Search results

Given a number of recent and ongoing changes to the role and responsibilities of executive and non‐executive board members of UK social housing organisations, the paper aims to offer a literature review which explores the development provision for board members within such organisations. The paper's key question is: “How are executive and non‐executive board members being prepared for these changes?”

A systematic literature review was undertaken, based on the main business and management databases. This was followed by a thematic analysis to uncover what we know about executive and non‐executive board member training and development within the public and voluntary sectors, in particular within UK social housing organisations.

Despite the increasingly important role of boards in the not‐for‐profit sector, only a limited number of publications focusing on human resource development (HRD) issues were found. The literature did provide some insight into the HRD experiences of executive and non‐executive board members. The majority of papers centred on leadership and governance matters, mainly board effectiveness, performance and “board capital”, rather than human capital. In so far as board member development is discussed, it is mainly in relation to their recruitment to the board and the sort of skills required, with little attention given to matters such as succession planning and member development.

Given the limited extent of research to date into executive and non‐executive board development in social housing organisations, it follows that there is limited knowledge of what is – or is not – happening in practice. This highlights the need for more empirical research, on the basis of which it should be possible to offer suggestions for changes to/improvements in board member development activities.

The paper reviews the current state of knowledge relating to executive and non‐executive board member development in not‐for‐profit and social housing organisations.

The purpose of this paper is to focus on the issue of professional development education for school board members. The research question that guides this mixed study is: does school board member professional development have an effect on student achievement?

The standardized protocol for this study was to send a developed questionnaire to 50 directors of state school board associations. An inductive analysis was made of the state school board directors' responses on whether they felt professional development had a positive effect on student achievement. Their responses were then compared with Education Week's 2009 rating of state education systems.

From the response from the 26 responding state directors, the study found that most states do not require professional development for school board members. State board directors did feel that school board professional development had a positive effect on student achievement. Of the states that did require school board professional development, they received an overall rating of B or C according to the Education Week 2009 rating, while those states that did not require professional development received a rating of C or D.

Mixed research such as this adds to the conversation of the need for required school board professional development but the findings need to be re‐analyzed with all 50 states responding.

The practical implications are profound in that it is desired that children should succeed and learn in quality schools. School board members' lack of education (i.e. they only require high‐school diploma or GED) has an effect on student achievement. School board members need to take required professional development in all areas of public schooling so that quality decisions can be made for children's education.

The social implications are that school board member professional development sends a message to students that continued adult learning is necessary in all walks of life for the USA to continue its leadership in the world.

School board members with the barest qualifications are elected to, in essence, run public schools. Little research has been done about the effects of school board member education on student achievement. This paper explores the voices of state directors in relation to professional development for school board members in US public school discourse and fills some of the gaps in the research.

This paper aims to share the findings of investigations into how directors have and should be prepared for their boardroom roles.

The paper draws on the findings of surveys of director development undertaken by the author and others and the author's experience of advising over 100 boards on director and board development.

The findings suggest many directors and boards do not receive the development they require to be more effective in their roles. Trainers and developers interested in addressing their requirements need to understand the development role of the chairman of the board, the distinct nature of director development, obstacles to development at board level, the learning preferences of directors and formal and informal learning options that are available and ask key questions to assess the development context.

The surveys examined have mainly involved UK directors and unitary boards. The situation might be different in other countries. It would be helpful if more studies were undertaken of director and board development in other contexts and involving different board structures, e.g. two‐tier or management and supervisory boards. Directors need a proper induction and must remain current throughout their directorial career. Trainers and developers can address this requirement by a combination of formal and informal means.

The paper highlights the nature of the director development challenge, and that the boardroom represents a key learning environment. The paper should be of value to those who support directors and boards and have an interest in improving the competence of directors and the effectiveness of boards.

In a review of the literature, supported by six case studies, executive development for senior managers in public and private organisations is explored in depth. The study looks at the roles and responsibilities of the chairman, CEO, executive and non‐executive directors, the required capabilities to achieve successful performance, and the related executive development activity implemented to support these. Methods of delivery, development needs analysis and evaluation are explored in case organisations to ascertain current practice. A detailed review of the leadership and governance literatures is included to highlight the breadth of knowledge required at director level. Key findings of the study include the importance of focusing executive development on capability enhancement, to ensure that it is supporting organisational priorities, and on its thorough customisation to the corporate context. Deficiencies in current corporate practice are also identified.

Asks whether company boards are used to full effect in the light of the growing responsibility on the shoulders of directors today. Highlights the inadequate preparation provided for directors, considering the substantial potential for their effectiveness. Outlines the processes involved in building and maintaining a coherent, purposeful and productive boardroom team, including the importance of defining directorial competences. Punctuates throughout with comments by experienced directors and suggested exercises for assessing directors′ training needs. Presents recommendations for how boardroom effectiveness might be improved and maintained, providing key lessons and a business excellence action plan.

A statutory board is one of the three forms of public enterprise in Singapore which are involved directly or indirectly in economic development. Tan Chwee Huat has defined a statutory board as “an autonomous government agency set up by special legislation to perform specific functions (Tan, 1974, p. 102).” Similarly, Lee Boon Hiok has referred to statutory boards as “a catchall phrase for the statutory bodies which have been established by an Act of Parliament,” which specifies their rationale as well as their rights and powers (Lee, 1975, pp. 38–39).

The purpose of this paper is to share the findings of investigations into the competences that an effective director should have. It draws upon the findings of surveys of director development undertaken by the author and others and the author's experience of advising over 100 boards on director and board development.

The surveys examined have mainly involved UK directors and unitary boards. The situation might be different in other countries. It would be helpful if more studies were undertaken of director and board development in other contexts and involving different board structures, e.g. two tier or management and supervisory boards.

The findings suggest it is possible to identify, categorize and prioritize the competences that directors require to be more effective in their roles. Trainers and developers interested in addressing directorial competence requirements need to understand the distinction between direction and management, and between deficiencies that require individual and collective action, the boardroom context and concerns directors may themselves have about the assessment of their competences. There are certain questions they need to ask to assess the development requirement.

The competences of individual directors and those of the board as a whole should be periodically reviewed, particularly as the membership of a board changes and it faces new challenges. Trainers and developers can address this requirement by sensitively handling any concerns directors may have about the process used.

The paper highlights the nature of the competences required by a competent director and the challenge of assessing, categorizing, prioritizing and addressing competence deficiencies. The paper should be of value to those who support directors and boards and have an interest in improving the competence of directors and the effectiveness of boards.

This article offers an action plan for CEOs who wish to constructively engage their boards in strategy development. In this approach, the board participates in the strategic thinking and strategic decision‐making processes, adding value but not infringing on the CEO’s and executive team’s fundamental responsibilities. More specifically, in value‐added engagement, the CEO and management lead and develop the strategic plan with directors’ input, and the board generally approves the strategy and the metrics to assess progress. The author details the five key elements critical to successful engagement of the board in strategy development: view strategy as a process, not an event; design parallel but lagged processes; inform and educate the board; collect and analyze director input; generate strategic alternatives. The recommended framework for engaging the board in strategy development is called the “strategic choice process”; it has six steps, with the CEO and his/her team leading the way.

National Health Service trust boards are constantly challenged to achieve a balance between their resources and meeting the needs of the communities they serve. In addition, the scientific, technological, political and economic factors, which influence health and social care, are driving change more rapidly than ever before in the Health Service. As part of its function to support NHS organisations with the implementation of clinical governance, the NHS Clinical Governance Support Team (CGST) has developed a strategic development programme for trust boards. The aim of the programme is to develop the board’s capability to meet its responsibilities for governance and the delivery of safe, high quality patient care.

The size, characteristics and structure of boards of directors have been claimed to be an important influence on the performance of large firms, but have been less examined in small firms. For larger firms the role of boards acts more as a substitute for the development of internal staff and management skills, indicating that for large firms directors chiefly support the control role of CEOs. The importance of seeing boards, external consultants and internal management skills as substitutes is demonstrated, and is shown to have a non‐linear relation with firm size. However, a key finding of the paper is that there is little evidence of a strong association of board size, board qualifications, or board structure with firm performance, measured by profitability, employment growth or propensity to innovate.