Do Board Evaluations Measure Board Effectiveness?

Rasmussen, Janicke L.

doi:10.1080/00208825.2015.1005999

Cited by 10 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A questionnaire-and-interview study of Norwegian boards found that directors saw evaluation serving hygienic purposes (i.e. conforming to external demands for board evaluation) rather than enhancing board performance (Rasmussen, 2015). If such outcomes are conspiratorial, they may increase cohesiveness but at the expense of cognitive conflict.…”

Section: Purpose and Conduct Of Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They argue that directors can be open about feelings during the self-evaluation as the processes will be kept confidential from outsiders. Internal evaluation also alleviates concerns over commercial confidentiality (Rasmussen, 2015). Kiel and Nicholson (2005) argue that with selection of a trusted person to lead it, internal evaluation provides “open and honest feedback.” However, others see internal evaluation inhibiting openness about problematic board dynamics (Ungureanu, 2013).…”

Section: Evaluating Boardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluating the effectiveness of corporate boards

Nordberg

Booth

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose-This paper examines how board evaluations have emerged as an important tool in public policy and corporate practice for enhancing board effectiveness. Design/methodology/approach-We review the extensive literature on effectiveness and the emerging literature on board evaluation to identify ways to assess the current policy direction for external evaluation of corporate boards. Findings-The paper develops an integrated framework of effectiveness that can be used as a tool for board evaluation, in particular for externally facilitated exercises. Research limitations/implications-Through its integration of prior conceptual work this paper advances our theoretical understanding of this emerging part of policy and practice, with to-date lack much empirical basis. Practical implications-The framework we develop shows ways to focus how the practice is conducted by boards and external evaluators alike. Social implications-It can also help policy formation by pointing out the limitations as well as benefits of various policy options. Originality/value-In pointing to ways to develop study of the field through empirical research it provides direction for future academic research. It also identifies a need for and direction toward the professionalization of practice.

show abstract

Section: Purpose and Conduct Of Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Evaluating Boardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the effectiveness of corporate boards

Nordberg

Booth

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Board evaluation is increasingly being used to improve board effectiveness (Kiel & Nicholson, 2005; Long, 2006; Rasmussen, 2015). The Belgian Corporate Governance Code 2009 recommends that boards carry out such evaluations.…”

Section: Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Corporate performance and CEO dismissal: The role of social category faultlines

Vandebeek

Voordeckers

Huybrechts

et al. 2021

Corporate Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research Question/Issue This study investigates the moderating role of social category faultlines in the relationship between firm performance and CEO dismissal. We also examine how two board contingencies—the presence of board evaluation and the number of board committees—affect how social category faultlines moderate the performance–CEO dismissal relationship. Research Findings/Insights Using panel data on Belgian listed firms covering 2006 to 2014, we find that the negative relationship between firm performance and the likelihood of CEO dismissal is significantly weaker when boards experience social category faultlines. Further investigation of board contingencies demonstrates that social category faultlines have a stronger influence on the performance–CEO dismissal relationship when the board does not engage in board evaluation or has greater numbers of board committees. Theoretical/Academic Implications This study builds on the social identity perspective by providing empirical support for social category faultlines within the context of boards of directors. Social category faultlines lead to identity‐based subgroups within the board, which reduce directors' identification with the board as a whole, ultimately impacting the board's capability to dismiss a poorly performing CEO. Moreover, our study demonstrates how board contingencies can promote and/or weaken directors' identification with the board, which affects the salience of identity‐based subgroups. Practitioner/Policy Implications This study offers insights for practitioners interested in improving board effectiveness. Our evidence implies that decisions concerning the appointment of directors should be based on criteria that take faultlines and subgroups into account. Furthermore, our findings highlight the importance of strengthening the superordinate board identity by implementing initiatives such as board evaluation.

show abstract