This study examines the perceptions of directors in Australian public listed companies about their access to information for their role as directors. We focus on information costs and information asymmetry. Directors' perceptions of the relationship between the composition of Boards, the perceived roles of Boards and the information requirements to fulfil those roles were explored in interviews with 45 directors from public listed companies. Implicit in Agency Theory is the assumption that independent directors have free access to the information required to fulfil their role in monitoring and control. We found, however, demonstrable evidence of information asymmetry. The central finding was that directors perceive that the CEO and Executive have the controlling power over information. The provision of appropriate information for Board decisions is perceived to hinge on the "integrity" of the CEO and Executive. This emphasis on integrity and "good companies" does appear consistent with the Stewardship Theory of governance. It raises as a question for future research the possible alternative relationships between Boards and management. The directors interviewed discussed a range of strategies they used to keep themselves informed and made observations of additions to information that they believed should be available as a matter of course. Copyright 2003 Blackwell Publishing Ltd..
This paper examines the views of directors of public listed Australian companies regarding the role of the independent director and the significance of that role in relationship to the composition of the Board of Company Directors (BOCD). The preferred model for board composition in Australian public listed companies is that of a majority of Non-Executive Directors. Whilst this model is promoted in Australia there is conflicting evidence surrounding the claim that a majority of independent members in the board structure contributes to high levels of performance. The data reported were collected in qualitative research which examined the perceptions of governance practice held by a group of Australian company directors holding positions on boards of public listed companies between 1997 and 2000. The research is looking at directors' perceptions of how and why independent directors contribute to board performance The analysis indicates that participating directors were convinced that a majority of Non-Executive Directors provided a safeguard for a balance of power in the board/management relationship. The difference between Non-Executive Directors, who are also independent directors, and Non-Executive Directors who are not independent, was an important distinction which was highlighted. The capacity for board members to think independently was seen to be enhanced, but not necessarily ensured, with majority membership of Non-Executive Directors. However, a majority of independent minds expressing multiple points of view was perceived to reduce the board room hazard of 'group think'.
This paper examines how the findings of a wider research effort, designed to examine the effect of change processes on the waterfront in Fremantle, Western Australia, gave rise to another research project. This second research project is described in full as an action research. The paper presents the objectives, content method and outcomes as well as the processes followed throughout the project. The Enterprise Communication Committee was not created for the action research program but it was able to define both trust and communication. A home produced mechanism for developing trust and communication was constructed together with a commitment to carry on action learning within the organisation. This is the waterfront-with no history of development and no exposure to theory.The group members identified a need, produced a set of working definitions. a methodology and an enthusiastic commitment to action.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.