Search results
1 – 10 of 52Anne Klitgaard and Stefan Christoffer Gottlieb
The study aims to investigate the concept of strategy-as-practice in construction management literature has been investigated. The focus is on the link between strategizing…
Abstract
Purpose
The study aims to investigate the concept of strategy-as-practice in construction management literature has been investigated. The focus is on the link between strategizing practices and project management.
Design/Methodology/Approach
An exploratory literature review is carried out based on fifteen journal articles on strategizing practices in the construction industry.
Findings
The analysis shows how strategy-as-practice questions and contradicts project management practices as depicted in the dominant deterministic perspective. Strategy-as-practice has a focus on reacting and adapting to a chaotic and changing environment, while project management is concerned with creating and maintaining a stable working environment. The findings point to the necessity of considering the organizational and institutional context of project management practices, and hence the values the strategy-as-practice lens, when considering new avenues for improving the industry.
Research Limitations/Implications
As the study is based on an exploratory literature review of only 15 articles, generalizations should be made with caution. The identified literature is restricted by search words and choice of database.
Practical Implications
The differences between strategizing and project management practices are very clear, and a focus on both may offer insights into how the construction industry could improve its productivity by developing more robust management practices.
Originality/Value
The paper illustrates the benefit of applying a strategizing perspective, which hitherto has been under-investigated in construction management research.
Details
Keywords
Abstract
Details
Keywords
Krishna Prasad, K. Sankaran and Nandan Prabhu
The purpose of this paper is to examine the empirical relationship between gray directors (non-executive non-independent directors) and executive compensation among companies…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to examine the empirical relationship between gray directors (non-executive non-independent directors) and executive compensation among companies listed in India’s National Stock Exchange (NSE). The paper also examines the possible interplay of relationships between controlling shareholder duality (controlling shareholder being the CEO), ownership category and executive compensation.
Design/methodology/approach
A sample of 438 firms listed in the NSE of India was studied using data spanning five financial years, 2012–2013 to 2016–2017.
Findings
Empirical evidence suggests that there is a positive association between the proportion of gray directors on the board and executive compensation. The sensitivity of executive compensation to gray directors is found to be higher among family controlled firms. This research has also found that CEOs who belong to controlling shareholder groups received higher pay than professional CEOs. The authors conjecture that these results suggest cronyism and may contribute to lower levels of corporate governance practices in the country.
Research limitations/implications
The hybrid board structure, which India has adopted with the desire to bring the best of Anglo Saxon and Japanese board philosophies, has paradoxically led to self-serving boards. Exploration of alternative thinking to bring about changes in the regulatory framework is, therefore, necessary.
Originality/value
Serious problems are identified with the philosophy behind board composition mandated by Listing Requirements for Indian firms with empirical evidence showing how the existing rules generate cronyism and unfairness to minority shareholders.
Details
Keywords
N. Muthukumar, K. Ganesh, Sanjay Mohapatra, K. Tamizhjyothi, R. M. Nachiappan and M. Bharati