Search results

This paper proposes mainly that boards of directors (BOD) are teams that share characteristics with many other kinds of teams. As a consequence, some of the factors that lead to board effectiveness are the same factors that lead to team effectiveness in general. By integrating the organizational behaviour literature on teams with the governance literature, a comprehensive model of BOD performance is proposed.

This conceptual paper proposes a model to assess the performance of a board and situates board performance as one input into firm performance.

This paper outlines the dynamic interplay between board characteristics, functionality and performance and proposes a comprehensive model, based largely on the group dynamics literature.

Suggests that future research attempt to empirically address some (or all) of the items in the conceptual model. Acknowledges that operationalizing certain variables will prove challenging, but suggests that ethnographic accounts of how these variables (and potentially others) interact may be a valuable first step in more fully understanding board composition, functioning and performance.

It is argued that by extending traditional passive agency roles, BOD may be able to provide a wider range of contributions to enhance shareholder value.

This interdisciplinary paper integrates the group dynamics literature with the governance literature to propose a comprehensive model of BOD performance.

The fundamental role of corporate boards is to monitor and advise top management on strategic issues. It is therefore of the utmost importance that corporate directors are effective as a decision-making group to ensure corporate performance (Zattoni et al., 2015; Minichilli et al., 2012). But, what do we know about what is really going on inside the boardroom? This study aims to shed light on this important question.

The authors undertake a targeted review of the literature to take account of all publications regarding board dynamics in relation to board effectiveness.

This study shows that we know very little about what is going on inside the “black box” of board dynamics and its relation to how effective directors are at doing their job, namely, monitoring and advising top management and establishing and expanding the firm’s network, to gain access to the resources it needs. The authors propose several avenues of research to better understand board dynamics.

In this study, the authors show how and why the present body of knowledge on team effectiveness should be harnessed to better understand corporate board dynamics in relation to board effectiveness.

This paper seeks to argue that boards can be playing a more proactive role in contributing to organizational effectiveness and that their composition requires greater research attention. By integrating the organizational behaviour literature on teams with the governance literature, the paper empirically examines the relationship between key board composition variables and firm performance.

At this stage in the development of the approach, the focus is on a sub‐set of the elements proposed in the group dynamics literature. The population for this study comprises all companies included in the Canadian TSE 300 Composite Index (renamed the S&P/TSX Composite Index). This study uses cross‐sectional regression analyses to examine the nature of the relationships between board composition and firm performance.

The data analyses revealed that high levels of experience, appropriate team size, moderate levels of variation in age and team tenure were correlated with firm performance.

Boards of directors (BOD) are teams whose effectiveness can be assessed through group dynamic constructs in the organizational behaviour literature. Further research is needed to examine the intricate dynamics that might moderate or mediate the relationship between board characteristics and firm performance.

The findings provide a much‐needed benchmark to consider whether the composition of boards is optimal, given the functions and mandate. In addition, the study highlights the opportunity costs of boards, restricting their roles to agency issues.

This interdisciplinary paper tests some of the many variables that can be extrapolated from the group dynamics research. The paper calls on boards to examine what BOD functionality really entails, and argues for more proactive behaviours aimed at strategic firm issues.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the benefits of visual management (VM) systems in transportation construction projects in England.

Following a comprehensive literature review, the benefits of VM were investigated through action and case study research executed within two construction projects in England.

The main findings are: VM can contribute to increased self-management, better team coordination, better promises or an increasing plan percent complete, easier control for the management and improved workplace conditions in the transportation sector. It is important for the management to obtain the engagement of their workforce for VM through increased participation and show the actual benefits. However, managerial monitoring and control on the systems should not be underestimated.

The transportation sector in England has been systematically deploying Lean construction techniques in its operations for a while. One of those Lean techniques is a close-range visual communication strategy called VM. The literature on the VM implementation in construction is scarce and generally limited to the building construction context. This paper documents the benefits of VM systems for the transportation sector by using data captured through both qualitative and quantitative data collection methods. The paper also identifies a set of recommendations for similar research efforts in the transportation context in the future.

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.

To provide an overview of the change to NHS Clinical Governance Support Team's Board Development Programme.

The background to the programme, the methods adopted by the Board Team and lessons learned are outlined. Commitment and active support at Board and senior levels are known to be essential for organisational change and, in order to help translate aims into strategic priorities and to implement these into improved services, the Clinical Governance Board Support Team was formed in 2000 as part of the overall NHS Clinical Governance Support Team (CGST). Its members provide advice and support to NHS personnel who are involved in improvements to health care services.

The team worked initially with Boards of acute NHS Trusts and later with Primary Care, Ambulance and Mental Health Trusts. Among the lessons learned from their own work and the increasing body of research‐based evidence is the importance of the leadership role of the Board in fostering a positive culture of change, enthusing and empowering staff. Other factors are the effectiveness of communication with external organisations, scrutiny of all points of contact with users of the services and involvement of users – patients and carers – at all stages. The Team evolved during the programme, strengthening its clinical base and introducing patients and carers as associates. In order to meet demand and increase capacity of the Team, learning materials have been developed and these and their experiences widely disseminated. An example of success is demonstrated by the progress made by a pilot cohort of Primary Care Trusts.

This review summarises the aims, objectives and progress of the work of the Board Development Programme.

As a result of the many governance failures in the past decade, new legislation, increased regulation, and best practices have been adopted by boards in an effort to improve corporate governance. Unfortunately, not all of the changes, such as increasing the number of external directors, have favorably impacted the quality of board governance. While having the majority of external directors on a board increases the board's independence from the CEO, these external directors lack inside directors' understanding of the firm's operations, customers and business model. The board members' lack of understanding presents a key challenge to CEOs, as their tenures depend on keeping their boards informed about the firm's business model. If CEOs are to succeed in this new governance climate, they need to find a way to effectively explain the business model to external directors in order to educate them, access their competencies, and ensure their long term support. The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of the strategy map to communicate the firm's business model to the board.

The paper used the authors' experiences, a review of the literature, and a case study as a basis for making recommendations presented in the article.

Outside directors may struggle to understand the firm's business model. While some may argue this is not the CEO's problem as it is the board's role to govern and management's job to manage, the authors argue it is an important issue for CEOs for two reasons: First, if the board does not understand the impact of changes to a firm's business model then CEOs are not fully leveraging their boards' expertise. Second, if CEOs do not keep the board adequately informed about the business model it hinders, rather than helps CEOs from building open and transparent relationships with their boards. By ensuring that directors receive the right information about the organization's business model and then have the opportunity to have a constructive dialog regarding the quality of the business model, CEOs can build trusting relationships with their boards and thus ensure they succeed over the longer term.

Recent governance failures have demonstrated a need for better communication between boards and CEOs. This is one of the first papers to examine the role of the strategy map to communicate the firm's business model to the board.

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 explore two under‐developed areas of board research: the corporate governance of unlisted companies; and board behaviour, focusing on process factors that contribute to a board performing effectively.

The Board Effectiveness Questionnaire was completed by 67 directors, to gather views on how their board currently operates and how they think it should operate, across various behavioural areas relating to the relationships, decision making, the working climate and predispositions. Analysis of “process losses”, the pattern of sub‐optimal board behaviour, allowed the testing of four hypotheses concerning board effectiveness.

The 18 most important and five least important behaviours were identified, plus 12 showing the greatest “process loss”. Quality of team “relationships” is the main cause of loss whereas evidence for the impact of leadership style is mixed. Size of the board is related to overall performance of the board but number and proportion of non‐executive directors are not.

This is a “purposive, judgmental” sample of all unlisted companies, derived from those who were willing and able to respond. Only one director's view of each board was sought.

The picture of the “ideal” board provides a checklist for a company wishing to assess its board's performance as a working group, highlighting key characteristics that should be reflected on when discussing director/ board performance. The gaps in board behaviour identified could help other boards assess their own performance and researchers to focus on these areas.

The paper explores two under‐researched areas.