Corporate governance culture - an interview-based ethnography of two boards of directors using grounded theory

• Autorzy: Gary Evans
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

This paper draws upon the broad range of research conducted on corporate governance and narrows the focus to a new model for governance that places culture as the focal point. The purpose of the research is to analyse the influence of culture on the creation of value added boards, the role of the Chairperson and directors in the development of board culture and how culture impacts the effectiveness and efficiency of the board. The paper draws together good practice as distilled from the interviews and is grounded in the 'Value-Added Board' model. This model takes a holistic view of governance, and focuses on the dynamics of the board's culture. The model focuses on how the board organizes its activities, what activities are valued, how information is evaluated, and how decisions are formed. The model also addresses how the board keeps itself fresh and competent by evaluating itself through continuous improvement. This paper reviews the background literature on board culture pinning the creation of the model, and assesses why culture is critical in the evaluation of board performance. The ethnographic approach to the interviews included one on one taped interviews with directors and taped board meetings where the interaction and decision making process could be directly observed. For this paper two boards have been selected that had substantially different board cultures. Past research has been unable to establish an unequivocal relationship between good corporate governance and firm performance. The evidence is either non-existent, mixed, or weak for such a relationship, and there is no evidence of causality. There is nothing that indicates that if companies follow some set of corporate governance practices that shareholders and stakeholders will benefit in some manner. A key question is why after thousands of research hours and numerous papers has no strong and definitive relationship been found? To date, the methodologies used to study this issue are primarily positional in nature and based on quantitative variables. Researchers take board structure or governance variables and develop numeric scores, ratings, or rankings of the data. These data are then regressed against financial, market return, or valuation variables to see if a relationship exists. This work converts primarily qualitative data into quantitative data. That is a problem when the research question is qualitative in nature. The problem may be that there is a relationship between governance and the financial and market performance of the company, but the methodologies used to detect it have not been successful. The methodology used in this study is qualitative in nature and is consistent with the qualitative nature of the data and consequently provides a robust approach to analysing this phenomena. Ethnographic research has had limited exposure in the board room mostly due to access issues with corporate directors and a tendency for researchers to still over focus on quantitative data collection. This paper provides a unique view of culture from within the boardroom and offers an alternative to the corporate scorecards developed from past research studies. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

PL

Ład korporacyjny; Kultura; Metodologia badań

EN

Corporate governance; Culture; Research methodology

• Czasopismo: The Poznań University of Economics Review
• Rocznik: 2010
• Tom: 10
• Numer: nr 2
• Strony: 15-32

Twórcy

autor

Gary Evans

• University of Prince Edward, Island

Bibliografia

• Aguilera, V. R., Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2004), Codes of good governance worldwide: what is the trigger?, Organization Studies, 25, pp. 415-430.
• Alchian, A., Demsetz, H. (1972), Production, information costs, and economic organization, American Economic Review, 62, pp. 777-795.
• Argote, L., Greve, H.R. (2007), A behavioral theory of the firm, p. 40 years and counting, introduction, and impact, Organization Science, 18, pp. 337-49.
• Bebchuk, L., Cohen, A., Wang, C.Y. (2010), Learning and the Disappearing Association between Governance and Returns, Harvard Law School Discussion Paper no. 667.
• Berle, A., Means, G.C. (1932)(1992), The Modern Corporation and Private Property, MacMillan Press, New York.
• Bhagat, S., Black, B. (1999), The uncertain relationship between board independence and firm performance, The Business Lawyer, 54, pp. 921-963.
• Brundin, E., Nordqvist, M. (2008), Beyond facts and figures: the role of emotions in boardroom dynamics, Corporate Governance: An International Review, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 326-341.
• Coase, R.H. (1937), The nature of the firm, Economica, 4, pp. 386-405.
• Colley, J.L. Jr, Doyle J.L., Logan G.W., Stettinius W. (2003), Corporate Governance, McGraw-Hill, New York.
• Cornforth, C. (2001), What makes boards effective? An examination of the relationships between board inputs, structures, processes and effectiveness in non-profit organizations, Corporate Governance: An International Review, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 217-227.
• Daily, C.M., Dalton, D.R. (1992), The relationship between governance structure and corporate performance in entrepreneurial firms, Journal of Business Venturing, 7, pp. 375-386.
• Daily, C.M., Dalton, D.R., Cannella, A.A. (2003), Corporate governance: decades of dialogue and data, Academy of Management Review, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 371-382.
• Daines, R., Gow, I., Larcker, D. (2009), Rating the Ratings How Good are Commercial Governance Ratings, Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University Working Paper, series no. 1, paper 360, pp. 1-74.
• Dalton, D.R., Daily, C.M., Ellstrand, A.E., Johnson, J.L. (1998), Meta-analytic reviews of board composition, leadership structure, and financial performance', Strategic Management Journal, 19, pp. 269-290.
• Davis, J., Schoorman, F.D., Donaldson, L. (1997), Towards a stewardship theory of management, Academy of Management Review, 22, pp. 20-48.
• Donaldson, G. (1963), Financial goals: managers versus stockholders, Harvard Business Review, May-June, pp. 116-129.
• Donaldson, L., Davis, J.H. (1991), Stewardship theory or agency theory: CEO governance and shareholder returns, Australian Journal of Management, 16, pp. 49-64.
• Dulewicz, V., Gay, K., Taylor, B. (2007), What makes an outstanding chairman? Findings from the UK non-executive director of the year awards 2006, Corporate Governance: An International Review, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 1056-1069.
• Ees, H. van, Laan, G. van der, Postma, T.J.B.M. (2008), Effective board behavior in the Netherlands, European Management Journal, 26(2), pp. 84-93.
• Eees, J.G. van, Huse, M. (2009), Toward a behavioural theory of boards and corporate governance, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(3), pp. 307-319.
• Ehigie, B., Ehigie, R. (2005), The Qualitative Report, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 621-638.
• Fama, E.F. (1980), Agency costs and the theory of the firm, Journal of Political Economy, 88, pp. 288-307.
• Fama, E.F., Jensen, M.C. (1983a), Separation of ownership and control, Journal of Law and Economics, 26, pp. 301-325.
• Fama, E.F., Jensen, M.C. (1983b), Agency problems and residual claims, Journal of Law and Economics, 26, pp. 327-349.
• Forbes, D.P., Milliken, F.J. (1999), Cognition and corporate governance: understanding boards of directors as strategic decision-making groups, Academy of Management Review, 24, pp. 489-505.
• Glaser, B., Strauss, A. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory - Strategies for Qualitative Research, Weiderfeld and Nicolson, London.
• Hendry, J. (2005), Beyond self-interest: agency theory and the board in a satisficing world, British Journal of Management, vol. 16, pp. 55-63.
• Higgs, D. (2003), Review of the Role and Effectiveness of Non-Executive Directors, Department of Trade and Industry, HMSO, London.
• Huse, M. (2005), Accountability and creating accountability: a framework for exploring behavioural perspectives of corporate governance, British Journal of Management, vol. 65-79.
• Huse, M. (2009), Exploring methods and concepts in studies of board processes, in: M. Huse (ed.), The Value Creating Board: Corporate Governance and Organizational Behavior, Routledge, Cheltenham.
• Huse, M., Eide, D. (1996), Stakeholder management and the avoidance of corporate control, Business and Society, 34, pp. 211-243.
• Huse, M., Minichilli, A., Schøning, M. (2005), Corporate boards as assets for operating in the new Europe: The value of process oriented boardroom dynamics, Organizational Dynamics, 34, pp. 285- 97.
• Huse, M., Rindova, V. (2001), Stakeholders' expectation of board roles: The case of subsidiary boards, Journal of Management and Governance, 5, pp. 153-78.
• Hussey, J., Hussey, R. (1997), Business research: a practical guide for undergraduate and post-graduate students, Macmillan Business.
• Jensen, M.C. (1986), Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeover, American Economic Review, 76, pp. 323-329.
• Jensen, M.C., Meckling, W.H. (1976), Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure, Journal of Financial Economics, 3, pp. 305-360.
• Kiel, G.C., Nicholson, G.J. (2005), Evaluating boards and directors, Corporate Governance: an International Review, 13, pp. 613-631.
• Kirkbride, J., Letza, S. (2004), Regulation, governance, and regulatory collibration: Achieving a "holistic" approach, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 12, pp. 85-92.
• LeBlanc, R., Gillies, J. (2005), Inside the Boardroom: How Boards Really Work and the Coming Revolution in Corporate Governance, Wiley, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada.
• Leblanc, R., Schwartz, M.S. (2007), The black box of board process: Gaining access to a difficult subject, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15, pp. 843-51.
• Letendre, L. (2004), The Dynamics of the Boardroom, Academy of Management Executive, 18(1), pp. 101-104.
• Maitlis, S. (2004), Taking it from the top: how CEOs influence (and fail to influence) their boards, Organizational Studies, 25, pp. 1275-1311.
• Miles, M., Huberman, A. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: A New Source of Methods, Sage, California.
• Minichilli, A., Gabrielsson, J., Huse, M. (2007), Board evaluations: making a fit between the purpose and the system, Corporate Governance: An International Review, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 609-622.
• Minichilli, A., Zattoni, A., Zonz, F. (2009), Making boards effective: An empirical examination of board task performance, British Academy of Management, 20, pp. 55-74.
• Mintzberg, H. (1979), An emerging strategy of direct research, Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, pp. 582-589.
• Parker, L.D. (2008), Boardroom operational and financial control: an insider view, British Journal of Management, vol. 19, pp. 65-88.
• Patton, M. (1990), Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, Sage, California.
• Pettigrew, A. (1992), On studying managerial elites, Strategic Management Journal 13, pp. 163-182.
• Puranam, P., Vanneste, B.S. (2009), Trust and governance untangling a tangled web, Academy of Management Review, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 11-31.
• Pye, A., Pettigrew, A.M. (2005), Studying board context, process and dynamics: some challenges for the future, British Journal of Management, vol. 16, pp. 27-38.
• Rekom, J.v., Riel, C.B.M. van, Wierenga, B. (2006), A methodology for assessing organizational core values, Journal of Management Studies, 43, pp. 2.
• Roberts, J., McNulty, T., Stiles, P., (2005a), Beyond agency conceptions of the work of the non-executive director: creating accountability in the boardroom, British Journal of Management, vol. 16, pp. 5-26.
• Roberts, J., McNulty, T., Stiles, P., (2005b), Undertaking governance reform and research: further reflections on the higgs review, British Journal of Management, vol. 16, pp. 99-107.
• Samra-Fredericks, D. (2000a), Doing ''boards-in-action'' research - an ethnographic approach for the capture and analysis of directors and senior managers interactive routines, Corporate Governance: an International Review, 8(3), pp. 244-257.
• Samra-Fredericks, D. (2000b), An analysis of the behavioural dynamics of corporate governance - a talk-based ethnography of a UK manufacturing ''board-in-action'', Corporate Governance: an International Review, 8(4), pp. 311-326.
• Samra-Fredericks, D. (2003), Strategizing as lived experience and strategists' everyday efforts to shape strategic direction, Journal of Management Studies, 40(1), pp. 141-174.
• Shleifer, A., Vishny, R. (1997), A survey of corporate governance, Journal of Finance, 52, pp. 737-783.
• Sonnenfeld, J.A. (2002), What makes great boards great? Harvard Business Review, 80(9), pp. 106-113.
• Strauss, A., Corbin, J. (1998), Basics of Qualitative Research - Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd ed., Sage, California.
• Useem, M., Zelleke, A. (2006), Oversight and delegation in corporate governance: deciding what the board should decide, Corporate Governance: An International Review, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 2-11.
• Westphal, J.D. (1999), Collaboration in the boardroom: behavioural and performance consequences of CEO-board social ties, Academy of Management Journal, 42, pp. 7-24.
• Wheeler, D., Davies, R. (2006), Why corporate governance rankings do not predict future value: evidence from toronto stock exchange listings 2002-2005, in: S. Benn, D. Dunphy (ed.), Corporate Governance and Sustainability: Challenges for Theory and Practice, Routledge, London.
• Zattoni, A., Cuomo, F. (2010), How independent, competent and incentivized should non-ex-ecutive directors be? An empirical investigation of good governance codes, British Journal of Management, vol. 21, pp. 63-79.