IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ausman/v47y2022i1p53-78.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Director independence: Going beyond misaligned incentives to resource dependence

Author

Listed:
  • Conan Hom
  • Danny Samson
  • Christina Cregan
  • Peter Cebon

Abstract

Board director independence is critical to achieving and maintaining control to address the agency theory–based issue of interest misalignment between the principal (the organization) and the executives (agent). However, theoretical and empirical research and strategic risk considerations have brought into question the role or relevance that director independence plays in these control task and agency theory domains. We ask, using a quantitative survey method, whether board activity–based applications of independence may be associated with the service task of the board, namely its resource dependence mission. Our findings suggest that the resource dependence duty of the board may be positively associated with some autonomous activities, and yet other activities might be driven primarily by normative practices. Based on this, we suggest that a theoretical scope beyond and greater than agency theory may be needed when reassessing the role of director independence. JEL Classification: M1, O3

Suggested Citation

  • Conan Hom & Danny Samson & Christina Cregan & Peter Cebon, 2022. "Director independence: Going beyond misaligned incentives to resource dependence," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 47(1), pages 53-78, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:ausman:v:47:y:2022:i:1:p:53-78
    DOI: 10.1177/03128962211009959
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/03128962211009959
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/03128962211009959?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Philip Stiles, 2001. "The Impact of the Board on Strategy: An Empirical Examination," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(5), pages 627-650, July.
    2. Violina P. Rindova, 1999. "What Corporate Boards have to do with Strategy: A Cognitive Perspective," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(7), pages 953-975, December.
    3. Enrichetta Ravina & Paola Sapienza, 2010. "What Do Independent Directors Know? Evidence from Their Trading," NBER Chapters, in: Corporate Governance, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Annie Pye, 2002. "Corporate Directing: governing, strategising and leading in action," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(3), pages 153-162, July.
    5. John A. Pearce & Shaker A. Zahra, 1991. "The relative power of ceos and boards of directors: Associations with corporate performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(2), pages 135-153, February.
    6. David W. Anderson & Stewart J. Melanson & Jiri Maly, 2007. "The Evolution of Corporate Governance: power redistribution brings boards to life," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(5), pages 780-797, September.
    7. Benjamin E. Hermalin & Michael S. Weisbach, 2003. "Boards of directors as an endogenously determined institution: a survey of the economic literature," Economic Policy Review, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, vol. 9(Apr), pages 7-26.
    8. Albie Brooks & Judy Oliver & Angelo Veljanovski, 2009. "The Role of the Independent Director: Evidence from a Survey of Independent Directors in Australia," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 19(3), pages 161-177, September.
    9. Lee Cronbach, 1951. "Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 16(3), pages 297-334, September.
    10. Lars Hornuf & Abdulkadir Mohamed & Armin Schwienbacher, 2019. "The Economic Impact of Forming a European Company," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(4), pages 659-674, July.
    11. Tasa, Kevin & Whyte, Glen, 2005. "Collective efficacy and vigilant problem solving in group decision making: A non-linear model," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 119-129, March.
    12. Jensen, Michael C. & Meckling, William H., 1976. "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 305-360, October.
    13. Pugliese, A. & Bezemer, P.J. & 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," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2009-013-STR, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    14. Mehdi Mili & Sami Gharbi & Frédéric Teulon, 2019. "Business ethics, company value and ownership structure," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 23(4), pages 973-987, December.
    15. Fama, Eugene F & Jensen, Michael C, 1983. "Separation of Ownership and Control," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 26(2), pages 301-325, June.
    16. David J. Teece & Gary Pisano & Amy Shuen, 1997. "Dynamic capabilities and strategic management," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(7), pages 509-533, August.
    17. Richard Leblanc & Mark S. Schwartz, 2007. "The Black Box of Board Process: gaining access to a difficult subject," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(5), pages 843-851, September.
    18. Barbara S. Lawrence, 1997. "Perspective---The Black Box of Organizational Demography," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 8(1), pages 1-22, February.
    19. James S. Linck & Jeffry M. Netter & Tina Yang, 2009. "The Effects and Unintended Consequences of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act on the Supply and Demand for Directors," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 22(8), pages 3287-3328, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Conan L. Hom & Daniel Samson & Peter B. Cebon & Christina Cregan, 2021. "Inside the black box: an investigation of non-executive director activity through the lens of dynamic capability," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 857-895, September.
    2. Mouna Mrad & Slaheddine Hallara, 2014. "The Relationship Between the Board of Directors and the Performance/Value Creation in a Context of Privatization: The Case of French Companies," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 83-108, March.
    3. Du, Yan & Deloof, Marc & Jorissen, Ann, 2015. "The Roles of Subsidiary Boards in Multinational Enterprises," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 169-181.
    4. Nguyen, Thi Tuyet Mai, 2017. "An examination of independent directors in Vietnam," OSF Preprints ay6dv, Center for Open Science.
    5. Naeem Tabassum & Satwinder Singh, 2020. "Corporate Governance and Organisational Performance," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-030-48527-6, January.
    6. G. Tyge Payne & George S. Benson & David L. Finegold, 2009. "Corporate Board Attributes, Team Effectiveness and Financial Performance," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(4), pages 704-731, June.
    7. Li, Yong & Aguilera, Ruth V., 2008. "Target Director Turnover in Acquisitions: A Conceptual Framework," Working Papers 08-0106, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
    8. Yong Li & Ruth V. Aguilera, 2008. "Target Director Turnover in Acquisitions: A Conceptual Framework," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(6), pages 492-503, November.
    9. Concannon, Margaret & Nordberg, Donald, 2018. "Boards strategizing in liminal spaces: Process and practice, formal and informal," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 71-82.
    10. Kallifatides, Markus & Petrelius Karlberg, Pernilla, 2012. "What makes for a value-creating corporate board? A literature synthesis and suggestions for research," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration 2012:1, Stockholm School of Economics, revised 25 Jun 2013.
    11. Dmitry Khanin & Ofir Turel & Chris Bart & William C. McDowell & Marianne Hock-Döpgen, 2021. "The possible pitfalls of boards’ engagement in the strategic management process," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 1071-1093, May.
    12. Marco Allegrini & Giulio Greco, 2013. "Corporate boards, audit committees and voluntary disclosure: evidence from Italian Listed Companies," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 17(1), pages 187-216, February.
    13. Omar Farooque & Wonlop Buachoom & Nam Hoang, 2019. "Interactive effects of executive compensation, firm performance and corporate governance: Evidence from an Asian market," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 1111-1164, December.
    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.
    15. Meng, Yijun & Clements, Michael P. & Padgett, Carol, 2018. "Independent directors, information costs and foreign ownership in Chinese companies," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 139-157.
    16. Christopher Kurzhals & Lorenz Graf‐Vlachy & Andreas König, 2020. "Strategic leadership and technological innovation: A comprehensive review and research agenda," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(6), pages 437-464, November.
    17. Verica Babić & Jelena Nikolić & Jelena Erić, 2011. "Rethinking Board Roles Performance: Towards Integrative Model," Economic Annals, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Belgrade, vol. 56(190), pages 140-162, July – Se.
    18. Szymon Kaczmarek, 2017. "Rethinking board diversity with the behavioural theory of corporate governance: opportunities and challenges for advances in theorising," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 21(4), pages 879-906, December.
    19. Amy J. Hillman & Gavin Nicholson & Christine Shropshire, 2008. "Directors' Multiple Identities, Identification, and Board Monitoring and Resource Provision," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(3), pages 441-456, June.
    20. Pugliese, A. & Bezemer, P.J. & 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," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2009-013-STR, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agency theory; black box; board of directors; corporate governance; dynamic capabilities; independence; non-executive director; resource dependence;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M1 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration
    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights

    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:sae:ausman:v:47:y:2022:i:1:p:53-78. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.agsm.edu.au .

    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.