on agency theory, decision-making theory and resource dependence theory. We identify three key roles of boards of directors:

  1. 1.monitoring and controlling top management;

  2. 2.involvement in strategic decision-making; and

  3. 3.providing access to resources and networks.

Our analysis suggests that boards perform all three roles, but that these roles change over time. We propose clear researchable questions for each stage of the organisational life cycle as well as the transition between the stages.

Keywords

board of directorscorporate governanceorganisational life cycle
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 2 - 16
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2009

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

Anderson, P and Tushman, ML (1990) Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: A cyclical model of technological change, Administrative Science Quarterly 35: 604–633.Google Scholar
Avital, M (2000) Dealing with time in social inquiry: A tension between method and lived experience, Organization Science 11: 665–673.Google Scholar
Barker, VL III and Duhaime, IM (1997) Strategic change in the turnaround process: Theory and empirical evidence, Strategic Management Journal 18: 13–38.Google Scholar
Bethel, JE and Liebeskind, J (1993) The effects of ownership structure on corporate restructuring, Strategic Management Journal 14: 15–31.Google Scholar
Carpenter, MA, Pollock, TG and Leary, MM (2003) Testing a model of reasoned risk-taking: Governance, the experience of principals and agents, and global strategy in high-technology IPO firms, Strategic Management Journal 24: 803–820.Google Scholar
Certo, ST (2003) Influencing initial public offering investors with prestige: Signaling with board structures, Academy of Management Review 28: 432–446.Google Scholar
Chrisman, JJ and Leslie, J (1989) Strategic, administrative, and operative problems: The impact of outsiders on small firm performance, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 4 (2): 37–51.Google Scholar
Cooksey, RW (2001) What is complexity science? A contextually grounded tapestry of systemic dynamism, paradigm diversity, theoretical eclecticism, and organizational learning, Emergence 3 (1): 77–103.Google Scholar
Daily, CM (1994) Bankruptcy in strategic studies: Past and promise, Journal of Management 20 (2): 263–296.Google Scholar
Daily, CM and Dalton, DR (1992) The relationship between governance structure and corporate performance in entrepreneurial firms, Journal of Business Venturing 7 (5): 375–386.Google Scholar
Daily, CM and Dalton, DR (1994a) Bankruptcy and corporate governance: The impact of board composition and structure, Academy of Management Journal 37: 1603–1617.Google Scholar
Daily, CM and Dalton, DR (1994b) Corporate governance and the bankrupt firm: An empirical assessment, Strategic of Management Journal 15: 643–654.Google Scholar
Daily, CM and Dalton, DR (1995) CEO and director turnover in failing firms: An illusion of change? Strategic of Management Journal 16: 393–400.Google Scholar
Daily, CM and Schwenk, C (1996) Chief executive officers, top management teams, and board of directors: Congruent or countervailing forces? Journal of Management 22: 185–208.Google Scholar
Dalton, D, Daily, CM, Johnson, J and Ellstrand, A (1999) Number of directors and financial performance: A meta-analysis, Academy of Management Journal 42: 674–686.Google Scholar
D'Aveni, RA (1990) Top managerial prestige and organizational bankruptcy, Organization Science 1 (2): 121–142.Google Scholar
Demb, A and Neubauer, FF (1992) The corporate board. Confronting the paradoxes, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Dodge, HJ, Fullerton, S and Robbins, JE (1994) Stage of the organizational life cycle and competition as mediators of problem perception for small businesses, Strategic Management Journal 15: 121–134.Google Scholar
Doz, YL (1996) The evolution of cooperation in strategic alliances: Initial conditions or learning processes? Strategic Management Journal 17: 55–83.Google Scholar
Fama, EF and Jensen, MC (1983) Separation of ownership and control, Journal of Law and Economics 26: 301–325.Google Scholar
Filatotchev, I and Bishop, K (2002) Board composition, share ownership, and “underpricing’ of U.K. IPO firms, Strategic Management Journal 23: 941–955.Google Scholar
Filatotchev, I and Toms, S (2003) Corporate governance, strategy and survival in a declining industry: A study of UK cotton textile companies, Journal of Management 40: 895–920.Google Scholar
Filatotchev, I and Wright, M (2005) The corporate governance life cycle, in Filatotchev, I and Wright, M (Eds), The life cycle of corporate governance pp 1–19, Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK.Google Scholar
Finkelstein, S and Hambrick, DC (1996) Strategic leaderships: Top executives and their organizations, West Educational Publishing, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
Flood, RL and Romm, NRA (1996) Diversity management: Triple loop learning, John Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
Ford, J (1980) The occurrence of structural hysteresis in declining organizations, Academy of Management Review 5: 589–598.Google Scholar
George, JM and Jones, GR (2000) The role of time in theory and theory building, Journal of Management 26: 657–684.Google Scholar
Gilson, SC (1990) Bankruptcy, boards, banks and blockholders, Journal of Financial Economics 27: 55–387.Google Scholar
Golden, BR and Zajac, EJ (2001) When will boards influence strategy? Inclination x power = strategic change, Strategic Management Journal 22: 1087–1111.Google Scholar
Gulati, R and Higgins, MC (2003) Which ties matter when? The contingent effects of interorganizational partnerships on IPO success, Strategic Management Journal 24: 127–144.Google Scholar
Hambrick, DC and D'Aveni, RA (1992) Top team deterioration as part of the downward spiral of large corporate bankruptcies, Management Science 38: 1445–1466.Google Scholar
Higgins, MC and Gulati, R (2003) Getting off to a good start: The effects of upper echelon affiliations on underwriter prestige, Organization Science 14.3: 244–265.Google Scholar
Hill, S (1995) The social organization of boards of directors, British Journal of Sociology 46: 245–278.Google Scholar
Hillman, AJ, Cannella, AA Jr and Paetzold, RL (2000) The resource dependence role of corporate directors: Strategic adaptation of board composition in response to environmental change, Journal of Management Studies 37: 235–255.Google Scholar
Hillman, AJ and Dalziel, T (2003) Boards of directors and firm performance: Integrating agency and resource dependence perspectives, Academy of Management Review 28: 383–396.Google Scholar
Jawahar, IM and McLaughlin, GL (2001) Toward a descriptive stakeholder theory: An organizational life cycle approach, Academy of Management Review 26: 397–414.Google Scholar
Jensen, MC and Meckling, WH (1976) Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure, Journal of Financial Economics 3: 305–350.Google Scholar
Johnson, RA (1996) Antecedents and outcomes of corporate refocusing, Journal of Management 22: 439–483.Google Scholar
Johnson, RB (1997) The board of directors over time: Composition and the organizational life cycle, International Journal of Management 14: 339–344.Google Scholar
Johnson, JL, Daily, CM and Ellstrand, AE (1996) Board of directors: A review and research agenda, Journal of Management 22: 409–438.Google Scholar
Johnson, RA, Hoskisson, RE and Hitt, MA (1993) Board of director involvement in restructuring: The effects of board versus managerial controls and characteristics, Strategic Management Journal 14: 33–50.Google Scholar
Judge, WQ Jr and Zeithaml, CP (1992) Institutional and strategic choice perspectives on board involvement in the strategic decision process, Academy of Management Journal 35: 766–794.Google Scholar
Kazanjian, RK (1988) Relation of dominant problems to stages of growth in technology-based new ventures, Academy of Management Journal 31: 257–279.Google Scholar
Kimberly, JR (1980) Initiation, innovation, and institutionalization in the creation process, in Kimberly, JR and Miles, RH (Eds), The organizational life cycle: Issues in the creation, transformation, and decline of organizations pp 18–43, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Lorsch, JW and MacIver, E (1989) Pawns or potentates. The reality of America's corporate boards, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Lynall, MD, Golden, BR and Hillman, AJ (2003) Board composition from adolescence to maturity: A multitheoretic view, Academy of Management Review 28: 416–431.Google Scholar
MacMillan, IC, Kulow, DM and Khoylian, R (1988). Venture capitalists' involvement in their investments: Extent and performance, Journal of Business Venturing 4: 27–47.Google Scholar
McNulty, T and Pettigrew, AM (1999). Strategists on the board, Organisation Studies 20: 47–74.Google Scholar
Megginson, WL and Weiss, KA (1991) Venture capitalist certification in initial public offerings, Journal of Finance XLVI: 879–903.Google Scholar
Miller, D and Friesen, PH (1984) A longitudinal study of the corporate life cycle, Management Science 30: 1161–1183.Google Scholar
Mizruchi, M (1983) Who controls whom? An examination of the relationship between management and boards of directors in large American corporations, Academy of Management Review 8: 426–435.Google Scholar
Mizruchi, M (1996) What do interlocks do? An analysis, critique, and assessment of research on interlocking directorates, Annual Review of Sociology 22: 271–298.Google Scholar
Mosakowski, E and Earley, PC (2000) A selective review of time assumptions in strategy research, Academy of Management Review 25: 796–812.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, AM (1992a) The character and significance of strategy process research, Strategic Management Journal 13: 5–16.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, AM (1992b) On studying managerial elites, Strategic Management Journal 13: 163–182.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, AM (1985) The awakening giant: Continuity and change in Imperial Chemical Industries, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, AM and McNulty, T (1998) Control and creativity in the boardroom, in Hambrick, DC, Nadler, DA and Tushman, ML (Eds), Navigating change: How CEOs, top teams and boards steer transformation pp 226–255. Harvard Business School Press, Boston MA.Google Scholar
Pfeffer, J and Salancik, G (1978) The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective, Harper & Row, New York.Google Scholar
Pye, A (2002) Corporate directing: Governing, strategising and leading in action, Corporate Governance 10: 153–162.Google Scholar
Pye, A and Pettigrew, A (2005) Studying board context, process and dynamics: Some challenges for the future, British Journal of Management 16: S27–S38.Google Scholar
Quinn, RE and Cameron, K (1983) Organizational life cycles and shifting criteria of effectiveness: Some preliminary evidence, Management Science 29 (3): 33–51.Google Scholar
Robbins, DK and Pearce, JA II (1992) Turnaround: Retrenchment and recovery, Strategic Management Journal 13: 287–309.Google Scholar
Rosenstein, J (1988) The board and strategy: Venture capital and high technology, Journal of Business Venturing 3: 159–170.Google Scholar
Smith, KG, Mitchell, TR and Summer, CE (1985) Top level management priorities in different stages of the organizational life cycle, Academy of Management Journal 28: 799–820.Google Scholar
Staw, BM, Sandelands, LE and Dutton, JE (1981) Threat-rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis, Administrative Science Quarterly 26: 501–524.Google Scholar
Stiles, P and Taylor, B (2001) Boards at work. How directors view their roles and responsibilities, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Walsh, JP and Seward, JK (1990) On the efficiency of internal and external corporate control mechanisms, Academy of Management Review 15: 421–458.Google Scholar
Westphal, JD (1999) Collaboration in the boardroom: Behavioral and performance consequences of CEO-board social ties, Academy of Management Journal 42: 7–24.Google Scholar
Zahra, SA and Pearce, JA (1989) Boards of directors and corporate financial performance: A review and integrative model, Journal of Management 15: 291–334.Google Scholar
Zahra, SA and Hayton, JC (2005) Organizational life-cycle transitions and their consequences for the governance of entrepreneurial firms: An analysis of start-up and adolescent high-technology new ventures, in Filatotchev, I and Wright, M (Eds), The life cycle of corporate governance pp 32–56, Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK.Google Scholar