Search results

This study aims to examine the impact of boardroom diversity on the financial stability of Chinese financial listed firms. Boardroom diversity is quantified in the following aspects: relation-oriented diversity and task-oriented diversity.

Panel data on Chinese financial listed firms between 1998 and 2017 are used in this study. Panel regression is used to analyze the firm data for fixed effects and robust standard errors.

Task-oriented diversity of the board increases financial stability. Regarding the impact of boardroom diversity on firm risk, the results reveal that task-oriented diversity of the board reduces firm risk, which supports the predictions of this research. Regarding the moderating effect of state ownership on the relationship between boardroom diversity (task- and relation-oriented diversity) and financial stability, the results show that state ownership enhances the positive impact of the board’s task-oriented diversity on financial stability.

Task-oriented diversity of the board enhances the financial stability of Chinese financial listed firms. As existing studies on bank boards in China are limited, the findings of this research can be used when crafting policy initiatives to enhance financial stability.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to examine the effect of boardroom diversity, particularly task- and relation-oriented diversity, on financial stability. It provides empirical support that boardroom diversity positively affects the financial stability of Chinese financial listed firms. This research also offers empirical evidence that state ownership enhances the positive impact of the board’s task-oriented diversity on financial stability.

This study aims to unpack the progress of board gender diversity among the 3,000 largest US listed firms by market capitalization (i.e. Russell 3000 Index). This study extrapolates four classifications of firms based on the number of women in the boardroom: zero women, one or two women, three plus women and gender balanced. The purpose of this study is to examine where progress has and has not been made, why firms plateau and an agenda for the future.

This study first provides a summative overview of the literature on the benefits of board gender diversity. It then examines progress according to the four classifications, each of which have theoretical underpinnings for whether or not firms can reap the strategic benefits of gender-diverse boardrooms.

Several indices of US publicly traded companies now have women holding between 30% and 33% of the seats in the boardroom. By examining the spread of women on boards according to the four classifications, this study extrapolates three key insights: firms experiencing tokenism (i.e. one or two women in the boardroom) do not have enough women to reap the strategic benefits of diverse boardrooms; firms that have reached a critical mass (three women in the boardroom) are at an impasse and may risk plateauing; and gender-balanced firms are elevated to the status of being role models for other firms. Calls for action and associated action plans accompany these insights.

This study reminds managers and directors of the strategic benefits of gender-diverse boards and offers three critical insights that boards can use to classify what stage they are at on the path toward board gender equality. Based on their classification, calls for action and action plans offer guidance to firms.

This study shifts away from focusing on the average percentage of board seats held by women across all firms and offers new insights on the progress that firms have made according to the number of women in their boardroom.

A place in the boardroom is often considered a necessary if not sufficient condition for HR directors to exercise strategic influence on business decision‐making. The purpose of the paper is to explore the perceived importance of HR boardroom representation, both in a formal and symbolic sense, and to what extent HR directors can exercise strategic influence without it?

Evidence is explored from a survey of 1,188 UK HR practitioners, including 255 board members, and a series of follow‐up interviews with 16 HR directors.

Analysis of the survey findings suggests that boardroom versus non‐boardroom representation of HR appears to matter in four key areas: board members believe they have greater involvement and influence in business planning processes; they have more positive perceptions of the overall performance of HR; they give higher ratings of CEO perceptions of the HR function; and they believe they achieve greater integration of HR strategy with business strategy.

While there are increasingly other formal mechanisms and forums (e.g. executive committees, personal networks) outside the boardroom for HR directors to exercise their influence, it appears that the “symbolic capital” of boardroom recognition and esteem still retains enormous significance and rhetorical appeal for the HR profession.

The paper seeks to reframe the debates on the relative importance of HR boardroom versus executive committee representation as forums of strategic influence, by focusing on the continued symbolic significance of boardroom representation. It is concluded that a reworking of Bourdieu's concept of “symbolic capital” (i.e. professional esteem, recognition, status, or respect) as board capital may be useful in reframing future research on HR boardroom representation.

The quest to unravel the mysterious boardroom’s structure that would confer the firm with incremental layers of economic supremacy has emerged as an issue of considerable importance in the corporate governance literature. Despite numerous attempts, corporate governance research has repeatedly failed to establish a clear and unequivocal theoretical linkage between the boardroom type and the corporate performance. Specifically, the optimum boardroom’s structure (i.e. one that would yield maximum economic benefit) remains an elusive dilemma. Undoubtedly, this problematic deserves more scrutiny. This study aims to expose the different layers of dimensional complexities related to boardroom’s research, particularly as it relates to those investigations using the positivist philosophy of research via inferential statistics using hypothetico-deductive reasoning.

The author examines the intrinsic complexities of boardroom’s research using thematic analysis. In the first phase, the author conducts a fine-grained systematic review of published studies in scholarly peer-reviewed journals. In the second phase, the author conduct a phenomenological investigation via semi-structured interviews with 35 seasoned corporate governance scholars with sound knowledge and expertise on boardroom’s research.

The thematic analysis reveals three overarching complexity dimensions encountered in boardroom’s research: an input dimension related to the ontological complexity of corporations. Research on boardroom’s effectiveness entails the manipulation and analysis of a plethora of convoluted and intertwined corporate performance determinants. Such explanatory variables are difficult to capture, untangle and operationalize; a processing dimension related to the methodological complexity of dealing with imperfect and incomplete information. Positivist research often uses large archival databases marred with endogeneity complications; an output dimension epitomizing the epistemological complexity of ascertaining what really constitutes corporate performance. The currently adopted performance metrics (accounting or market indicators) do not adequately depict the essence of boardroom’s effectiveness and corporate success.

Boardroom’s research continues to generate high level of interests in academic circles. Specifically, research on the linkage of boardroom’s structure and corporate performance is both unclear and confusing. This lingering deficiency necessitates the adoption of novel epistemological and methodological approaches to broaden the theoretical perspectives of boardroom’s structural effectiveness.

One key motivation of this study is to entice boardroom’s research to venture in the direction of uncharted territories. Knowledge discovery in this important area would have far-reaching implications on corporate governance best practices, including how to restructure existing boardrooms or how to establish new ones from scratch.

A well-functioning boardroom would justifiably push the firm in the direction of healthier corporate governance. In turn, healthier corporate governance would eventually yield superior corporate performance with positive consequences on key stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers, regulators and other members of the profession and the society.

In this paper, the author endeavors to identify and explain the root causes behind the complex nature of boardroom’s research. The author particularly focuses on the factors that blur or distort the causal linkage between boardroom’s type and corporate performance. To the author’s knowledge, this is the first comprehensive investigation that attempts to highlight the inherently complex nature of boardroom’s research. Thus, it fills an important gap in the literature.

Boardroom’s effectiveness has emerged as an issue of considerable importance in the minds of academics and practitioners, particularly in the aftermath of the highly visible corporate governance scandals of the past few decades. The purpose of this paper is to shed new lights on this topic by proposing a robust design framework for boardroom’s effectiveness.

The interpretative investigation is based on semi-structured interviews administered to directors of Fortune 500 firms. The adopted thematic analysis is phenomenology, or the feelings, experiences and perceptions of events as depicted first hand by individuals with significant boardroom’s experience.

Two central findings could be construed from this investigation. First, the optimum boardroom’s configuration is not a universal proposition. In other words, there are no magic recipes, and no one-size fits all approach. Rather, the optimum boardroom’s configuration ought to be framed in light of the overarching needs of the firm in relation to the dynamic forces in the external environment. Second, the design of boardrooms ought to span beyond structural aspects (i.e. the outwardly visible aspects) to also encompass two largely unobserved boardroom’s phenomena, namely, the directorship personal trait factors and the directorship behavioral patterns.

The findings presented herein may be contaminated with cognitive and personal biases, a common and unavoidable occurrence in qualitative research. A more integrative research approach using inductive and deductive techniques would allow for triangulation of results, thus providing an additional dose of validity and relevance to the research findings.

There has been a growing disenchantment about the modus operandi of the board of directors among practitioners, particularly as it pertains to large corporations with diffuse and heterogeneous shareholders and stakeholders. New design guidelines for the board of directors would directly impact on corporate practices.

The design of high performance boardrooms is instrumental to shareholders, policymakers, directors, executives, rank and file employees, suppliers, customers and other direct and indirect stakeholders, as it may help avert future corporate governance mishaps.

As of today, the academic and popular literature has yet to provide unequivocal guidance for the development of high performance boardrooms. This study fills an important gap in the prevailing corporate governance literature by integrating both structural and socio-cognitive factors into the design framework of the board of directors.

This study seeks to explore how non-executive directors address governance problems on Dutch two-tier boards. Within this board model, challenges might be particularly difficult to address due to the formal separation of management boards' decision-management from supervisory boards' decision-control roles.

Semi-structured interviews and a questionnaire among non-executive directors provide unique insights into three major challenges in the boardrooms of two-tier boards in The Netherlands.

The study indicates that non-executive directors mainly experience challenges in three areas: the ability to ask management critical questions, information asymmetries between the management and supervisory boards and the management of the relationship between individual executive and non-executive directors. The qualitative in-depth analysis reveals the complexity of the contributing factors to problems in the boardroom and the range of process and social interventions non-executive directors use to address boardroom issues with management and the organization of the board.

While policy makers have been largely occupied with the “right” board composition, the results highlight the importance of adequately addressing operational challenges in the boardroom. The results emphasize the importance of a better understanding of board processes and the need of non-executive directors to carefully manage relationships in and around the boardroom.

Whereas most studies have focussed on regulatory initiatives to improve the functioning of boards (e.g. the independence of the board), this study explores how non-executive directors attempt to enhance the effectiveness of boards on which they serve.

How do families-in-business deal with intergenerational female succession in their company’s corporate governance structures, i.e., the board of directors? How is female boardroom capital built up? This chapter explores the boardroom immersion processes and mentorship programs followed by 44 Mexican and Spanish next-gen women owners of 2nd, 3rd, and 4th generation, privately-owned, national and international firms, who were appointed for the first time to their family business’ board of directors between 2005 and 2020.

Our outcomes show that intergenerational female corporate governance succession is driven more by particular families-in-business matters, like the inheritance of ownership rights, than by corporate governance codes or soft legislation. We discovered that next-generation women owners are more likely to be appointed for the first time to their family business boardroom when they’re between ages of 38 and 47. Ninety percent (90%) of them will be appointed at or before 57. Our findings also reveal that 4th generation female owners are immersed in the boardroom at a younger age.

When analyzing the immersion processes, we noticed too that due to limited business socialization during their upbringing, some of these well-­educated, professionally qualified females had to cope with holding legal ownership (potestas) in the family firm but missing business decision-making legitimacy (auctoritas) in the governance structure. Based on our results, we developed a families-in-business female boardroom capital development framework to help them achieve both: potestas and auctoritas, as well as to facilitate next-generation women owners’ boardroom incorporation in family enterprises.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the crucial question of whether gender diversity in boardroom is associated with CEO pay and CEO pay-performance link.

The authors used the data of companies listed on the Pakistan Stock Exchange for a sample consisting of KSE-100 index companies for the period of five years. The authors used the ordinary least square regression technique to test the developed hypotheses. The authors also used the two-step Heckman selection model, two-stage least square regression and propensity score matching method to control the problem of endogeneity.

The authors find reliable evidence of a negative association between gender diversity and CEO pay and of board gender diversity’s strengthening the relationship between CEO pay and firm performance. The authors also find that women director are more effective in setting the optimal contract in non-family-owned firms and firms with dispersed ownership structure as compared to family-owned firms and firms with concentrated ownership structure. Moreover, results also reflect that the influence of board diversity on both CEO pay and CEO pay-performance link is stronger when gender diversity goes beyond tokenism.

The findings have implications in terms of providing the basis for policy makers to accord the same level of importance to gender diversity in the boardroom as well as contributing to the current debate on the desirability of mandating or recommending gender diversity on boardrooms.

This study is among the few studies which investigate the moderating role of boardroom gender diversity on the CEO pay-performance link. In addition, this study contributes to the institutional theory by providing the empirical evidence that the effect boardroom gender diversity on CEO pay and CEO pay-performance link varies by type of ownership.

The purpose of this paper is to unravel the root causes as to why the boardroom independence–corporate performance linkage remains an elusive conundrum in the academic literature, and to propose practical recommendations for future research endeavors.

The probing of the underlying issues is made via an extensive review of the existing literature. A thoughtful analysis is conducted from a multi-disciplinary perspective by soliciting feedback from academics with corporate governance expertise in finance, accounting, economy, strategy, management and organizational behavior.

The lack of consensus on the economic value of an independent boardroom is attributed to three reasons. The first reason is ontological complexities inherent to the very nature of the corporation. The second reason is methodological complexities intrinsic to normative research with large archival data. The third reason is self-serving behavioral motive that cannot be factored in archival data.

The infusion of complementary methodologies to the existing empirical dogmatism would provide the framework for a better understanding of corporate governance challenges and opportunities, particularly as it relates to making causal inferences on boardroom independence and corporate performance.

New insights on boardroom independence would directly influence corporate practices.

The determination as to what constitutes optimum boardroom configuration has emerged as an issue of considerable importance to shareholders, policymakers and other stakeholders.

Virtually no studies have been conducted in a comprehensive and systematic manner addressing the fundamental question as to why research pertaining to boardroom independence–corporate performance has not yielded unequivocal results in the relevant academic literature, thus the originality and value of this research.