The determinants of board composition: An agency theory perspective

This study examines the interrelation between board composition and variables that capture various agency and financial dimensions of the firm. The agency literature suggests that outside directors on the board provide important monitoring functions in an attempt to resolve, or at least mitigate, agency conflicts between management and shareholders. The agency literature indicates that other mechanisms such as managerial equity ownership, dividend payments, and debt leverage also serve as important devices in reducing agency conflicts in firms. This study argues and documents that an inverse relationship exists between the proportion of external members on the board and managerial stock ownership, dividend payout, and debt leverage. This is consistent with the hypothesis that individual firms choose an optimal board composition depending upon alternative mechanisms employed by the firm to control agency conflicts. Board composition is also found to be systematically related to a number of other variables including institutional holdings, growth, volatility, and CEO tenure.     

Board Antecedents of CEO Duality and the Moderating Role of Country‐level Managerial Discretion: A Meta‐analytic Investigation

CEO duality reduces boards’ monitoring capacity. But governance substitution theory holds that boards of directors who can effectively monitor their CEOs are more likely to adopt the CEO duality governance structure. By examining relationships between board characteristics underlying their monitoring capacity and CEO duality, we bring evidence to bear on governance substitution theory. Further, by applying a managerial discretion theory lens to CEO duality, we extend governance substitution theory to the cross‐country context where institutional features vary in their constraints on managerial discretion. Meta‐analytic results from a dataset of 297 studies across 32 countries/regions provided support for the majority of our predictions. As predicted, board independence and certain types of board human capital were positively related to CEO duality. Unexpectedly, board ownership was negatively related to CEO duality. Additionally, country‐level managerial discretion significantly moderated the board independence‐ and human capital‐duality relationships (but not the board‐ownership‐duality relationship) as predicted.     

Governance practices and agency cost in emerging market: Evidence from India

In this study, we examine whether governance practices brings down agency cost. We find that board size, board attendance, and CEO duality are important governance characteristics that influence the agency cost. We also bring out systematic differences in governance practices of the business group affiliated firms and stand‐alone firms. Larger board and proportion of independent director helps in reducing the agency cost for group affiliated firms supporting monitoring hypothesis. On the other hand, the governance structure of stand‐alone firms supports commitment hypothesis where we observe that board busyness and CEO duality help in reducing the agency cost.     

The Moderating Effect of CEO Power on the Board Composition–Firm Performance Relationship*

abstract Prior studies of the relationship between the composition of boards of directors and firm performance offer equivocal results. Drawing on agency and power circulation theories, we attempt to reduce this equivocality by asserting that CEO power moderates the relationship. Specifically, an outside director dominated board is needed to check a powerful CEO, but monitoring by other executives provides sufficient constraints on CEOs with low power. We used event study methodology to test the effects of the interaction between board composition and CEO power on stock market reaction to 73 unexpected CEO deaths. We found support for our theorizing among two of three sources of CEO power. Thus, although regulatory trends increasingly support outside director dominated boards, our findings indicate that this may not always benefit shareholders and that CEO power should be considered when constructing boards.     

Directors' Pay and Turnover: An Application to a Sample of Large UK Firms

This paper examines the operation of the UK managerial labour market. We test the twin agency predictions that directors' pay is positively related to corporate performance and CEO turnover is negatively associated with firm profitability. We find that (i) the panel data econometric evidence reveals a significant and positive correlation between directors' pay, company performance and size, (ii) the CEO turnover model predicts a negative, and significant, association with pre-dated shareholder returns: the data is consistent with the view that CEOs are disciplined by the threat of dismissal, (iii) boardroom governance factors (e.g. proportion of non-executives and board size) are only of some importance in the CEO succession process.     

The heterogeneous relationship between board social ties and corporate environmental responsibility in an emerging economy

Firms in emerging economies are faced with multiple, incompatible institutional forces in their environmental activities. Which of these forces will be dominant and instantiated within an organization is partly determined by the social relationships that a firm maintains with external actors. This paper investigates the relationship between board social ties and the level of environmental responsibility undertaken by firms in China, an emerging economy, by categorizing board social ties into three types in terms of the three isomorphic forces in the institutional field (coercive, normative and mimetic). Drawing on institutional and agency theories, using a sample of listed firms in environmentally sensitive industries, and a generalized least squares regression method, the results provide empirical evidence that ties that are linked to coercive and normative forces (i.e., political organizations and universities) are related to a higher level of environmental responsibility; however, those that are linked to mimetic forces (i.e., industrial peers) have a negative association with environmental responsibility, which is mitigated by CEO power. These findings suggest that the heterogeneous effects of board social ties on environmental responsibilities experienced by firms in a context of environmentalism are at an early stage.     

Keeping Their Cards Close to Their Chests: How Non‐Delegating CEOs Avoid Forced Career Ends

It is a common belief that CEOs must delegate to be successful. We hesitate to support this generalization and investigate how the distribution of responsibility within top management teams (TMTs) can influence the likelihood of a CEO’s dismissal. Consistent with an agency theory perspective, our results indicate that CEOs may choose not to delegate their responsibilities to other executive TMT members, so as to benefit from an increased information asymmetry vis‐à‐vis the board of directors. Taking the resource‐based view as a complementary theoretical perspective, we find that non‐delegating CEOs benefit from their greater firm‐specific knowledge, which the board of directors considers as a valuable resource that should be retained. Our work also demonstrates that a more intense CEO–TMT interaction weakens the relation between non‐delegation and the likelihood of CEO dismissal. In sum, our research shows that the CEO’s delegation decision does not necessarily lead to a competence distribution that is in the firm's best interest; rather, it reflects a complex interplay between the potentially opportunistic career interests of the CEO, the involvement of other TMT members and the board of directors. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Corporate governance practices that address climate change: an exploratory study

This exploratory study sought to investigate how well 98 firms in three industries, across 10 countries, are addressing climate change through five specific governance practices. The findings suggest that non‐US firms demonstrate higher performance on the governance dimensions than their US counterparts. Further, by separating firms into low versus high performers on the governance dimensions, some board structure variables, such as number of directors and an independent board chair, were associated with higher performing firms. The study contributes both to institutional and agency theory. For example, coercive isomorphisms in regions of the world, such as Europe, might be driving firms to demonstrate that they are addressing climate change at the governance level in order to gain legitimacy. As for agency theory, this study offers both confirmatory and contradictory results regarding board independence. For example, firms who separated the CEO–board chair role achieved better governance on climate change, while at the same time firms who demonstrated lack of independence with respect to the inside versus outside director ratio also achieved better governance on climate change. This paves the way for additional research in understanding how board structure influences organizational phenomena. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.     

Boards of Directors and Shark Repellents:Assessing the Value of an Agency Theory Perspective

Because shark repellents decrease the vulnerability of firms (and their incumbent managers) to the market for corporate control, the decision to adopt these devices represents an excellent test of agency theory. In this empirical study, we examined the relationships between the adoption of shark repellents and several mechanisms that, according to agency theory, should align the interests of corporate board members and shareholders and/or make directors more effective monitors of management behaviour. Of the variables included, only board stock ownership (especially by employee directors) was linked to a reduced propensity to adopt shark repellents in the predicted manner. Two variables not immediately as- sociated with agency theory — the proportion of inside directors appointed by the incumbent chief executive officer (CEO) and a lower ratio of CEO compensation to the compensation of other top executives — were linked to higher rates of shark repellent adoption. Given that agency theory explains relatively little of the variance in shark repellent adoption, we advocate serious consideration of other theoretical formulations for corporate governance, including two approaches — stewardship theory and agent morality — that take the moral ('other regarding') obligations of directors seriously.     

A Comparison Between One‐Tier and Two‐Tier Board Structures in France

French companies operate in a unique environment characterized by the strong involvement of block shareholders such as families and banks. Furthermore, the French legal system allows firms to choose between a one‐tier or a two‐tier board structure. This study investigates whether this choice can affect the firm's operating and stock performance. Our regression results provide strong evidence that ownership and board structures are used together as corporate governance tools. In particular, the agency cost of debt is strongly affected by their interaction when institutional investors are also bank lenders. Our test results show that while family control has a negative impact on corporate governance, French institutional blockholders play a positive role as monitors of one‐tier structures. In contrast, they are more likely to misuse the two‐tier board system by promoting interlocked directorship, board opacity and their own interests as creditors. Our regression analysis reveals that foreign institutional investors do not have any impact on firm performance, regardless of board structure. Finally, we do not find any inverse relationship between board size and efficiency in France.     

Myth or reality? Assessing the moderating role of CEO compensation on the momentum of innovation in R&D

This study researches the influences of CEO compensation on firm behavior to examine the interactive relationship between the behavioral momentum of innovation in R&D and CEO compensation. The models presented in this study are based on evolutionary, institutional, and agency theories to test hypotheses using data from 107 companies in the high-technology sectors in the United States. The results indicate that the pre-succession innovative behavior of these high-technology firms on R&D can positively affect these firms' post-succession innovative behavior towards R&D. That is, positive momentum in R&D innovation prevails in a firm across a change of the CEO. However, for the role of CEO compensation, short- and long-term compensation does not positively moderate this behavioral momentum in R&D. Hence, the moderating impact of short- and long-term CEO compensation to enhance the momentum of innovation in R&D can be romanticized. These findings provide boards of directors with evidence as to how a CEO succession matters to a firm's behavioral momentum in R&D, and whether CEO compensation can be strategized to change a firm's innovation and momentous behavior.     

A Cognitive Model of CEO Dismissal: Understanding the Influence of Board Perceptions, Attributions and Efficacy Beliefs

abstract    Extant literature that examines the role of boards in the CEO dismissal process has focused on the impact of board composition. However, it has rarely considered the influence of sense making and interpretation on CEO dismissal. This paper draws on the strategic change literature, which demonstrates a link between cognitions and action, to develop a three-stage framework in which we articulate how sense making (stage 1) and interpretation (stage 2) impact the decision to dismiss a CEO (stage 3). More specifically, the board's perception of performance, its attributions of performance and efficacy assessment of the CEO, and the board's composition impact the decision to dismiss the CEO. The resulting model illuminates the domain of board cognitions and board composition within CEO dismissal decisions and facilitates future empirical research.     

Too Good to be True: Board Structural Independence as a Moderator of CEO Pay‐for‐Firm‐Performance

Whether voluntary or mandatory in nature, most recent corporate governance codes of best practice assume that board structural independence, and the application by boards of outcome‐based incentive plans, are important boundary conditions for the enforcement of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) pay‐for‐firm‐performance; that is, for optimal contracting between owners and executive agents. We test this logic on a large Australian sample using a system Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) approach to dynamic panel data estimation. We find that Australian boards exhibiting best practice structural arrangements – those chaired by non‐executives and dominated by non‐executive directors at the full board and compensation committee levels – are no more adept at enforcing CEO pay‐for‐firm‐performance than are executive‐dominated boards. These findings suggest that policy makers' faith in incentive plans and the moderating influence of structural independence per se may be misplaced. Our findings also hold significant implications for corporate governance theory. Specifically, the findings lend further support to a contingency‐based understanding of board composition, reward choice and monitoring; an approach integrating the insights afforded by behavioural approaches to Agency Theory and by social‐cognitive and institutional understandings of director outlook, decision‐making and behaviour.     

Board size and acquisition outcome: The moderating role of home country formal institutional development

The effect of acquirer's board size on the outcome of an acquisition (i.e., whether an announced deal gets abandoned or completed) was examined on the basis of a sample of 775 cross-border acquisitions. The study took into consideration the moderating effect of formal institutional development of the home country. Results showed that board size was negatively associated with the likelihood of deal abandonment and that this relationship was weaker for home countries where formal institutional development was high. The study contributes to the literature on group decision-making theory, institutional view of corporate governance, and acquisition outcome.     

Executive pay and performance: the moderating effect of CEO power and governance structure

This paper examines the crucial question of whether chief executive officer (CEO) power and corporate governance (CG) structure can moderate the pay-for-performance sensitivity (PPS) using a large up-to-date South African data-set. Our findings are threefold. First, when direct links between executive pay and performance are examined, we find a positive, but relatively small PPS. Second, our results show that in a context of concentrated ownership and weak board structures; the second-tier agency conflict (director monitoring power and opportunism) is stronger than the first-tier agency problem (CEO power and self-interest). Third, additional analysis suggests that CEO power and CG structure have a moderating effect on the PPS. Specifically, we find that the PPS is higher in firms with more reputable, founding and shareholding CEOs, higher ownership by directors and institutions, and independent nomination and remuneration committees, but lower in firms with larger boards, more powerful and long-tenured CEOs. Overall, our evidence sheds new important theoretical and empirical insights on explaining the PPS with specific focus on the predictions of the optimal contracting and managerial power hypotheses. The findings are generally robust across a raft of econometric models that control for different types of endogeneities, pay, and performance proxies.     

Examining the Relationships Between Monitoring and Incentives in Corporate Governance*

abstract Agency theory focuses on monitoring and incentives as two solutions to agency problems. Prior research suggests that monitoring and incentives may act either as substitutes or as complements, and that the context of the agency relationship plays a major role in determining the direction of the relationship between them. In a corporate governance setting, we contend that board information and boards' usage of CEO control mechanisms are best viewed as complements. Thus, we hypothesize that boards' information gathering behaviour will be positively related to boards' usage of CEO control mechanisms. Using primary and secondary data from 149 US firms, we find that increases in boards' information gathering are associated with increases in boards' usage of managerial controls. These findings suggest that information and managerial control mechanisms act as complements in the governance context, and that boards take a variety of actions to protect the interests of shareholders.     

Board Efficiency and Internal Corporate Control Mechanisms

We analyze the interactions between internal and external control mechanisms in a framework in which the board selects the CEO and then decides whether to retain or dismiss him after observing a signal regarding his ability. The novel aspect of our paper is that we consider both the hiring and the firing of the CEO by the board. The type of board is defined by its ability to select a good CEO, so that the quality of the CEO depends on the type of board. Then, the dismissal-retention decision provides information not only on the quality of the CEO but also on the board's type. We show that the board's behavior depends on the pressure from the takeover market and on whether its type is publicly known. When the pressure from the takeover market is high and the type of board is private information, the board prefers not to dismiss the manager even if it has received a very low signal regarding his quality. Hence, our model endogenously derives a collusion between board and CEO in which the board does not fire a bad CEO. This behavior emerges as an attempt to hide the board's inability to accomplish the first task, CEO selection, by distorting the second task, the CEO retention-dismissal decision.     

Dimensions of CEO–Board Relations

Interactions between CEOs and their boards of directors are a prominent focus of management and strategy research. Despite the extensive literature on CEO–board relations, to date there has been limited integration of theoretical perspectives and measurement schemes. Through an extensive analysis of published studies, we hope to facilitate future research on CEO–board relations. We begin with a comparison of key theoretical approaches. Next, we conduct a content analysis of 51 empirical articles. We find that prior studies have an unbalanced focus regarding both topics and theoretical perspectives, and that there is limited consistency in the choice of measures. Based on this review, we lay out a number of promising directions for future research. We also find that, while there has been progress in international research on CEO–board relations, there are still many unanswered questions regarding the generalizability of governance theories across different geographic settings.     

Board Effectiveness and CEO Pay: Board Information Processing Capacity,Monitoring Complexity,and CEO Pay‐for‐Performance Sensitivity

We have developed an information processing theory of board effectiveness to examine board‐chief executive officers (CEOs) pay relations. We theorize that CEO pay reflects the information processing context of boards. Boards have limited information processing capacity and therefore prefer to use outcome‐based CEO pay when they have difficulty in processing information for monitoring their CEOs. Using a longitudinal sample of Standard and Poor's (S&P's) large‐, medium‐, and small‐cap manufacturing firms in the United States from 1998 through 2005, we found support for our theory. Large boards and boards in less complex monitoring contexts tend to link CEO pay less tightly to firm performance by providing less stock‐based incentives, and the tendency of large boards to decrease outcome‐based CEO pay is even greater when boards are not busy or when boards are in less complex monitoring contexts. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Effects of agency risks and procedural justice on board processes in venture capital-backed firms

This paper builds a model of the effects of agency risk and procedural justice in the boards of directors of venture capital-backed firms. Such boards are unique in that they consist of managers and outside owners with significant power and incentive to be highly involved in venture governance. The authors integrate agency theory and procedural justice perspectives to develop propositions regarding the effects of agency risk and board processes on the responses to poor performance and conflicts of interest. This integrated perspective suggests that factors that increase perceived agency risks will increase outsiders' tendency to focus efforts on monitoring and controlling board decisions and their propensity to resort to formal means to resolve conflicts. However, the authors suggest that through their effects on trust and positive attributions, fair procedures and interactions will reduce these tendencies. A discussion of the practical and theoretical implications of the proposed model concludes the paper.