What Makes Boards Effective? An examination of the relationships between board inputs, structures, processes and effectiveness in non‐profit organisations

Cornforth, Chris

doi:10.1111/1467-8683.00249

Cited by 171 publications

(155 citation statements)

References 7 publications

(22 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

146

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Secondly, the approach should be to measure deficiency in the identified competencies and personal attributes. There was also substantial agreement in the literature that a multi-dimensional approach is required (Brown 2007;Cornforth 2001;Jackson and Holland 1998;Moxham 2010;Willems, Huybrechts, Jegers, Weijters, Vantibborgh, Didee and Pepermans 2012) and that developing a model framework is a useful tool for identifying the factors that are associated with management performance (Cornforth 2001;Green and Griesinger 1996;Herman and Renz 1997;Moxham 2010;Sawhill and Williams 2001). This study adopted a multi-dimensional/model framework approach to help identify the factors associated with management deficiency.…”

Section: Defining the Adopted Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three main competencies were identified: management skills (Cornforth 2001;Forbes 1998;Green and Griesinger 1996;Langabeer and (Brown 2007;Nafukho 2007;Schjoedt and Kraus 2009;Thach and Thompson 2007). In addition to these competencies three personal attributes were identified: commitment to the organisation (Allen and Meyer 1996;Cornforth 2001;Doherty and Hoye 2011;Preston and Brown 2004), age (Glisky 2007), and resistance to change (Taysir and Taysir 2012). …”

Section: Building the Model Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Heuristic Model to Measure Nonprofit Management Deficiency

Hunt¹,

Nooriafshar²,

Krishnamurti³

2014

EJSBS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A mathematical technique to measure nonprofit management performance has eluded researchers for more than three decades. Traditional, analytical techniques have failed to find a solution that has broad acceptance. This problem raised the following question: will heuristic methodology provide an acceptable, approximate solution to the measurement of individual management deficiency in a nonprofit organisation? The purpose of this study was to demonstrate that a heuristic methodology can be used to build a model that will measure individual management deficiency and produce an assessment of management strengths and weaknesses for the board members of nonprofit organisations. The heuristic methodology known as simulated annealing was adopted in an attempt to find an acceptable, approximate solution to the measurement of individual

show abstract

Section: Defining the Adopted Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Building the Model Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Heuristic Model to Measure Nonprofit Management Deficiency

Hunt¹,

Nooriafshar²,

Krishnamurti³

2014

EJSBS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…O'Neal and Thomas (1996) have highlighted how assessing the performance of a BoD as a whole may produce more ambiguous results, compared to the assessment of the individual directors, precisely due to the lack of a shared judgement on the parameters to be taken into account. Traditionally, the performance of BoDs is linked to the role and the capacity to carry out its fundamental functions (Cornforth, 2001;Lorsch, 1997). Based on the considerations set out in the preceding paragraphs, the indicators to be taken into account should concern the structural, organizational and competence-related profiles of boards.…”

Section: The Principal Ambits Of Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the Board of Directors of Financial Intermediaries: Competencies, Effectiveness and Performance

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper proposes a model for analysing the effectiveness of boards of directors of financial intermediaries. The European Union recommends that companies in the Member States annually evaluate the performance of their boards. The degree of effectiveness of a board should be appreciated taking into account the business structure, ownership and institutional model of the firm, on the one hand, and the characteristics of its board, in terms of its composition, structure and skills, on the other hand. This paper also outlines the specificity of the role played by boards of directors in financial intermediaries, also in the light of the industry standards and regulations, and provides an overview of the board assessment methodologies proposed in literature, or developed by listed companies on the Anglo-saxon markets, with a view to considering their applicability to the financial sector. Lastly, and based on the foregoing, the paper proposes a model for diagnosing the conditions that need to be put into place to ensure the suitability of boards of directors and to evaluate the performance of both the board as a whole and the individual directors.

show abstract

“…Due to the lack of clear and solid academic evidence, the appropriateness of these board measures as adequate proxies for understanding board effectiveness can be questioned. Almost two decades ago, Zahra and Pearce (1989) Ingley, 2003;Kesner, 1988;Vance, 1978), board working style (Gabrielsson and Winlund, 2000) and board processes (Cornforth, 2001) for the effectiveness of boards. In addition, recent qualitative research into boards of directors (Leblanc and Gillies, 2005;Roberts et.al., 2005;Huse et.al., 2005) as well as more practitioner literature (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…More descriptive work is necessary before normative board models or theories can be advanced" (p. 327). Some scholars have tried to overcome the limitations in mainstream board research by examining the explanatory value of individual director characteristics (van der Walt and Ingley, 2003;Kesner, 1988;Vance, 1978), board working style (Gabrielsson and Winlund, 2000) and board processes (Cornforth, 2001) for the effectiveness of boards. In addition, recent qualitative research into boards of directors (Leblanc and Gillies, 2005; Roberts et.al., 2005; Huse et.al., 2005) as well as more practitioner literature (e.g.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying Key Determinants of Effective Boards of Directors

Levrau¹,

Berghe

2009

Global Boards

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mainstream research on boards of directors has been focusing on a direct relationship between board characteristics and firm performance, but up till now the results are inconclusive. Although these studies revealed interesting and useful insights, little is known about the factors that shape board effectiveness. This paper aims to reduce this gap by exploring the variety of indicators that contribute to the effectiveness of boards. The paper derives from an interview-based investigation among 104 directors of Belgian listed companies. The findings are further elaborated with quantitative data from two written questionnaires, involving directors of non-listed companies and experts in the field of corporate governance. The results point to three major issues. First, there appears to be a gap between a limited number of structural board measures consistently found in literature and the systematic occurrence of a set of behavioural criteria of board effectiveness in the perceptions of (Belgian) directors. Second, the findings suggest that the value of independence may be overemphasized at the cost of the broader issue of diversity. Third, it appears that mainstream board research ignores to a large extent two additional conditions (the information flow and the leadership style of the chairman) under which a board of directors can make an effective contribution to the strategic direction and control of a company. Our findings suggest that the ambiguity found in current research evidence can to some extent be attributed to the ignorance of a wide range of interconnected structural (such as diversity and competence) and behavioural factors (such as trust, attitude, norms and conduct) which actually shape the effectiveness of boards in performing their roles. 5 INTRODUCTIONBoards of directors are of interest to academics, the investment community, the business world and society at large. According to Cadbury (1999) this attention is understandable, given the fact that boards of directors serve as a bridge between the shareholders, who provide capital, and management in charge of running the company. At the heart of the corporate governance debate is the view that the board of directors is the guardian of shareholders' interest (Dalton et.al., 1998). Yet, boards are being criticized for failing to meet their governance responsibilities. Major institutional investors put pressure on (incompetent) directors and have long advocated changes in the board structure (Monks and Minow, 2001). Their call has been strengthened by many corporate governance reforms resulting from major corporate failures. The reforms put great emphasis on formal issues such as board independence, board leadership structure, board size and committees (Weil, Gotshal and Manges, 2002;Van den Berghe and De Ridder, 1999). These structural measures are assumed to be important means to enhance the power of the board, protect shareholders' interest, and hence, increase shareholder wealth (Becht et.al., 2002;Westphal, 1998).The interest of the invest...

show abstract

What Makes Boards Effective? An examination of the relationships between board inputs, structures, processes and effectiveness in non‐profit organisations

Cited by 171 publications

References 7 publications

A Heuristic Model to Measure Nonprofit Management Deficiency

A Heuristic Model to Measure Nonprofit Management Deficiency

Evaluating the Board of Directors of Financial Intermediaries: Competencies, Effectiveness and Performance

Identifying Key Determinants of Effective Boards of Directors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About