Search results

The strategic management perspective suggests that organizations structure their governing boards to complement the strategic goals of the organization. In contrast, the institutionalization perspective holds that organizations structure their governing boards to respond to institutional pressures in their task environment. Regardless of which perspective is followed, three structural dimensions of governing boards are expected to be affected: size, diversity of composition, and medical staff representation. A study was conducted to relate the institutional requirements and strategies of acute care hospitals to the structural characteristics of their boards of directors. Results indicated that, after controlling for organizational size and membership in a multihospital system, the governing board structure of 109 acute care hospitals varied significantly both as a function of their overall business strategy and as a function of institutional linkages. However, the proportion of the total variance in board structure accounted for by strategy variables was approximately twice as much as that accounted for by institutional variables.

The purpose of this paper is to report the results of a study carried out to determine the effect of governing boards on the performance of Ugandan secondary schools. Specifically, the study investigated whether governing boards (board role performance, finance committee role performance, board size, frequency of board meetings and board finance expertise) have an effect on the perceived performance of the schools.

This study is cross-sectional and correlational. Data were collected through a questionnaire survey of 271 schools out of which 200 responded. The data were analysed through ordinary least squares regression using Statistical Package for Social Scientists.

The results suggest that board role performance, finance committee role performance, frequency of meetings and finance expertise of governing boards have a significant effect on the schools’ performance.

The authors measure some of the variables qualitatively and perceptively contrary to, for instance, the commonly used quantitative measures of performance, but process factors which are inherently qualitative in nature can better explain variances in secondary schools’ performance. Thus, in this study, the authors do not claim highly refined measurement concepts. More research is therefore needed to better refine qualitative concepts used in this study. The results too suggest that board and finance committee role performance and finance expertise of the board are more important for performance of a school than board size, and frequency of meetings which academics have been focusing on. These findings call for more research to validate the posited relationships.

The results are important for governing board policy development; for example, in terms of prescribing the qualifications for schools’ governing board members and also finance committee board members.

This study shows that one way to capture the influence of all governing boards’ roles including service role is to adopt a perception-based approach which asks respondents to what extent they think governing boards fulfil all their roles. Unlike previous studies which used proxies for board role performance such as proportion of non-executive directors and board size for monitoring and control and resource provision, the study incorporates proxies as well as perception-based measures of board role performance to determine if governing boards have a significant influence on the performance of Uganda secondary schools.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the extent of voluntary disclosures in UK higher education institutions’ (HEIs) annual reports and examine whether internal governance structures influence disclosure in the period following major reform and funding constraints.

The authors adopt a modified version of Coy and Dixon’s (2004) public accountability index, referred to in this paper as a public accountability and transparency index (PATI), to measure the extent of voluntary disclosures in 130 UK HEIs’ annual reports. Informed by a multi-theoretical framework drawn from public accountability, legitimacy, resource dependence and stakeholder perspectives, the authors propose that the characteristics of governing and executive structures in UK universities influence the extent of their voluntary disclosures.

The authors find a large degree of variability in the level of voluntary disclosures by universities and an overall relatively low level of PATI (44 per cent), particularly with regards to the disclosure of teaching/research outcomes. The authors also find that audit committee quality, governing board diversity, governor independence and the presence of a governance committee are associated with the level of disclosure. Finally, the authors find that the interaction between executive team characteristics and governance variables enhances the level of voluntary disclosures, thereby providing support for the continued relevance of a “shared” leadership in the HEIs’ sector towards enhancing accountability and transparency in HEIs.

In spite of significant funding cuts, regulatory reforms and competitive challenges, the level of voluntary disclosure by UK HEIs remains low. Whilst the role of selected governance mechanisms and “shared leadership” in improving disclosure, is asserted, the varying level and selective basis of the disclosures across the surveyed HEIs suggest that the public accountability motive is weaker relative to the other motives underpinned by stakeholder, legitimacy and resource dependence perspectives.

This is the first study which explores the association between HEI governance structures, managerial characteristics and the level of disclosure in UK HEIs.

The study aims to contribute to the literature on board behavior and performance in public sector organizations, by investigating conflicts as a fundamental and inevitable part of interactions between board members. Despite impressive advances in studying the behavioral dimensions of governing bodies, several gaps still remain in our knowledge, especially for public sector boards. These face specific challenges related to multiple, conflicting, and ambiguous goals.

Earlier studies identified four different types of conflict (affective, cognitive, interest, and authority conflicts). These were used to guide a systematic literature review considering the source and the nature of conflicts to classify and describe the state of knowledge on the topic.

Most academic contributions emphasized cognitive and interest conflicts, suggesting that solving them was essential to improve board performance and enable boards to create value. The results suggest the utility of broadening the perspective of the governing board role, moving beyond agency and institutional theory, taking into consideration resource dependence theory as an alternative perspective to investigate board roles and task expectations.

Understanding conflicts within public boards is an interesting challenge from several perspectives. First, it provides a deep look inside board decision-making processes using a behavioral perspective. Second, analyzing the nature and sources of conflict places boards in a better position to address complex political issues. Finally, resolving conflicts may lead boards to channel their energies into collaborative activities that stimulate best practices, facilitate mutual awareness, and generate commitment to cooperation inside and outside the boardroom.

A university of medical sciences (UMS) is governed by a board that serves analogously as a board of trustees or a governing board in the western countries. In Iran, however, such boards operate under the broad leadership of the Ministry of Health and Medical Education (MoHME) but still wield enormous power over their universities. Given the influence boards have in the affairs of an UMS, the question remains how the medical university board can be improved so as to improve the overall effectiveness of these institutions. The purpose of this article is a response to this question by focusing on criteria necessary for reviewing board performance.

Using a qualitative approach, the study solicited data from 37 key informants that were purposefully chosen from 52 medical science universities across Iran. Semi-structured face-to-face and phone interviews as well as a review of relevant document were the main means of the data gathering. We performed the framework analysis using software ATLAS-ti (version 5).

The analysis identified 32 overlapping indicators that must be considered in a board performance. These indicators were reclassified and summarized into six categories, including trustees, trustees' leadership, board structure, board process, board output (short-length results) and board outcomes (long-length results).

Our study findings confirmed the role of the context and its relationship with the effective board performance. Here, the governing arrangement of all institutions including UMS is shadowed by the social, economic, cultural, political and technological status of the country. So, special attention is recommended to identify what should be considered to evaluate the performance of the board given the context.

Written originally as a lecture for American students of tertiary educational administration, this essay traces the historical development of lay boards governing American universities and compares this with the current practice at an Australian university. The increasing influence of governmental bureaucracies in both countries is highlighted. The author, an American professor teaching as a visitor in Australia, takes a second look at the American policy of excluding faculty from governing boards. The presence of faculty members on the board could be a bulwark in the defense of academic freedom and institutional excellence.

Purpose – Starting from public and corporate governance literature, the chapter aims to evidence the opportunity in exploring board of directors in public organisations, where the focus is on a behavioural perspective.Design/methodology/approach – Presenting two levels of analysis: (a) the relationship between the board and ‘external’ stakeholders, and (b) the relationship between the board and managers, a framework is proposed evidencing which factors (variables, constructs and concepts) logically should be considered as part of the explanation of boards’ role in public organisations’ innovation.Findings – The chapter provides support for a board model in public governance, evidencing both the opportunity to assume a multi-paradigm perspective and the existing similarities and differences between boards in public and corporate governance approach. It is possible, for example, to empirically apply the framework both to different national context and to different levels of public organisations.Originality/value of chapter – The chapter presents theoretical perspectives on governance research, and both some pioneer studies in public sector research and some of the major contribution in corporate governance studies. All of them have been put together, introducing a new stream of research in the debate on the micro (organisational) level of governance in public sector.

In recent years, increasing scholarly attention has been directed towards the field of governing bodies research. However, little attention has been paid to the behavioural perspective on studying public boards. Aiming to fulfil this gap this paper offers a review of the international literature addressing boards behaviour within the unique organizational setting of public sector.

Considering as behavioural studies those publications focusing on actors, processes, decision-making, relationships and interaction inside and outside the boardroom, 91 papers were analysed. Adopting the framework provided by Huse (2007), the papers are classified following four behavioural dimensions/blocks which are crucial to understand board dynamics: board members, interactions, structures and leadership, decision-making culture.

The literature review shows the increasing production – in the last years – on the theoretical issues related to the behavioural perspective in public governance literature. The most relevant part of these contributions addresses the theoretical dimensions of the board member’s characteristics and of structural leadership.

The manuscript reveals the need to adopt a more organizational approach for studying the behavioural categories and levels of analysis proposed by public governance literature. Moreover, the article evidences some possible directions for future research that might further contribute to enrich the ‘behavioural governance perspective’ in public organizations.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between emotional intelligence and effective board governance.

This study applied a model of emotional intelligence competencies to the practice domains of school boards. A board self‐assessment questionnaire measured board practice domains for the presence or absence of 18 emotional intelligence competencies defined in an emotional competence inventory. Inter‐rater reliabilities were established and confirmed. Current and former school board members in two urban areas rank‐ordered the most critical emotional intelligence competencies for effective board governance and offered explanations for their most highly‐rated competencies.

Emotional intelligence is a critical factor for effective school boards. A set of six core competencies are universal across the six board practice domains: transparency; achievement; initiative; organizational awareness; conflict management; and teamwork and collaboration. Each board practice domain is also characterized by one or two key emotional intelligence competencies.

First, one model of school board leadership was used. Future studies should examine additional models of effective board practice for their relationships with emotional intelligence in order to extend the generalizability of these results. Second, there has been some debate regarding the substantive nature of the emotional intelligence construct.

The six practice domains in the school board effectiveness model are fundamental elements for all boards to develop in order to become more effective governing bodies.

This paper identifies a novel application of emotional intelligence leadership competencies to the work of effective governance boards.