Board size and corporate performance: the missing role of board leadership structure

Journal of Management and Governance - Tập 15 - Trang 415-446 - 2009
Khaled Elsayed1
1Business Administration Department, Faculty of Commerce, Ain Shams University, Abbassia, Cairo, Egypt

Tóm tắt

Different arguments have been introduced in the literature both for and against large and small board sizes. In this context, empirical evidence regarding the impact of board size on corporate performance is less conclusive, which means that further study is needed. Contrary to previous work, it is hypothesized in this study that the relationship between board size and corporate performance is more likely to be confounded by board leadership structure. Econometric analysis provided strong evidence for the applicability of this hypothesis and demonstrated that board size positively affects corporate performance in the presence of CEO non-duality (board leadership structure that is split between the roles of the CEO and the roles of the chairman). Furthermore, board size is shown to have a negative influence on corporate performance in the presence of CEO duality (board leadership structure that assigns the roles of both CEO and chairman to the same person). This conclusion is robust to the use of different measures of corporate performance, control variables and econometric models. Thus, these findings cast doubt on most of the existing evidence that posits that either large or small board size is always the best alternative to be followed in all organizations.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Abdel, S. S. (2001). Corporate governance is becoming a global pursuit: What could be done in Egypt? Working paper, working paper (SSRN: social science research network). doi:10.2139/ssrn.286875.

Abdel, S. S. (2003). Does ownership structure affect firm value? Evidence from the Egyptian stock market. Working paper, working paper (SSRN: social science research network). doi:10.2139/ssrn.378580.

Adams, M., Hardwick, P., & Zou, H. (2003). Corporate governance and cost efficiency in the United Kingdom life insurance industry. Working paper, School of Business and Economics, Swansea University.

Aguilera, R., & Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2004). Codes of good governance worldwide: What is the trigger? Organization Studies, 25, 417–446.

Aguilera, R., & Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2009). Codes of good governance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17, 376–387.

Baliga, B., Moyer, C., & Rao, R. (1996). CEO duality and firm performance: What’s the fuss? Strategic Management Journal, 17, 41–53.

Bohren, O., & Odegaard, B. (2001). Corporate governance and economic performance: A closer look. Working paper, The Norwegian School of Management.

Bresser, R., Thiele, R., Biedermann, A., & Lüdeke, H. (2006). Opportunist or steward? The influence of the board chairman on CEO dismissals and replacements. Papers presented at the 26th annual conference of the strategic management society, Vienna.

Cairo and Alexandria Stock Exchange (2007). Market data: Main market indicators. (www.egyptse.com) (Access: 12 Nov 2007).

Chaganti, S., Mahajan, V., & Sharma, S. (1985). Corporate board size, composition and corporate failure in retailing industry. Journal of Management Studies, 22, 400–417.

Chung, H., & Pruitt, W. (1994). A simple approximation of Tobin’s q. Financial Management, 23, 70–74.

Dielman, T., & Rose, E. (1997). Estimating and testing in least absolute value regression with serially correlated distribution. Annals of Operations Research, 74, 239–257.

Elsayed, K. (2007). Does CEO duality really affect corporate performance? Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15, 1203–1214.

Elsayed, K., & Paton, D. (2009). The impact of financial performance on environmental policy: Does firm life cycle matter? Business Strategy and the Environment (forthcoming). doi: 10.1002/bse.608.

Greene, W. (2003). Econometric analysis (5th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Gul, F., & Wah, L. (2002). Insider entrenchment, board leadership structure and informativeness of earnings. Working paper, City University of Hong Kong.

Holthausen, W., & Larcker, F. (1993). Boards of directors, ownership structure and CEO compensation. Working paper, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.

Kim, K., Henderson, G., & Garrison, S. (1993). Examination of Tobin’s q for takeover firms. Quarterly Journal of Business and Economics, 32, 3–26.

Lasfer, M., & Faccio, M. (1999). Managerial ownership, board structure and firm value: The UK evidence. Working paper (SSRN: social science research network). doi:10.2139/ssrn.179008.

Lorsch, W., & MacIver, E. (1989). Pawns and potentates: The reality of America’s corporate boards. Boston: Harvard University Press.

Mallin, C. (2002). Corporate governance, institutional investors and socially responsible investment. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 10, 1–3.

MENA (Middle East and North Africa Corporate Governance Workshop). (2003). Corporate governance in Morocco, Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan. The organization of economic co-operation and development (OECD). http://www.gcgf.org/ifcext/cgf.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/MENA_Sep_03_CG_in_MENA_countries/$FILE/MENA_Sep_03_MENA_CG_Report.pdf (Access: 18 Jun 2006).

MENA–OECD. (2006). Egypt national investment reform agenda. www.oced/mena/investement. (Access: 15 May 2008).

Pallant, J. (2001). SPSS survival manual. Buckingham: Open University.

ROSC (Report on the observance of standards and codes). (2004). Corporate governance country assessment, World Bank-IMF (http://www.worldbank.org/ifa/rosc_cg_egyp2.pdf). (Access: 3 Jan 2006).

Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: Harper Collins College.

Wels, T. (2007). Corporate governance: Roundtable. http://www.mckinsey.com.

Wen, Y., Rwegasira, K., & Bilderbeek, J. (2002). Corporate governance and capital decisions of the Chinese listed firms. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 10, 75–83.