Behavioral Determinants of Nonprofit Board Performance

Abstract

There is an increased awareness that the performance of boards (good governance) is not only determined by structural determinants but by behavioral determinants as well. These behavioral determinants might be particularly important for public and nonprofit governance, where the role of the board is more diffuse and heterogeneous than in corporate governance. Here we investigate how social dynamics within boards in secondary education influence their performance. We follow a concise model that includes cognitive conflict, the use of expertise, effort norms, and social cohesion as determinants of board task performance. A survey among all secondary schools in the Netherlands serves as the empirical underpinning for this process‐oriented model of good governance. We show that the behavioral determinants have different effects on the control task and advice task of boards. Also, we find that cognitive conflicts in supervisory boards do not lead to less but rather to more social cohesion within boards. Building on these findings, we suggest a revised model of the behavioral determinants of nonprofit board performance.

Promising avenue or dead end street? A meta analytic review of the Forbes and Milliken model of board behaviour

“…Another regularly criticized methodological issue in the research on the FM-Model is the reliance on the CEO as a single respondent in some of the research (Huse, 2009a). The choice of the CEO as the single respondent is often motivated by the difficult accessibility of non-executive board members and justified by stating that the CEO is the only person that can properly assess both the ins and outs of the organization as well as the functioning of the board of directors (Minichilli et al, 2012;Heemskerk et al, 2015). Contrary to our hypotheses, the moderator model comparing studies that relied on the CEO as single respondent with studies that relied on other or multiple respondents was not significant.…”

“…This further underlines the severe differences in findings between studies and makes it hard to draw conclusions. Some empirical studies have found that the impact of cognitive conflict depends on the board task and have suggested that cognitive conflict has a more positive impact on the service task of a board than on its control task (Zattoni et al, 2015, Heemskerk et al 2015. However, the similarities found in the meta-analysis for the effect on board control task performance, and board service task performance does not support this supposition.…”

“…However, the studies that build on the FM model differ greatly in their operationalization of cognitive conflicts. Studies sometimes use different descriptions for cognitive conflicts: intragroup conflict (Garnes and Mathisen, 2014), critical debate (Minichilli et al, 2009) or task conflict (Heemskerk et al, 2015). In addition, studies using similar descriptions differ in the actual Likert-scale items used.…”

Political Influence and the Performance of Nonprofit Spanish Banks

“…Corporate governance mechanisms should be enhanced in these transformed banks to improve the composition of the board and appoint experienced CEOs. An increase in monitoring and control tasks can help to improve organizational effectiveness and performance (Cumberland et al ; Heemskerk, Heemskerk, and Wats ). Following Shaw and Allen (), we consider that the initial social mission of savings banks should have been maintained with a more heavy‐handed business management model.…”

The determinants of trust in the boardroom

“…This research contributes to, and further validates, how board affective conflict is perceived in the boardroom regarding its negative consequences. However, it is useful to note that avoiding this form of conflict paradoxically could hinder good governance (Heemskerk et al, 2016).…”