The possible pitfalls of boards’ engagement in the strategic management process

Springer Science and Business Media LLC - Tập 15 - Trang 1071-1093 - 2020
Dmitry Khanin1, Ofir Turel2, Chris Bart3, William C. McDowell4, Marianne Hock-Döpgen5
1Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
2California State University Fullerton, Fullerton, USA
3McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
4Bradley University, Peoria, USA
5COO Digitales Gründerzentrum, Aschaffenburg, Germany

Tóm tắt

Scholars endorsing the embeddedness outlook call for directors’ greater engagement in the strategic management process. In contrast, scholars endorsing the control outlook argue that directors should focus on fulfilling their fiduciary duty of supervising top executives. Based on the behavioral-agency theory, this paper outlines a conduct outlook on boards. Recognizing the benefits of directors’ participation in the strategic management process, we hypothesize that it may boost directors’ satisfaction with firm’s performance, strategic planning, and strategy. This could lead to cognitive entrenchment and spur inertial tendencies. Structural equations modeling analysis of the data from a survey of 367 Canadian directors supports the hypotheses. These findings add knowledge to latest research on the advantages vs. disadvantages of activist boards.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Anderson JC, Gerbing DW (1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull 103(3):411–423 Andrews KR (1981a) Corporate strategy as a vital function of the board. Harvard Bus Rev 596:174–184 Andrews KR (1981b) Replaying the board’s role in formulating strategy. Harvard Bus Rev 593:18–26 Almandoz J, Tilcsik A (2016) When experts become liabilities: domain experts on boards and organizational failure. Acad Manag J 59(4):1124–1149 Balkin D (2008) Explaining high US CEO pay in a global context: An institutional approach. In: Gomez-Mejia L, Werner S (eds) Global compensation: foundations and perspectives. Routledge, London, pp 192–205 Basco R, Campopiano G, Calabrò A, Kraus S (2019) They are not all the same! investigating the effect of executive versus non-executive family board members on firm performance. J Small Bus Manag 57(2):637–657 Boivie S, Bednar MK, Aguilera RV, Andrus JL (2016) Are boards designed to fail? The implausibility of effective board monitoring. Acad Manag Ann 10:319–407 Boivie S, Lange D, McDonald ML, Westphal JD (2011) Me or we: the effects of CEO organizational identification on agency costs. Acad Manag J 54:551–576 Boyd B (1990a) Corporate linkages and organizational environment: a test of the resource dependence model. Strateg Manag J 11:419–430 Boyd BK (1990b) Corporate linkages and organizational environment: a test of the resource dependence model. Strateg Manag J 11:419–430 Boyd BK (1995) CEO duality and firm performance: a contingency model. Strateg Manag J 16:301–312 Brodbeck FC, Kerschreiter R, Mojzisch A, Schultz-Hardt S (2007) Group decision making under conditions of distributed knowledge: the information asymmetries model. Acad Manag Rev 32:459–479 Brunninge O, Nordqvist M (2004) Ownership structure, board composition and entrepreneurship: evidence from family firms and venture-capital-backed firms. Int J Entrep Behav Res 10(1/2):85–105 Burney L, Matherly M (2007) Examining performance measurement from an integrated perspective. J Inf Syst 21(2):49–68 Burt RS (1991) Measuring age as a structural concept. Soc Net 13(1):1–34 Daily C, Dalton D, Cannella A (2003) Corporate governance: decades of dialogue and data. Acad Manag Rev 28:371–382 Dalziel T, Gentry RJ, Bowerman M (2011) An integrated agency-resource dependence view of the influence of directors’ human and relational capital on firms’ R&D spending. J Manag Stud 48:1217–1242 Dane E (2010) Reconsidering the trade-off between expertise and flexibility: A cognitive entrenchment perspective. Acad Manag Rev 35:579–603 Davis JH, Schoorman FD, Donaldson L (1997) Toward a stewardship theory of management. Acad Manag Rev 22:20–47 Desai VM (2016) The behavioral theory of the (governed) firm: corporate board influences on organizations’ responses to performance shortfalls. Acad Manag J 59:860–879 Dominguez D, Worch H, Markard J, Truffer B, Gujer W (2009) Closing the capability gap: strategic planning for the infrastructure sector. Calif Manag Rev 51(2):30–50 Donaldson L (1990) The ethereal hand: organizational economics and management theory. Acad Manag Rev 15:369–381 Donaldson L, Davis JH (1991) Stewardship theory or agency theory: CEO governance and shareholder returns. Aust J Manag 16:49–64 Drury C (2008) Management and cost accounting, 7th edn. South-Western, Cengage Learning, London Fama EF (1980) Agency problems and the theory of the firm. J Polit Econ 88:288–307 Fama EF, Jensen MC (1983a) Separation of ownership and control. J Law Econ 26:301–325 Fama EF, Jensen MC (1983b) Agency problems and residual claims’. J Law Econ 26:327–349 Fernandez W, Burnett M, Gomez C (2019) Women in the boardroom and corporate social performance: negotiating the double bind. Manag Decis 57(9):2201–2222 Fernandez-Gago R, Cabeza-Garcia L, Nieto M (2016) Corporate social responsibility, board of directors, and firm performance: an analysis of their relationships. RMS 10:85–104 Ferrero-Ferrero I, Fernández-Izquierdo MÁ, Muñoz-Torres MJ (2012) The impact of the board of directors characteristics on corporate performance and risk-taking before and during the global financial crisis. RMS 6(3):207–226 Furr NR, Cavarretta F, Garg S (2012) Who changes course? The role of domain knowledge and novel framing in making technology changes. Strateg Entrep J 6:236–256 Garg S, Eisenhardt K (2017) Unpacking the CEO-board relationship: how strategy making happens in entrepreneurial firms. Acad Manag J 60(5):1828–1858 Geletkanycz MA, Boyd BK (2011) CEO outside directorships and firm performance: a reconciliation of agency and embeddedness views. Acad Manag J 54(2):335–352 Gnanlet A, Khanin D (2015) Helping learners recognize, diagnose, and unravel incompetence traps to achieve synergistic exploration-exploitation in the classroom. J Manag Edu 39:684 Golden BR, Zajac EJ (2001) When will boards influence strategy? Inclination ¥ power = strategic change. Strateg Manag J 22:1087–1111 Granovetter M (1985) Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. Am J Sociol 91(3):481–510 Grant RM (2003) Strategic planning in a turbulent environment: evidence from the oil majors. Strateg Manag J 24(6):491–518 Hambrick DC, Misangyi VF, Park CA (2015) The quad model for identifying a corporate director’s potential for effective monitoring: toward a new theory of board sufficiency. Acad Manag Rev 40:323–344 Harms R, Schulz A, Kraus S, Fink M (2009) The conceptualisation of 'opportunity' in strategic management research. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing 1(1):57–71 Hartmann MC (2007) Continuing education for boards of directors: an empirical study of its effects on directors, boards and public trust. PhD dissertation. University of St. Gallen. Heinle MS, Ross N, Saoma RE (2014) A theory of participative budgeting. Account Rev 893:1025–1050 Henke J (1986) Involving the directors in strategic planning. J Bus Strategy 7:87–95 Hillman AJ, Cannella AA, Paetzold R (2000) The resource dependence role of corporate directors: strategic adaptation of board composition in response to environmental change. J Manag Stud 37:235–255 Hillman AJ, Dalziel T (2003) Boards of directors and firm performance: integrating agency and resource dependence perspectives. Acad Manag Rev 28:383–415 Hoppmann J, Naegele F, Girod B (2019) Boards as a source of inertia: examining the internal challenges and dynamics of boards of directors in times of environmental discontinuities. Acad Manag J 62(2):437–468 Huse M (2007) Boards, governance, and value creation: the human side of corporate governance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Jensen M (1998) Foundations of organizational strategy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Jensen M (2000) A theory of the firm: governance, residual claims, and organizational forms. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Jensen M, Meckling W (1976) Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. J Financ Econ 3:305–360 Judge WQ, Zeithaml CP (1992) Institutional and strategic choice perspective on board involvement in the strategic decision process. Acad Manag J 35:766–794 Kahneman D, Lovallo D, Sibony O (2011) Before you make that big decision. Harvard Bus Rev 89:50–60 Ketokivi M, Castañer X (2004) Strategic planning as an integrative device. Adm Sci Q 49(3):337–365 Khanna P, Jones CD, Boivie S (2013) Director human capital, information processing demands, and board effectiveness. J Manag 40(2):557–585 Luft J, Shield M (2003) Mapping management accounting: Graphics and guidelines for theory-consistent empirical research. Account Org Soc 28:169–249 Mahto RV, Davis PS, Pearce JA, Robinson RB (2010) Satisfaction with firm performance in family businesses. Entrep Theory Pract 34(5):985–1001 McDonald ML, Westphal JD (2003) Getting by with the advice of their friends: CEOs’ advice networks and firms’ strategic responses to poor performance. Adm Sci Q 481:1–32 McDonald ML, Westphal JD (2010) A little help here? Board control, CEO identification with the corporate elite, and strategic help provided to CEOs at other firms. Acad Manag J 532:343–370 McDonald ML, Westphal JD (2011) My brother’s keeper?. CEO identification with the corporate elite, social support among CEOs, and leader effectiveness. Acad Manag J 544:661–693 Nadler DA (2004) Building better boards. Harvard Bus Rev 82(5):102–105 Oliver C (1991) Strategic responses to institutional processes. Acad Manag Review 16(1):145–179 Pearce JA, Zahra SA (1991) The relative power of CEOs and boards of directors: associations with corporate performance. Strateg Manag J 12:135–153 Pepper A, Gore J (2015) Behavioral agency theory: New foundations for theorizing about executive compensation. J Manag 41(4):1045–1068 Pfarrer MD, Smith KG, Bartol KM, Khanin DM, Zhang X (2008) Coming forward: the effects of social and regulatory forces on the voluntary restatement of earnings subsequent to wrongdoing. Organ Sci 19:386–403 Pfeffer J, Salancik GR (1978a) The external control of organizations: a resource dependence perspective. Harper and Row, New York Pfeffer J, Salancik GR (1978b) The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Harper and Row, New York Pozen RC (2010) The case for professional boards. Harvard Bus Rev 88(12):50–58 Pugliese A, Bezemer PJ, Zattoni A, Huse M, Van den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW (2009) Boards of directors’ contribution to strategy: a literature review and research agenda’. Corp Gov Int Rev 17:292–306 Rindova VP (1999) What corporate boards have to do with strategy: a cognitive perspective. J Manag Stud 36:953–975 Rivera-Santos M, Rufin C, Wassmer U (2017) Alliances between firms and non-profits: a multiple and behavioural agency approach. J Manag Stud 54–6:854–876 Sanders G, Carpenter M (2003) A behavioral agency theory perspective on stock repurchase program announcements. Acad Manag J 46:160–178 Siciliano JI (2005) Board involvement in strategy and organizational performance. J General Manag 30(4):1–10 Siciliano JI (2008) A comparison of CEO and director perceptions of board involvement in strategy. Nonprofit Volunt Sector Q 37:152–162 Soll JB, Milkman KL, Payne JW (2015) Outsmart your own biases. Harvard Bus Rev 93(5):64–71 Soll JB, Milkman KL, Payne JW (2016) A user’s guide to debiasing. In: Wu G, Keren G (eds) Wiley-Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making. Wiley, West Sussex, pp 925–951 Sonnenfeld J, Kusin M, Waltonz E (2013) What CEOs really think of their boards. Harvard Bus Rev 914:98–106 Sundaramurthy C, Lewis M (2003) Control and collaboration: paradoxes of governance. Acad Manag Rev 28(3):397–415 Thomas C, Kidd D, Fernández-Aráoz C (2007) Are you underutilizing your board. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 48(2):71–76 Tilcsik A, Almandoz J (2016) When having too many experts on the board backfires. Harvard Bus Rev 1–4. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2016/08/when-having-too-many-experts-on-the-board-backfires Tilcsik A, Almandoz J (2017) When expertise becomes a liability. Rotman Manag 77–82 Tversky A, Kahneman D (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–291 Weber L, Wiersema M (2017) Dismissing a tarnished CEO? Psychological mechanisms and unconscious biases in the board’s evaluation. Calif Manag Rev 59(3):22–41 Westphal JD, Graebner ME (2010) A matter of appearances: How corporate leaders manage the impressions of financial analysts about the conduct of their boards. Acad Manag J 531:15–44 Westphal JD, Seidel M, Stewart K (2001) Second-order imitation: uncovering latent effects of board network ties. Adm Sci Q 46:717–749 Westphal JD, Shani G (2016) Psyched-up to suck-up: Self-regulated cognition, interpersonal influence, and recommendations for board appointments in the corporate elite. Acad Manag J 59:479–509 Westphal JD, Stern I (2006a) The other pathway to the boardroom: How interpersonal influence behavior can substitute for elite credentials and demographic majority status in gaining access to board appointments. Adm Sci Q 51(2):169–204 Westphal JD, Stern I (2006b) The other pathway to the boardroom: Interpersonal influence behavior as a substitute for elite credentials and majority status in obtaining board appointments. Adm Sci Q 51:169–204 Westphal JD, Zajac EJ (1995) Who shall govern? CEO/board power, demographic similarity, and new director selection. Adm Sci Qu 40:60–83 Wiseman RM, Gomez-Mejia LR (1998) A behavioral agency model of managerial risk taking. Acad Manag Rev 23:133–153 Wooldridge B, Floyd SW (1990) The strategy process, middle management involvement, and organizational performance. Strateg Manag J 11(3):231–241 Zahra S (1990) Increasing the board’s involvement in strategy. Long Range Plan 23:109–117 Zahra SA, Pearce JA (1989) Boards of directors and corporate financial performance: a review and integrative model. J Manag 15:291–334 Zhang PY (2010) Board information and strategic tasks performance. Corp Gov Int Rev 185:473–487 Zhang L, Ji W, Tao J, Wang Q (2011) Who shall leave? How CEO preference and power affect executive turnover in Chinese listed companies. Corp Gov Int Rev 19(6):547–561 Zhang P (2008) Board information advantage: a study of board capital and absorptive capacity. In: Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings Zuriekat M, Abu-Ghazaleh T, Salameh R, Alrawashdeh S (2011) Participation in performance measurement systems and level of satisfaction. Int J Bus Soc Sci 2(8):159–169