IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/corgov/v15y2007i4p609-622.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Board Evaluations: making a fit between the purpose and the system

Author

Listed:
  • Alessandro Minichilli
  • Jonas Gabrielsson
  • Morten Huse

Abstract

Board evaluations can contribute to effective boards and improved corporate financial performance. The increasing interest in the practice of board evaluations, however, calls for a more systematic and careful approach than has been employed in the past. While most attention has primarily been focused on the content of board evaluations, this article outlines the features of various possible board evaluation systems. Based on state‐of‐the‐art research on boards and governance, we contend that a comprehensive board evaluation system needs to include decisions about: (a) the agent who evaluates the board; (b) the content, or what the evaluation should deal with; (c) the addressee and other stakeholders for whom the board is evaluated; and (d) how the board is evaluated. These key decisions should not be seen as independent of each other as they have consequences for the kind of system that will be adopted. Following this argument, we present four different board evaluation systems: (i) board‐to‐board, (ii) board‐to‐market, (iii) market‐to‐board and (iv) market‐to‐market. The key message we communicate in this article is that there must be a fit between the purpose and the system of board evaluations. There is no universal or “one best way” to evaluate boards of directors. Board evaluations will not meet their purpose unless there is a fit between the agents, the addressees, the content and the modalities of the evaluation. It is important to know who is doing what for whom and how.

Suggested Citation

  • Alessandro Minichilli & Jonas Gabrielsson & Morten Huse, 2007. "Board Evaluations: making a fit between the purpose and the system," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(4), pages 609-622, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:corgov:v:15:y:2007:i:4:p:609-622
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8683.2007.00591.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2007.00591.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2007.00591.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lin, Philip T. & Li, Bin & Bu, Danlu, 2015. "The relationship between corporate governance and community engagement: Evidence from the Australian mining companies," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 28-39.
    2. Fabio De Matteis & Alessandra Tafuro & Fabrizio Striani & Daniela Preite, 2023. "Totally Publicly-Owned (TPO) Utilities and Financial Performance: What is the role of some aspects of governance?," MANAGEMENT CONTROL, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2023(3), pages 89-111.
    3. Saskia CRUCKE & Nathalie MORAY & Nathalie VALLET, 2015. "Some Internal representation and Factional Faultlines as Antecedents for Board Performance in Social Enterprises," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 86(2), pages 385-400, June.
    4. repec:dgr:rugsom:12001-hrmob is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Abdelbadie, Roba Ashraf & Salama, Aly, 2019. "Corporate governance and financial stability in US banks: Do indirect interlocks matter?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 85-105.
    6. Rebecca Booth & Donald Nordberg, 2021. "Self or other: directors’ attitudes towards policy initiatives for external board evaluation," International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 18(2), pages 120-135, June.
    7. Szymon Kaczmarek & Richard Nyuur, 2022. "The implications of board nationality and gender diversity: evidence from a qualitative comparative analysis," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 26(3), pages 707-733, September.
    8. Maarten Vandewaerde & Wim Voordeckers & Frank Lambrechts & Yannick Bammens, 2011. "Board Team Leadership Revisited: A Conceptual Model of Shared Leadership in the Boardroom," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 104(3), pages 403-420, December.
    9. Veltrop, D.B. & Hermes, C.L.M. & Postma, T.J.B.M. & de Haan, J., 2012. "A tale of two factions," Research Report 12001-HRM&OB, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    10. Vandebeek, Alana & Voordeckers, Wim & Lambrechts, Frank & Huybrechts, Jolien, 2016. "Board role performance and faultlines in family firms: The moderating role of formal board evaluation," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 249-259.
    11. Romilda Mazzotta & Giovanni Bronzetti & Graziella Sicoli & Paolo Tenuta, 2018. "La valutazione del CdA in contesti ad elevata concentrazione proprietaria: mero conformismo o reale strumento di valutazione?," MANAGEMENT CONTROL, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2018(2), pages 107-128.
    12. Alessandro Carretta & Vincenzo Farina & Paola Schwizer, 2010. "Assessing effectiveness and compliance of banking boards," Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 18(4), pages 356-369, November.
    13. Haan & Postma & Hermes & Veltrop, 2012. "A Tale of Two Factions: Exploring the Relationship between Factional Faultlines and Conflict Management in Pension Fund Boards," Research Report 12001-HRMOB, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    14. Carl Åberg & Mariateresa Torchia, 2020. "Do boards of directors foster strategic change? A dynamic managerial capabilities perspective," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 24(3), pages 655-684, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:corgov:v:15:y:2007:i:4:p:609-622. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0964-8410&site=1 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.