Search results

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.

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.

Taking a micro-perspective of governance that includes problem-solving and stakeholder involvement capabilities as part of the strategic steering role, we wish to contribute to the understanding of the human side of governance. Thus we have studied the relationships between the board and its management and stakeholders, and in so doing we recognize internal and external actors as well as the board itself, and how they all contribute to the implementation of the governance function.

Based on an interpretative approach that focuses on change over time, we performed a qualitative empirical study of the governance of Robotdalen, a small non-profit public organization in Sweden that is a joint public and private collaboration. This chapter forms part of a longitudinal study that has been carried out since 2009. It is based primarily on interviews with board members, management and other stakeholders, and complemented by document studies and observations.

Governance practice entails multiple and multilevel tasks, and the tensions between representativeness/professional boards, conformance/performance, and controlling/partnering up with management, are prevalent in both small non-profit and public organizations. According to our results the apparent choice between the extremes of each tension is, however, not a choice at all but rather a balancing act. In trying to balance tensions through collaboration between managers, board, financiers, and the hosting university, new governance structures and practices emerge at the organizational level.

By following the process of the emergence of a new board, we illustrate how various actors work together to co-produce governance functions in practice. In the past little or no effort has been made to take into account contextual factors such as organizational size – an aspect that may influence or shape board characteristics and work methodology. We therefore attempt to do so in our chapter, by studying the emergence of a new board in a small public organization, what possible paradoxes and tensions are involved in such work, and how such tensions are managed.

We examine the relationship between how mutual fund sponsors configure their board(s) of directors and the performance of the funds under a particular board's purview. Fund sponsors utilize either one board to oversee all the funds within a fund family or multiple boards that oversee one fund or a subset of the family's funds. Our results suggest that fund families – that is, sponsors – that use multiple boards have significantly higher objective-adjusted board-level weighted excess returns. But, there are no significant differences in the objective-adjusted board-level weighted excess expenses. These results are consistent with the argument that multiple boards provide superior monitoring.

Designing and developing safe systems has been a persistent challenge in health care, and in surgical settings in particular. In efforts to promote safety, safety culture, i.e., shared values regarding safety management, is considered a key driver of high-quality, safe healthcare delivery. However, changing organizational culture so that it emphasizes and promotes safety is often an elusive goal. The Safe Surgery Checklist is an innovative tool for improving safety culture and surgical care safety, but evidence about Safe Surgery Checklist effectiveness is mixed. We examined the relationship between changes in management practices and changes in perceived safety culture during implementation of safe surgery checklists. Using a pre-posttest design and survey methods, we evaluated Safe Surgery Checklist implementation in a national sample of 42 general acute care hospitals in a leading hospital network. We measured perceived management practices among managers (n = 99) using the World Management Survey. We measured perceived preoperative safety and safety culture among clinical operating room personnel (N = 2,380 (2016); N = 1,433 (2017)) using the Safe Surgical Practice Survey. We collected data in two consecutive years. Multivariable linear regression analysis demonstrated a significant relationship between changes in management practices and overall safety culture and perceived teamwork following Safe Surgery Checklist implementation.

The incentives for organizations to practice good corporate citizenship include social expectations and pressures, the ingrained values of corporate leaders, and citizenship's contributions to business performance. In addition, healthcare organizations have a unique citizenship incentive because of the relationship between practicing corporate citizenship and achieving the core, health-enhancing purposes of these organizations. A template of six organization behaviors that have been empirically determined to be widely used citizenship-related behaviors is described, along with how a large healthcare organization exhibits these behaviors. A three-step process is described through which healthcare organizations can build competence in corporate citizenship by (1) incorporating citizenship commitments into their missions and giving citizenship a high priority; (2) organizing to build competence in corporate citizenship, and to facilitate and sustain citizenship performance; and (3) maintaining commitment to citizenship competence and increasing citizenship performance by conducting periodic citizenship audits, and acting on the results.