|Title:||Boards’ Attributes and Company Performance: the Romanian Experience|
Vol. 10, No 2, 2017
Published date: 06-2017 (print) / 06-2017 (online)
Economics & Sociology
ISSN: 2071-789X, eISSN: 2306-3459
|Keywords:||board of directors, diversification strategy, corporate governance theories, Romania|
|JEL classification:||M12, M51|
For a long period of time, researchers from the corporate governance field have been interested in finding out what drives companies’ performance. The present study identifies five attributes of boards – size, age, female representation, proportion of non-executive directors, and chairman-CEO duality – in an attempt to link these to diversification strategy and financial performance. These relations are investigated using archival sources of data for a sample of 56 publicly traded companies from an emerging economy. The results are consistent with other studies performed abroad and at the same time offer new theoretical and managerial perspectives on the issues analyzed. The findings offer some valuable insights into the decision of corporate diversification at both theoretical and managerial level. The results provide support for both managerial hegemony and agency theory. Board members have little involvement in the strategy-making process as this is most often an attribute of managers, where as the existence of more members without executive responsabilities is a determinat of superior company performance.
1. Adams, R. B., Almeida, H., Ferreira, D. (2005). Powerful CEOs and their impact on corporate performance. Review of Financial Studies, 18(4), 1403-1432.
2. Amihud, Y., Lev, B. (1981). Risk reduction as a managerial motive for conglomerate mergers. Bell Journal of Economics, 12(2), 605-617.
3. Barnhart, S., Rosenstein, S. (1998). Board composition, managerial ownership, and firm performance: An empirical analysis. Financial Review, 33(4), 1-16.
4. Baysinger, B. D., Butler, H. N. (1985). Corporate governance and the board of directors: Performance effects of changes in board composition. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 1(1), 101-124.
5. Bernardi, R. A., Bosco, S. M., Vassill, K. M. (2006). Does female representation on boards of directors associate with Fortune’s ”100 Best Companies to Work For” list? Business & Society, 45(2), 235-248.
6. Bhagat, S., Bolton, B. (2008). Corporate governance and firm performance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 14(3), 257-273.
7. Bhagat, S., Black, B. (2002). The non-correlation between board independence and long-term firm performance. Journal of Corporation Law, 27(2), 231-273.
8. Bonn, I., Yoshikawa, T., Phan, P. H. (2004). Effects of board structure on firm performance: A comparison between Japan and Australia. Asian Business & Management, 3(1), 105-125.
9. Boyd, B. K. (1995). CEO duality and firm performance: A contingency model. Strategic Management Journal, 16(4), 301-312.
10. Buchholtz, A. K., Ribbins, B. A. (1994). Role of chief executive officers in takeover resistance: Effects of CEO incentives and individual characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 554-579.
11. Burgess, Z., Tharenou, P. (2002). Women board directors: Characteristics of the few. Journal of Business Ethics, 37(1), 39-49.
12. Carroll, G. R., Harrison, J. R. (1998). Organisational demography and culture: insights from a formal model and simulation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(3), 637-667.
13. Carter, D. A., Simkins, B. J. Simpson, W. G. (2003). Corporate governance, board diversity and firm value. The Financial Review, 38(1), 33-35.
14. Chen, R., Dyball, M. C., Wright, S. (2009). The link between board composition and corporate diversification in Australian corporations. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(2), 208-223.
15. Cochran, R. L., Wood, R. A., Jones, T. B. (1985). The composition of boards of directors and the incidence of golden parachutes. Academy of Management Journal, 28(3), 664-671.
16. Coles, J. W., McWilliams, V. B., Sen, N. (2001). An examination of the relationship of governance mechanisms to performance. Journal of Management, 27(1), 23-50.
17. Conyon, M. J., Peck, S. I. (1998). Board size and corporate performance: Evidence from European countries. The European Journal of Finance, 4(3), 291-304.
18. Dalton, D. R., Daily, C. M., Ellstrand, A. E., Johnson, J. L. (1998). Meta-analytic reviews of board composition, leadership structure, and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 19(3), 269-290.
19. Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., Donaldson, L. (1997). Toward a stewardship model of management. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 20-47.
20. Deckop, J. (1987). Top executive compensation and the pay-for-performance issue, New Perspectives in Compensation, NJ: Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, pp. 285-293.
21. Donaldson, L., Davis, J. H. (1991). Stewardship theory or agency theory: CEO governance and shareholder returns. Australian Journal of Management, 16(1), 49-64.
22. Erhardt, N. L., Werbel, J. D. (2003). Board of director diversity and firm financial performance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 11(2), 102-111.
23. Fama, E. F. (1980). Agency problems and the theory of the firm. Journal of Political Economy, 88(2), 288-307.
24. Fama, E. F., Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), 301-325.
25. 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.
26. Fryxell, G. E., Lerner, L. D. (1989). Contrasting corporate profiles: Women and minority representation. Journal of Business Ethics, 8(5), 341-352.
27. Gavrea, C., Stegerean, R., Marin, A. (2012). Corporate board structure and organizational performance: Evidence from Romanian firms. Studia UBB Negotia, 57(1), 21-33.
28. Gîrbină, M. M., Albu, N., Albu, C. A. (2012). Corporate governance disclosures in Romania. Board Directors and Corporate Social Responsibility. UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 122-141.
29. Graham, J. R., Lemmon, M. L., Wolf, J. G. (2002). Does corporate diversification destroy value? The Journal of Finance, 57(2), 695-720.
30. Guest, P. M. (2008). The determinants of board size and composition: Evidence from the UK. Journal of Corporate Finance, 14(1), 51-72.
31. Guthrie, J. P., Olian, J. D. (1991). Does context affect staffing decision? The case of general managers. Personnel Psychology, 44(2), 263-292.
32. Hambrick, D. C., Finkelstein, S. (1995). The effects of ownership structure on conditions at the top: The case of CEO pay raises. Strategic Management Journal, 16(3), 175-193.
33. Hambrick, D. C., Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. The Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193-206.
34. Hanson, R. C., Song, M. H. (2000). Managerial ownership, board structure, and the division of gains in divestitures. Journal of Corporate Finance, 6(1), 55-70.
35. Hill, C. W. L., Snell, S. A. (1988). External control, corporate strategy, and firm performance in research intensive industries. Strategic Management Journal, 9(6), 577-590.
36. Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., Kim, H. (1997). International diversification: Effects on innovation and firm performance in product-diversified firms. Academy of Management Journal, 40(4), 767-798.
37. Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., Hoskisson, R. E. (2009). Strategic Management: Competitiveness and Globalization (Concepts and Cases). 8th Edition, Mason, USA: South-Western Cengage Learning.
38. Hoskisson, R. E., Johnson, R. A., Moesel, D. D. (1994). Corporate divestiture intensity in restructuring firms: Effects of governance, strategy, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37(5), 1207-1251.
39. Jackling, B., Johl, S. (2009). Board structure and firm performance: Evidence from India’s top companies. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(4), 492-509.
40. Jensen, M. C. (1993). The modern industrial revolution, exit, and the failure of internal control systems. Journal of Finance, 48(3), 831-880.
41. Jensen, M., Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305-360.
42. Jermias, J. (2007). The effects of corporate governance on the relationship between innovative efforts and performance. European Accounting Review, 16(4), 827-854.
43. Kesner, I. F., Johnson, R. B. (1990). An investigation of the relationship between board composition and stockholder suits. Strategic Management Journal, 11(4), 327-336.
44. Kiel, G. A., Nicholson, G. (2003). Board composition and corporate performance: How the Australian experience informs contrasting theories of corporate governance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 11(3), 189-205.
45. Leblanc, R. W. (2004). What’s wrong with corporate governance: A note. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 12(4), 436-441.
46. Montgomery, C. A. (1982). The measurement of firm diversification: Some new empirical evidence. Academy of Management Journal, 25(2), 299-307.
47. Nayyar, P. R. (1992). Performance effects of three foci in service firms. Academy of Management Journal, 35(5), 985-1009.
48. Nicholson, G. J., Kiel, G. C. (2007). Can directors impact performance? A case-based test of three theories of corporate governance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15(4), 585-608.
49. Palmer, D., Barber, B. M. (2001). Challengers, elites, and owning families: A social class theory of corporate acquisitions in the 1960s. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(1), 87-120.
50. Pearce, J. A. II, Zahra, S. A. (1991). The relative power of CEOs and boards of directors: Associations with corporate performance. Strategic Management Journal, 12(2), 135-153.
51. Pfeffer, J., Salancik, G. R. (1978). The External Control of Organizations. New York: Harper and Row.
52. Pugliese, A., Bezemer, P. A., Zattoni, A., Huse, M., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., 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.
53. Rose, C. (2007). Does female board representation influence firm performance? The Danish evidence. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15(2), 404-413.
54. Rumelt, R. P. (1974). Strategy, Structure, and Economic Performance. Boston, MA: Harvard University Graduate School of Business.
55. Rumelt, R. P. (1982). Diversification strategy and profitability. Strategic Management Journal, 3(4), 359-369.
56. Singh, V., Vinnicombe, S., Johnson, P. (2001). Women directors on top UK boards. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 9(3), 206-216.
57. Stapledon, G., Lawrence, J. (1996). Corporate governance in the top 100: An empirical study of the top 100 companies’ boards of directors. Parkville, Vic.: Centre for Corporate Law and Securities Regulation, University of Melbourne.
58. Ștefănescu, C. A. (2011). Do corporate governance ”actors” features affect banks’ value? – Evidence from Romania. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, 1311-1321.
59. Wagner, J. A., III, Stimpert, J. L., Fubara, E. I. (1998). Board composition and organizational performance: Two studies of insider/outsider effects. Journal of Management Studies, 35(5), 655-677.