IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecl/stabus/3196.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Where Experts Get It Wrong: Independence vs. Leadership in Corporate Governance

Author

Listed:
  • Larcker, David F.

    (Stanford University)

  • Tayan, Brian

Abstract

Over the last few decades, researchers have taken a thorough and critical look at corporate governance from various perspectives. For the most part, they have found that structural features of corporate governance have little or no relation to governance quality. For example, there is no evidence that having an independent chairman benefits companies. At the same time, there is evidence that CEOs with different personalities require different levels of oversight. We examine this issue in greater detail. We ask: Why isn't more attention paid to contextual considerations in corporate governance? Why don't governance experts base their recommendations on research rather than subjective opinion? How can corporate stakeholders take into account the quality of a company's leadership to design more effective governance systems? Topics, Issues and Controversies in Corporate Governance and Leadership: The Closer Look series is a collection of short case studies through which we explore topics, issues, and controversies in corporate governance. In each study, we take a targeted look at a specific issue that is relevant to the current debate on governance and explain why it is so important. Larcker and Tayan are co-authors of the book Corporate Governance Matters, and A Real Look at Real World Corporate Governance.

Suggested Citation

  • Larcker, David F. & Tayan, Brian, 2014. "Where Experts Get It Wrong: Independence vs. Leadership in Corporate Governance," Research Papers 3196, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
  • Handle: RePEc:ecl:stabus:3196
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/working-papers/where-experts-get-it-wrong-independence-vs-leadership-corporate
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ecl:stabus:3196. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gsstaus.html .

    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.