شناسایی فرآیندهای هیئت مدیره با رویکرد رفتاری به حاکمیت شرکتی بر اساس روش فراترکیب

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استاد گروه مدیریت بازرگانی دانشکده مدیریت دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

2 دکتری، مدیریت سیاست‌گذاری بازرگانی، دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

3 دانشیار، گروه مدیریت بازرگانی، دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

4 دانشیار، گروه مدیریت بازرگانی، دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

هدف: هدف این پژوهش، مرور نظام‌مند مقالات حوزه حاکمیت شرکتی با رویکرد رفتاری به منظور ایجاد تصویری بزرگ جهت طراحی چارچوب مفهومی و انجام تحقیقات تجربی برای بازگشایی جعبه سیاه فرایندهای هیئت مدیره است. پرسش اصلی پژوهش این است که پژوهشگران این حوزه به مطالعه چه مفاهیمی پرداخته‌اند.
روش: روش این پژوهش فراترکیب است. فراترکیب، روشی کیفی برای ارائه ترکیبی از یافته‌های پژوهش‌ها با هدف ایجاد چارچوب مفهومی و خلاصه‌سازی مفاهیم بمنظور ایجاد دسترسی راحت‌تر برای بهره‌برداری در پژوهش‌های تجربی است.
یافته‌ها:: پس از شناسایی 140 مقاله مرتبط و کدگذاری 78 مقاله منتخب با میانگین عامل تاثیر مجله (IJF) 1722،4،34 کد محتوایی برای شناسایی مفاهیم این حوزه ثبت گردید. با انجام فرایند کدگذاری باز، 139 مفهوم شناسایی شد که در قالب 25 زیرمقوله و 9 مقوله اصلی، دسته‌بندی‌گردید. سپس با انجام کدگذاری محوری و انتخابی طبق نظریه داده‌بنیاد، چارچوب مفهومی «حاکمیت شرکتی با رویکرد رفتاری» ارائه شد.  
نتیجه‌­گیری: پژوهشگران باید پای را از وظایف کنترلی هیئت ­مدیره فراگذاشته و به وظایف خدمت‌رسانی، که مهم‌ترینِ آن مشارکت در زمینه استراتژی‌های سازمان است، توجه بیشتری نموده و تاثیر عوامل زمینه‌ای چون ساختار مالکیت شرکت‌ها و پیچیدگی و عدم اطمینان محیطی بر روابط قدرت را مورد مطالعه قرار دهند. همچنین در کنار عوامل جمعیت‌شناختی، به شایستگی‌های هیئت مدیره و سرمایه‌ای انسانی و ارتباطی و نقش آن در کیفیت تصمیمات تاکید کرده و با مطالعه فرایندهای شناختی، عاطفی و رفتاری و توجه به عواملی چون قدرت، اعتماد و احساسات در کنار یکدیگر، به توسعه مدل‌های اقتضایی که تبیین کامل‌تری از پویایی‌های هیئت مدیره‌ها دست می‌­دهد، بپردازند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Identifying Board Processes through Behavioral Perspective toward Corporate Governance using Meta-Synthesis Approach

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ali Divandarri 1
  • Mohammad Sadegh Hashemi 2
  • Hashem Aghazadeh 3
  • Seyed Mahmoud Hosseini 4
1 Prof. in Business Management, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2 Ph.D. in Business Policy (Strategic Management), Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
3 Associate Prof., Department of Business Management, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
4 Associate Prof., Department of Business Management, Faculty of Management, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Objective: Boards are mainly concerned with communication issues as well as how to overcome the uncertainty associated with the strategic decision-making process rather than simply the old challenge of "conflict of interests" and their legal and structural solutions. In fact, although structural and legal issues are important in corporate governance, they are not sufficient for a comprehensive understanding of the process of corporate governance from a theoretical point of view and implementation of good governance in practice. That is because the interactions between the board members as well as the interactions between them and other stakeholders of the organization can play a more important role in this regard and should be the focus of attention. Therefore, this study aims to conduct a systematic review on all the articles published in the field of corporate governance using a behavioral approach in order to create a big imge for the researchers to design an appropriate conceptual model and conduct empirical research accordingly. The main question of this research is: “what concepts have been studied by the researchers in the field of corporate governance using a behavioral approach”.
Methodology: The present research is based on a meta-synthesis approach. It is a qualitative appraoch to present a combination of research findings with the aim of creating a conceptual framework and summarizing the concepts in order to provide easier access for exploitation in future experimental research. The study population included all the articles related to corporate governance which have been published in the reliable international journals such as JSTORE, Emerald, Science Direct (Elsevier), Scopus, Springer, Proquest, and Wiley until the end of 2018. In the preliminary stage, 140 articles were extracted. Then, the respective abstracts were studied and those articles that did not comply with at least one of the characteristics of the behavioral approach to corporate governance were eliminated. These characteristics include: 1- they should be 1- about the service duties of the board of directors, 2- about the interactions or decisions of the board of directors and the senior management team as well as dealing with the issues such as power, trust, feelings, participation, and etc, 3- using a theoretical basis other than theory of representation, 4- about the demographic characteristics or competencies of the board members, and 5- about the board processes and their dynamics using the raw data. The Journal Impact Factor and SiteScore indicators were used in the last stage of the article screening process.
Findings: After identifying 140 related articles and coding 78 selected articles with the average journal impact factor (JIF) of 4.34, 1722 content codes were registered to identify the concepts in this field. 139 concepts were identified as a result of open coding process, which were categorized into 25 subcategories and 9 main categories. Then, by performing axial and selective coding according to the grounded theory principles, the conceptual framework of "corporate governance based on a behavioral approach" was developed. The category of duties and outcomes of the board of directors including the control and service delivery task, was considered as the central category. Accordingly, the board should support and direct CEOs while keeping their distance and challenging them. The stakeholders, on the other hand, are regarded as the main trigger for the board duties. In fact, the external stakeholders as well as the internal stakeholders expect the board to be accountable and create value that can lead them to perform control or service tasks. On the other hand, the structure of the board as well as the demographic characteristics and competencies of the board members are considered as the intervening variables. In other words, there is a relationship between the structure of the board as well as the demographic characteristics and competencies of the individuals. In addition, the underlying conditions, depending on the contextual factors of corporate governance, can cause distinct changes in research variables in different research environments and are different from the intervening factors. In a conceptual framework, the underlying factors are divided into three levels of: company, industry, and macro (national). These factors affect the board processes. Moreover, the action and reaction strategies are the events that are performed by the actors during performing the board tasks. These strategies begin from the first moment the board performs its duties and continue until the organizational goals are achieved. Finally, the board tasks will result in organizational consequences including financial consequences, strategic changes of the organization, as well as social performance consequences for the organization, which is considered as the result within the conceptual framework.
Conclusion: The researchers should move away from the control tasks of the board of directors and pay more attention to the service tasks including the participation in the organizations strategies. They should also investigate the impact of underlying factors such as corporate ownership structure as well as environmental uncertainty on power relations. In addition to demographic factors, it can highlight the competencies of the board as well as human and communication capital and their role in the quality of the decisions. They should also develop contingency models that provide a more comprehensive explanation of the dynamics of the boards through studying cognitive, emotional, and behavioral processes as well as paying attention to different factors such as power, trust, and feelings.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Corporate governance
  • behavioral approach
  • board processes
  • Systematic review
  • Meta-synthesis
ابویی اردکان، محمد؛ ندافی، طاهره و قلی پور، آرین (1397). بررسی مدل های ذهنی مدیران در فرایند تفکر استراتژیک. فصلنامه مدیریت بازرگانی، 10(2)، 461-486. doi: 10.22059/jibm.2018.243274.2783
حساس یگانه، یحیی؛ رییسی، زهره و حسینی، سیدمجتبی (1388). رابطه بین کیفیت حاکمیت شرکتی و عملکرد شرکت‌های پذیرفته شده در بورس اوراق بهادار تهران، فصلنامه علوم مدیریت ایران، 4(13)، 100-75.
رحمان سرشت، حسین؛ و هرندی، عطاءالله (1396). بررسی اثر کنترل راهبردی حاکمیت شرکتی بر راهبری اثربخش شرکت‌های پذیرفته‌‌شده در بورس اوراق بهادار. فصلنامه مدیریت بازرگانی، 9(3)، 485-506. doi: 10.22059/jibm.2017.230760.2558
صفائی، محمد؛ محمودی درویشانی، بابک و عباسی، ابراهیم. (1396). بررسی تاثیر حاکمیت شرکتی بر مدیریت سود و مدیریت مالیات در شرکت‌های پذیرفته شده در بورس اوراق بهادار تهران. دانش حسابداری و حسابرسی مدیریت، 6(23)، 131-144.
علوی، سید مسلم و نجفی سیاهرودی، مهدی. (1394). بررسی تأثیر رهبری رئیس هیئت مدیره بر مشارکت راهبردی اعضا از طریق فرهنگ تولید تیمی. مدیریت فرهنگ سازمانی، 13(1)، 91-113. doi: 10.22059/jomc.2015.53295
قنبری، مهرداد؛ حمدی، وحید و فرجی، مرتضی (1393). بررسی تاثیر حاکمیت شرکتی و مدیریت سود بر کیفیت سود. سومین کنفرانس ملی حسابداری و مدیریت. تهران، ایران
نیکوکار، غلامحسین؛ جهان بیک لویی، علی؛ فرهادی، علی و علیدادی، یاسر (1393). رابطه سازوکارهای حاکمیت شرکتی با هزینه‌های نمایندگی متشکل از شرکت‌های ایرانی. فصلنامه مدیریت بازرگانی، 6(2)، 401-416. doi: 10.22059/jibm.2014.51380
نعمتی، رضا (1392). بررسی نقش حاکمیت شرکتی و شناسایی عوامل موثربر اثربخشی هیئت مدیره ( مطالعه موردی در شرکت سرمایه گذاری تامین اجتماعی مرکزی - دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه تهران، ایران.
References
Abouyi Ardakan, M., Naddafi, T., & Gholipour, A. (2018). Investigation of Managers’ Mental Modeling regarding Strategic Thinking. Journal of Business Management, 10(2), 461-486. doi: 10.22059/jibm.2018.243274.2783 (in Persian)
Alavi, S., & Najafi Siahroudi, M. (1394). Examining the effect of board chair leadership on directors' strategic collaboration through team working culture. Organizational Culture Management, 13(35), 91-113 (in Persian).
Bailey, B. C., & Peck, S. I. (2013). Boardroom Strategic Decision‐Making Style: Understanding the Antecedents. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 21(2), 131-146.
Baysinger, B., & Hoskisson, R. E. (1990). The composition of boards of directors and strategic control: Effects on corporate strategy. Academy of management review, 15(1), 72-87.
Ben‐Amar, W., Francoeur, C., Hafsi, T., & Labelle, R. (2013). What makes better boards? A closer look at diversity and ownership. British Journal of Management, 24(1), 85-101.
Benoot, C., Bilsen, J., & Hannes, K. (2014). Using grounded theory methodology for a qualitative meta-synthesis: the case of a literature review about sexuality after cancer treatment. Paper presented at the International journal of qualitative methods.
Bezemer, P.-J., Nicholson, G., & Pugliese, A. (2014). Inside the boardroom: exploring board member interactions. Qualitative research in accounting & management, 11(3), 238-259.
Bezemer, P. J., Nicholson, G., & Pugliese, A. (2018). The influence of board chairs on director engagement: A case‐based exploration of boardroom decision‐making. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 26(3), 219-234.
Brundin, E., & Nordqvist, M. (2008). Beyond facts and figures: The role of emotions in boardroom dynamics. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16(4), 326-341.
Carpenter, M. A., & Westphal, J. D. (2001). The strategic context of external network ties: Examining the impact of director appointments on board involvement in strategic decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 639-660.
Chen, H. L. (2011). Does board independence influence the top management team? Evidence from strategic decisions toward internationalization. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 19(4), 334-350.
Combs, J. G., Ketchen Jr, D. J., Perryman, A. A., & Donahue, M. S. (2007). The moderating effect of CEO power on the board composition–firm performance relationship. Journal of management studies, 44(8), 1299-1323.
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative sociology, 13(1), 3-21.
Daily, C. M., Dalton, D. R., & Cannella Jr, A. A. (2003). Corporate governance: Decades of dialogue and data. Academy of management review, 28(3), 371-382.
Davis, G. F. (2005). New directions in corporate governance. Annu. Rev. Sociol., 31, 143-162.
Denscombe, M. (2014). The good research guide: for small-scale social research projects: McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
Evans, G. (2010). Corporate governance culture-an interview-based ethnography of two boards of directors using grounded theory. The Poznan University of Economics Review, 10(2), 15.
Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. The journal of law and Economics, 26(2), 301-325.
Finkelstein, S. (1992). Power in top management teams: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 35(3), 505-538.
Finkelstein, S., & D'aveni, R. A. (1994). CEO duality as a double-edged sword: How boards of directors balance entrenchment avoidance and unity of command. Academy of Management Journal, 37(5), 1079-1108.
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(3), 489-505.
Gabaldon, P., Kanadlı, S. B., & Bankewitz, M. (2018). How does job-related diversity affect boards' strategic participation? An information-processing approach. Long Range Planning.
Gabrielsson, J., & Huse, M. (2004). Context, behavior, and evolution: Challenges in research on boards and governance. International Studies of Management & Organization, 34(2), 11-36.
Gabrielsson, J., & Winlund, H. (2000). Boards of directors in small and medium-sized industrial firms: examining the effects of the board's working style on board task performance. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 12(4), 311-330.
Ghanbari, M., Hamdi, V., & Faraji, M. (2014). Examining the Effect of Corporate Governance and Profit Management on Profit Quality. Paper presented at the 3rd Conference on Accounting and Management, Tehran, Iran. https://www.civilica.com/Paper-ACCFIN03-ACCFIN03_021.htm (in Persian)
Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management learning & education, 4(1), 75-91.
Golden, B. R., & Zajac, E. J. (2001). When will boards influence strategy? Inclination× power= strategic change. Strategic management journal, 22(12), 1087-1111.
Goodstein, J., Gautam, K., & Boeker, W. (1994). The effects of board size and diversity on strategic change. Strategic management journal, 15(3), 241-250.
Gulati, R., & Westphal, J. D. (1999). Cooperative or controlling? The effects of CEO-board relations and the content of interlocks on the formation of joint ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(3), 473-506.
Gwet, K. L. (2012). Handbook of inter-rater reliability: The definitive guide to measuring the extent of agreement among multiple raters. Advanced Analytics, LLC.
Hambrick, D. C. (2007). Upper echelons theory: An update: Academy of Management Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510.
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of management review, 9(2), 193-206.
Hambrick, D. C., Werder, A. v., & Zajac, E. J. (2008). New directions in corporate governance research. Organization Science, 19(3), 381-385.
Hafsi, T., & Turgut, G. (2013). Boardroom diversity and its effect on social performance: Conceptualization and empirical evidence. Journal of business ethics, 112(3), 463-479.
Haynes, K. T., & Hillman, A. (2010). The effect of board capital and CEO power on strategic change. Strategic management journal, 31(11), 1145-1163.
Hassas Yeganeh, Y., Raeesi, Z., & Hoseini, S. (2009). Relationship between Quality of Corporate Governance and Corporate Performance in Tehran Stock Exchange. Iranian journal of Management Sciences, 4(13), 75-100. (in Persian)
Hendry, K. P., Kiel, G. C., & Nicholson, G. (2010). How boards strategise: A strategy as practice view. Long Range Planning, 43(1), 33-56.
Huse, M. (1998). Researching the dynamics of board—stakeholder relations. Long Range Planning, 31(2), 218-226.
Huse, M. (2007). Boards, governance and value creation: The human side of corporate governance: Cambridge University Press.
Huse, M. (2008). Accountability and creating accountability: A framework for exploring behavioural perspectives of corporate governance The Value Creating Board (pp. 51-72): Routledge.
Huse, M., & Gabrielsson, J. (2008). Context, behaviour and evolution: Challenges in research on boards and governance The Value Creating Board (pp. 28-50): Routledge.
Huse, M., Hoskisson, R., Zattoni, A., & Viganò, R. (2011). New perspectives on board research: Changing the research agenda. Journal of Management & Governance, 15(1), 5-28.
Huse, M., & Zattoni, A. (2008). Trust, firm life cycle, and actual board behavior: Evidence from" one of the lads" in the board of three small firms. International Studies of Management & Organization, 38(3), 71-97.
Ingley, C. B., & Van der Walt, N. T. (2001). The strategic board: The changing role of directors in developing and maintaining corporate capability. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 9(3), 174-185.
Jamali, D., & Karam, C. (2018). Corporate social responsibility in developing countries as an emerging field of study. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(1), 32-61.
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of financial economics, 3(4), 305-360.
Johnson, S. G., Schnatterly, K., & Hill, A. D. (2013). Board composition beyond independence: Social capital, human capital, and demographics. Journal of Management, 39(1), 232-262.
Judge Jr, W. Q., & Zeithaml, C. P. (1992). Institutional and strategic choice perspectives on board involvement in the strategic decision process. Academy of Management Journal, 35(4), 766-794.
Kanadlı, S. B., Bankewitz, M., & Zhang, P. (2018). Job-related diversity: the comprehensiveness and speed of board decision-making processes—an upper echelons approach. Journal of Management and Governance, 22(2), 427-456.
Kim, B., Burns, M. L., & Prescott, J. E. (2009). The strategic role of the board: The impact of board structure on top management team strategic action capability. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(6), 728-743.
Knockaert, M., Bjornali, E. S., & Erikson, T. (2015). Joining forces: Top management team and board chair characteristics as antecedents of board service involvement. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(3), 420-435.
Kor, Y. Y. (2006). Direct and interaction effects of top management team and board compositions on R&D investment strategy. Strategic management journal, 27(11), 1081-1099.
Leblanc, R., & Schwartz, M. S. (2007). The black box of board process: Gaining access to a difficult subject. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15(5), 843-851.
Ludvigsen, M. S., Hall, E. O., Meyer, G., Fegran, L., Aagaard, H., & Uhrenfeldt, L. (2016). Using Sandelowski and Barroso’s meta-synthesis method in advancing qualitative evidence. Qualitative health research, 26(3), 320-329.
Mashayekhi, B., & Bazaz, M. S. (2008). Corporate governance and firm performance in Iran. Journal of Contemporary Accounting & Economics, 4(2), 156-172.
McDonald, M. L., Khanna, P., & Westphal, J. D. (2008). Getting them to think outside the circle: Corporate governance, CEOs' external advice networks, and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 51(3), 453-475.
McNulty, T., & Pettigrew, A. (1999). Strategists on the board. Organization studies, 20(1), 47-74.
Nielsen, S., & Huse, M. (2010). Women directors' contribution to board decision‐making and strategic involvement: The role of equality perception. European Management Review, 7(1), 16-29.
Nemati, R. (2013). Examining the role of Corporate Governance and Identifying the Influencing Factors in Board Effectiveness: A Case Study in Shasta Investment Company. (Master's Degree), Azad Islamic University. (in Persian)
Nikookar, G., Jahanbeyklouei, A., Farhadi, A., & Alidadi, Y. (2014). The Relationship of Corporate Governance Mechanisms with Costs of the Agencies of Iranian Companies. Business Management Quarterly, 6(2), 401-416. doi: 10.22059/jibm.2014.51380 (in Persian)
Parris, D. L., & Peachey, J. W. (2013). A systematic literature review of servant leadership theory in organizational contexts. Journal of business ethics, 113(3), 377-393.
Pearce, J. A. (1995). A structural analysis of dominant coalitions in small banks. Journal of Management, 21(6), 1075-1095.
Pearce, J. A., & DeNisi, A. S. (1983). Attribution theory and strategic decision making: An application to coalition formation. Academy of Management Journal, 26(1), 119-128.
Pearce, J. A., & Zahra, S. A. (1991). The relative power of CEOs and boards of directors: Associations with corporate performance. Strategic management journal, 12(2), 135-153.
Pearce, J. A., & Zahra, S. A. (1992). Board composition from a strategic contingency perspective. Journal of management studies, 29(4), 411-438.
Pettigrew, A., & McNulty, T. (1995). Power and influence in and around the boardroom. Human relations, 48(8), 845-873.
Pugliese, A., Bezemer, P. J., Zattoni, A., Huse, M., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Boards of directors' contribution to strategy: A literature review and research agenda. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(3), 292-306.
Pye, A., & Pettigrew, A. (2005). Studying board context, process and dynamics: Some challenges for the future. British Journal of Management, 16(s1), S27-S38.
Qian, X., Zhang, G., & Liu, H. (2015). Officials on boards and the prudential behavior of banks: Evidence from China's city commercial banks. China Economic Review, 32, 84-96.
Rahmanseresht, H., & Harandi, A. (2017). Examining the Impact of Corporate Governance Strategic Control on the Effectiveness Governance of Corporation in Stock Market. Business Management Quarterly, 9(3), 485-506. doi: 10.22059/jibm.2017.230760.2558 (in Persian)
Rindova, V. P. (1999). What corporate boards have to do with strategy: A cognitive perspective. Journal of management studies, 36(7), 953-975.
Robbins, S., & Judge, T. (2018). Essentials of Organizational Behavior . Harlow, UK: Pearson Education (pp. 39).
Roberts, J. (2001). Trust and control in Anglo-American systems of corporate governance: The individualizing and socializing effects of processes of accountability. Human relations, 54(12), 1547-1572.
Roberts, J., McNulty, T., & Stiles, P. (2005). Beyond agency conceptions of the work of the non‐executive director: Creating accountability in the boardroom. British Journal of Management, 16(s1), S5-S26.
Ruigrok, W., Peck, S. I., & Keller, H. (2006). Board characteristics and involvement in strategic decision making: Evidence from Swiss companies. Journal of management studies, 43(5), 1201-1226.
Safaei, M., MahmoudiDarvishani, B., & Abbasi, E. (2017). The effect on earnings management and financial management in the corporate governance of listed companies in Tehran Stock Exchange. Accounting Knowledge and Managerial Auditing, 6(23), 131-144.(in Persian)
Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2006). Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research: Springer Publishing Company.
Sandelowski, M., Barroso, J., & Voils, C. I. (2007). Using qualitative metasummary to synthesize qualitative and quantitative descriptive findings. Research in Nursing & Health, 30(1), 99-111.
Schmidt, S. L., & Brauer, M. (2006). Strategic governance: How to assess board effectiveness in guiding strategy execution. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 14(1), 13-22.
Schwarz, N. (2000). Emotion, cognition, and decision making. Cognition & Emotion, 14(4), 433-440.
Stiles, P. (2001). The impact of the board on strategy: An empirical examination. Journal of management studies, 38(5), 627-650.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. 1998. Thousand Oaks.
Subramaniam, N., Stewart, J., Ng, C., & Shulman, A. (2013). Understanding corporate governance in the Australian public sector: A social capital approach. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 26(6), 946-977.
Sundaramurthy, C., & Lewis, M. (2003). Control and collaboration: Paradoxes of governance. Academy of management review, 28(3), 397-415.
Tian, J., Haleblian, J., & Rajagopalan, N. (2011). The effects of board human and social capital on investor reactions to new CEO selection. Strategic management journal, 32(7), 731-747.
Tihanyi, L., Ellstrand, A. E., Daily, C. M., & Dalton, D. R. (2000). Composition of the top management team and firm international diversification. Journal of Management, 26(6), 1157-1177.
Torchia, M., Calabrò, A., & Morner, M. (2015). Board of directors’ diversity, creativity, and cognitive conflict: The role of board members’ interaction. International Studies of Management & Organization, 45(1), 6-24.
Udueni, H. (1999). Power dimensions in the board and outside director independence: Evidence from large industrial UK firms. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 7(1), 62-72.
Van der Walt, N., & Ingley, C. (2003). Board dynamics and the influence of professional background, gender and ethnic diversity of directors. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 11(3), 218-234.
Van Eas, H., Van Der Laan, G., & Postma, T. J. (2008). Trust and board task performance The Value Creating Board (pp. 489-499): Routledge.
Van Ees, H., Gabrielsson, J., & Huse, M. (2009). Toward a behavioral theory of boards and corporate governance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(3), 307-319.
Van Puyvelde, S., Brown, W. A., Walker, V., & Tenuta, R. (2018). Board Effectiveness in Nonprofit Organizations: Do Interactions in the Boardroom Matter? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 0899764018762318.
Weitzner, D., & Peridis, T. (2011). Corporate governance as part of the strategic process: rethinking the role of the board. Journal of business ethics, 102(1), 33-42.
Westphal, J. D. (1998). Board games: How CEOs adapt to increases in structural board independence from management. Administrative Science Quarterly, 511-537.
Westphal, J. D. (1999). Collaboration in the boardroom: Behavioral and performance consequences of CEO-board social ties. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 7-24.
Westphal, J. D., & Bednar, M. K. (2005). Pluralistic ignorance in corporate boards and firms' strategic persistence in response to low firm performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(2), 262-298.
Westphal, J. D., & Milton, L. P. (2000). How experience and network ties affect the influence of demographic minorities on corporate boards. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(2), 366-398.
Westphal, J. D., Seidel, M.-D. L., & Stewart, K. J. (2001). Second-order imitation: Uncovering latent effects of board network ties. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4), 717-747.
Westphal, J. D., & Stern, I. (2006). The other pathway to the boardroom: Interpersonal influence behavior as a substitute for elite credentials and majority status in obtaining board appointments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(2), 169-204.
Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. (1995). Who shall govern? CEO/board power, demographic similarity, and new director selection. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60-83.
Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. (1998). The symbolic management of stockholders: Corporate governance reforms and shareholder reactions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 127-153.
Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. (2013). A behavioral theory of corporate governance: Explicating the mechanisms of socially situated and socially constituted agency. Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 607-661.
Willems, J., Andersson, F. O., Jegers, M., & Renz, D. O. (2017). A coalition perspective on nonprofit governance quality: Analyzing dimensions of influence in an exploratory comparative case analysis. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28(4), 1422-1447.
Wolfswinkel, J. F., Furtmueller, E., & Wilderom, C. P. (2013). Using grounded theory as a method for rigorously reviewing literature. European journal of information systems, 22(1), 45-55.
Zahra, S. A., & Pearce, J. A. (1989). Boards of directors and corporate financial performance: A review and integrative model. Journal of Management, 15(2), 291-334.
Zajac, E. J., & Westphal, J. D. (1995). Accounting for the explanations of CEO compensation: Substance and symbolism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 283-308.
Zajac, E. J., & Westphal, J. D. (1996a). DIRECTOR REPUTATION, CEO/BOARD POWER, AND THE DYNAMICS OF BOARD INTERLOCKS. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Proceedings.
Zajac, E. J., & Westphal, J. D. (1996b). Who shall succeed? How CEO/board preferences and power affect the choice of new CEOs. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 64-90.
Zand, D. E. (1972). Trust and managerial problem solving. Administrative Science Quarterly, 229-239.
Zhang, P. (2013). Power and trust in board–CEO relationships. Journal of Management & Governance, 17(3), 745-765.
Zimmer, L. (2006). Qualitative meta‐synthesis: a question of dialoguing with texts. Journal of advanced nursing, 53(3), 311-318.
Zona, F., & Zattoni, A. (2007). Beyond the black box of demography: Board processes and task effectiveness within Italian firms. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15(5), 852-864.