Skip to main content
Log in

Threats to board stability: Understanding SME director behavior

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Disclosure and Governance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Of the more than one-third of US firms rated low in corporate governance (GMI), most (86 per cent) have underperforming boards – a cause of considerable concern given growing evidence of a positive relationship between firm governance and financial performance. Most governance research has focused on board demographics to explain governance quality, but we answered a call – reflecting a surge of recent work on teamwork in contexts – for empirical inquiry of the sparsely researched link between board dynamics and governance. Semi-structured interviews with 23 board directors of the United States publically traded small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) with high and low independently-attributed governance ratings and analysis of financial performance data of the firms they serve revealed surprising differences between the two groups with respect to how they recruit directors, manage conflict both in and beyond the formal boardroom and deal with deviant director behavior – factors, our results suggest, that affect both board stability and performance. We interpreted our results referencing sociologist Erving Goffman's classic dramaturgical framework of ‘self-presentation in everyday life’, discovering in the vivid narratives of board directors evidence of how tacit social norms govern behavior in frontstage (boardroom) and backstage (extra-boardroom) member interaction. Directors are commonly selected to join boards based on their professional capital, but are seldom screened for understanding and appreciation of appropriate behavior inside and outside the boardroom or ability and willingness to address affective conflict in either realm. Directors insensitive to differences between ‘front stage’ and ‘back stage’ behavior, however, may suffer diminished individual performance and tenure on boards and weaken board effectiveness. High governance-rated organizations appear to have a lower tolerance for aberrant director behavior and a stronger inclination to address and resolve affective conflict than low-rated firms. Our results have implications for both practice and future research. Only 1 of the 22 firms (4.5 per cent) in our sample screened candidate directors for behavioral competencies. Failure to do so, our findings reveal, may result in higher levels of affective conflict inside and outside the boardroom, higher levels of board attrition, lower consequent levels of stability and ultimately lower governance quality. Our work contributes to a still lean body of work on board process, recently assessed to account for only 12 per cent of governance research. Board governance, consequently, remains a ‘black box’ begging for light.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amason, A.C. and Sapienza, H.J. (1997) The effects of top management team size and interaction norms on cognitive and affective conflict. Journal of Management 23 (4): 495–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, A. (2012) Board turnover – company analysis. Equilar, http://www.equilar.com/knowledge-network/research-articles/2011/201108-board-turnover.php, accessed December 2011.

  • Bartunek, J.M. (1993) Rummaging behind the scenes of organizational change—And finding role transitions, illness, and physical space. In: R.W. Woodman and W.A. Pasmore (eds.), Research in Organizational Change and Development, Vol. 7, Greenwich, CT: JAI, pp. 41–76.

  • Beaver, G., Davies, A. and Joyce, P. (2007) Leadership boards of directors. Business Strategy Series 8 (4): 318–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berthelot, S. and Morris, T. et al (2010) Corporate governance rating and financial performance: A Canadian study. Corporate Governance 10 (5): 635–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhagat, S. and Bolton, B. (2008) Corporate governance and firm performance. Journal of Corporate Finance 14 (3): 257–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyatzis, R.E. (1998) Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyatzis, R.E., Lingham, T. and Passarelli, A. (2010) Inspiring the development of emotional, social and cognitive intelligence competencies in managers. In: M.G. Rothstein and R.J. Burke (eds.) Self-Management and Leadership Development. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 62–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boytsun, A., Deloof, M. and Matthyssens, P. (2011) Social norms, social cohesion, and corporate governance. Corporate Governance: An International Review 19 (1): 41–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, N. (2006) Boards of directors and firm performance: Is there an expectations gap? Corporate Governance: An International Review 14 (6): 577–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchholtz, A.K., Amason, A.C. and Rutherford, M.A. (2005) The impact of board monitoring and involvement on top management team affective conflict. Journal of Managerial Issues 17 (4): 405–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buffet, W. (2002) Berkshire Hathaway Annual Report, http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/2002ar/2002ar.pdf, accessed December 2011.

  • Carnevale, P.J. and Probst, T.M. (1998) Social values and social conflict in creative problem solving and categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74 (5): 1300–1309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S.G. and Bailey, D.E. (1997) What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management 23 (3): 239–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbin, J.M. and Strauss, A.L. (2008) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Daily, C.M., Dalton, D.R. and Cannella Jr, A.A.C. (2003) Corporate governance: Decades of dialogue and data. The Academy of Management Review 28 (3): 371–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daines, R.M., Gow, I.D. and Larcker, D.F. (2010) Rating the ratings: How good are commercial governance ratings? Journal of Financial Economics 98 (3): 439–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C.K.W. and Weingart, L.R. (2003) Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of applied Psychology 88 (4): 741–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, M. and Gerard, H. (1955) A study of normative and informational influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 51 (3): 629–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, A., Roberto, M. and Watkins, M. (2003) A dynamic model of top management team effectiveness: Managing unstructured task streams. The Leadership Quarterly 14 (3): 297–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erakovic, L. and Overall, J. (2010) Opening the ‘black box’: Challenging traditional governance theorems. Journal of Management & Organization 16 (2): 250–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ertugrul, M. and Hegde, S. (2009) Corporate governance ratings and firm performance. Financial Management 38 (1): 139–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E. and Fischbacher, U. (2004) Social norms and human cooperation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8 (4): 185–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finegold, D., Benson, G. and Hecht, D. (2007) Corporate boards and company performance: Review of research in light of recent reforms. Corporate Governance: An International Review 15 (5): 865–878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, S. and Mooney, A.C. (2003) Not the usual suspects: How to use board process to make boards better. The Academy of Management Executive (1993–2005) 17 (2): 101–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forbes, D. and Milliken, F. (1999) Cognition and corporate governance: Understanding boards of directors as strategic decision-making groups. Academy of Management Review 24 (3): 489–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabrielsson, J. and Huse, M. (2004) Context, behavior, and evolution: challenges in research on boards and governance. International Studies of Management & Organization 34 (2): 11–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1959) The Presentation of Self in Every Life. Malden, MA: Doubleday Abchor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Governance Metrics International (GMI). (2009) GMI releases new global governance ratings. Press Release, http://www.csrwire.com/press_releases/27699-GMI-Announces-New-Country-Rankings-for-Corporate-Governance, accessed December 2011.

  • Grabowski, R.J. (2011) Duff & Phelps – Mid-2011 risk-free rate and ERP update, NYSE: DUF.

  • Granovetter, M.S. (1973) The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78 (6): 1360–1380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huse, M. (2005) Accountability and creating accountability: A framework for exploring behavioural perspectives of corporate governance. British Journal of Management 16 (S1): S65–S79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huse, M. (2007) Boards, Governance and Value Creation: The Human Side of Corporate Governance. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Huse, M., Hoskisson, R., Zattoni, A. and Viganò, R. (2011) New perspectives on board research: Changing the research agenda. Journal of Management and Governance 15 (1): 5–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jo, H. and Harjoto, M.A. (2011) The causal effect of corporate governance on corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 106 (1): 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J.L., Daily, C.M. and Ellstrand, A.E. (1996) Boards of directors: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management 22 (3): 409–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kayes, A.B., Kayes, D.C. and Kolb, D.A. (2005) Experiential learning in teams. Simulation & Gaming 36 (3): 330–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilduff, M., Angelmar, R. and Mehra, A. (2000) Top management-team diversity and firm performance: Examining the role of cognitions. Organization Science 11 (1): 21–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolb, D.A., Boyatzis, R.E. and Mainemelis, C. (2001) Experiential learning theory: Previous research and new directions. In: R.J. Sternberg and L.F. Zhang (eds.) Perspectives on Thinking, Learning, and Cognitive Styles, 1. Cleveland, OH: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 227–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korn/Ferry International. (2011) KFMC100: New directors and new directions at America's most valuable public companies, http://www.kornferryinstitute.com/files/pdf1/kfmc1001.pdf, accessed December 2011.

  • Larcker, D. and Tayan, B. (2011) Seven Myths of Corporate Governance. Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University Closer Look Series: Topics, Issues and Controversies in Corporate Governance No. CGRP-16.

  • Leblanc, R. (2010) Course outline for corporate governance. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1713388 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1713388, accessed December 2011.

  • Leblanc, R. and Gillies, J. (2005) Inside the Boardroom: How Boards Really Work and the Coming Revolution in Corporate Governance. Mississauga, Ontario: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leblanc, R. and Schwartz, M. (2007) The black box of board process: Gaining access to a difficult subject. Corporate Governance: An International Review 15 (5): 843–851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeCompte, M.D. and Preissle, J. (1993) Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Letendre, L. (2004) The dynamics of the boardroom. The Academy of Management Executive (1993–2005) 18 (1): 101–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Machold, S., Huse, M., Minichilli, A. and Nordqvist, M. (2011) Board leadership and strategy involvement in small firms: A team production approach. Corporate Governance: An International Review 19 (4): 368–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maharaj, R. (2009) View from the top: What directors say about board process. Corporate Governance 9 (3): 326–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu, J.E., Heffner, T.S., Goodwin, G.F., Salas, E. and Cannon-Bowers, J.A. (2000) The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 85 (2): 273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNulty, T. and Peck, S. (2010) Understanding board process and effectiveness. Unpublished draft.

  • Minichilli, A. (2009) Making boards effective: An empirical examination of board task performance. British Journal of Management 10 (1): 55–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minichilli, A., Zattoni, A., Nielsen, S. and Huse, M. (2012) Board task performance: An exploration of micro- and macro-level determinants of board effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behavior 33 (2): 193–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morner, M., Renger, E.-M. and Valle Thiele, R. (2010) Unravelling the human side of the board: the role of motivational and cognitive compatibility in board decision making. International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics 5 (4): 323–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neill, D. and Dulewicz, V. (2010) Inside the ‘black box’: the performance of boards of directors of unlisted companies. Corporate Governance 10 (3): 293–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson, G. and Kiel, G. (2004) A framework for diagnosing board effectiveness. Corporate Governance: An International Review 12 (4): 442–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nikbakht, M., Seyedi, S.A. and Hashem Alhosseini, R. (2010) Investigating the influence of board of director characteristics on the firm performance. Journal of Accounting Advances (JAA) (Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities 2 (1): 251–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, G., Benson, G. and Finegold, D. (2009) Corporate board attributes, team effectiveness and financial performance. Journal of Management Studies 46 (4): 704–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew, A. (1992) On studying managerial elites. Strategic Management Journal 13 (S2): 163–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew, A. and McNulty, T. (1995) Power and influence in and around the boardroom. Human Relations 48 (8): 845–873.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pye, A. and Pettigrew, A. (2005) Studying board context, process and dynamics: Some challenges for the future. British Journal of Management 16 (1): S27–S38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rezania, D. and Lingham, T. (2009) Coaching IT project teams: A design toolkit. International. Journal of Managing Projects in Business 2 (4): 577–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J., McNulty, T. and Stiles, P. (2005) Beyond agency conceptions of the work of the non executive director: Creating accountability in the boardroom. British Journal of Management 16 (S1): S5–S26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarra, J. (2011) New governance, old norms, and the potential for corporate governance reform. Law & Policy 33 (4): 576–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonnenfeld, J. (2002) What makes great boards great. Harvard Business Review 80 (9): 106–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, W.B., Bartunek, J.M. and Borgatti, S.P. (2003) Front and backstage processes of an organizational restructuring effort. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 39 (3): 243–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J. (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strong, P.M. (1983) Review essay: The importance of being Erving: Erving Goffman, 1922–1982. Sociology of Health & Illness 5 (3): 345–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tricker, R.I. (1978) The Independent Director: A Study of the Non-Executive Director and of the Audit Committee. London, England: Tolley Croydon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westphal, J. and Bednar, M. (2005) Pluralistic ignorance in corporate boards and firms’ strategic persistence in response to low firm performance. Administrative Science Quarterly 50 (2): 262–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westphal, J. and Stern, I. (2007) Flattery will get you everywhere (especially if you are a male Caucasian): How ingratiation, boardroom behavior, and demographic minority status affect additional board appointments at US companies. Academy of Management Journal 50 (2): 267–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westphal, J. and Zajac, E. (1995) Who shall govern? CEO board power, demographic similarity, and new director selection. Administrative Science Quarterly 40 (1): 60–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. and Pearce, J. (1989) Boards of directors and corporate financial performance: A review and integrative model. Journal of Management 15 (2): 291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zweig, D. (2010) The board that couldn’t think straight. Conference Board Review 47 (2): 40–47.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Solange Charas.

Additional information

2teaches in doctoral, MBA and undergraduate programs at Wayne State University's School of Business Administration and School of Engineering and has over 30 years of international corporate management and consulting experience.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Charas, S., Perelli, S. Threats to board stability: Understanding SME director behavior. Int J Discl Gov 10, 175–191 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1057/jdg.2013.10

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jdg.2013.10

Keywords

Navigation