Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T04:59:19.232Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Board Structure and Firm Performance: Evidence from Australia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2015

Ingrid Bonn
Ingrid Bonn*
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Management, Griffith University, PMB 50 Gold Coast Mail Centre, Queensland, 9726, Australia Phone: +61 755528346, Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The influence of corporate governance on firm performance has been discussed for a number of years, but mainly in a United States and European business context. This article investigates the composition of boards of directors in large Australian firms and analyses whether board structure has an impact on performance, as measured by return on equity and market-to-book value ratio. The results showed that outsider ratio and female director ratio were positively associated with firm performance, whereas board size and directors' age had no influence on firm performance.

Keywords

Corporate governanceboard structurefirm performanceAustralia
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , January 2004 , pp. 14 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Australian Stock Exchange Corporate Governance Council 2003, Principles of good corporate governance and best practice recommendations, Australian Stock Exchange, 03.Google Scholar
Bantel, KA & Jackson, SE 1989, ‘Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference?’ Strategic Management Journal, vol. 10, pp. 107–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baysinger, B & Hoskisson, RE 1990, ‘The composition of board of directors and strategic control: effects on corporate strategy’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 15, pp. 72–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baysinger, B, Kosnik, R & Turk, TA 1991, ‘Effects of board and ownership structure on corporate R&D strategy’, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 34, pp. 205–214.Google Scholar
Bilimoria, D & Piderit, SK 1994, ‘Board committee membership: Effects of sex-based bias’, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 37, pp. 1453–1477.Google Scholar
Blackburn, VL, Doran, BM & Shrader, CB 1994, ‘Investigating the dimensions of social responsibility and the consequences for corporate financial performance’, Journal of Managerial Issues, vol. 6, pp. 195–212.Google Scholar
Burke, DM & Light, LL 1981, ‘Memory and aging: The Role of retrieval processes’, Psychological Bulletin, vol. 90, pp. 513–546.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, DP 1987, ‘Inkling-issues and observations’, Issues and Observations, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 7–8.Google Scholar
Carati, G. & Tourani Rad, Alircza 2000, ‘Convergence of corporate governance systems’, Managerial Finance, vol. 26, no. 10, pp. 66–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaganti, RS, Mahajan, V & Sharma, S 1985, ‘Corporate board size, composition and corporate failures in retailing industry’, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 22, pp. 400–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifford, P & Evans, R 1997, ‘Non-executive directors: A question of independence’, Corporate Governance: An International Review, vol. 5, no. 4, pp.224–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coombes, P & Watson, M 2000. ‘Three surveys on corporate governance’, McKinsey Quarterly, vol. 4, pp. 74–77.Google Scholar
Conyon, MJ & Mallm, C 1997, ‘Women in the boardroom: Evidence from large UK companies’, Corporate Governance: An International Review, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 112–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corporate Law Economic Reform Program 1998, Directors' duties and corporate governance. Facilitating innovation and protecting investors, Paper No. 3. Treasury Department, Australia.Google Scholar
Craswell, AT, Taylor, SL & Saywell, RA 1997, ‘Ownership structure and corporate performance: Australian evidence’, Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, vol. 5, pp. 301–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daily, CM, Johnson, JL & Dalton, DR 1999, ‘On the measurements of board composition: Poor consistency and a serious mismatch of theory and operationalization’, Decision Sciences, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 83–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, DR, Daily, CM, Johnson, JL & Ellstrand, AE 1999, ‘Number of directors and financial performance: A meta-analysis’, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 42, pp. 674–686.Google Scholar
Dalton, DR & Kesner, IF 1987, ‘Composition and CEO duality in boards of directors: an international perspective’, Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, JH, Schoorman, FD & Donaldson, L 1997, ‘Toward a stewardship theory of management’, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 20–47.Google Scholar
Fama, E 1980, ‘Agency problems and the theory of the firm’, Journal of Political Economy, vol. 88, pp. 288–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fama, E & Jensen, M 1983, ‘Separation of ownership and control’. Journal of Law and Economics, vol. 26, pp. 301–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrar, J 2001, Corporate governance in Australia and New Zealand, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
Farrer, J & Ramsay, IM 1998, ‘Director share ownership and corporate performance – Evidence from Australia’, Corporate Governance: An International Review, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 233–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez, JP 1993, The diversity advantage: How American business can outperform Japanese and European companies in the global marketplace, Lexington Books, New York.Google Scholar
Firstenberg, PB & Malkiel, BG 1994, ‘The twenty-first century boardroom: Who will be in charge?’ Sloan Management Review, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 27–35.Google Scholar
Forbes, DP & Milliken, FJ 1999, ‘Cognition and corporate governance: Understanding boards of directors as strategic decision-making groups’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 24, pp. 489–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, I 1997, Future direction: The power of the competitive board, FT Pitman Publishing, South Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
Gedajlovic, ER & Shapiro, DM 1998, ‘Management and ownership effects: Evidence from five countries’, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 19, pp. 533–553.3.0.CO;2-#>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golden, BR & Zajac, EJ 2001, ‘When will boards influence strategy? Inclination × power = strategic change’, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 22, pp. 1087–1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodstein, J, Gautam, K & Boeker, W 1994, ‘The effects of board size and diversity on strategic change’, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 15, pp. 241–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guthrie, JP & Olian, JD 1991, ‘Does context affect staffing decision? The case of general managers’, Personnel Psychology, vol. 44, pp. 263–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hambrick, DC & Mason, PA 1984, ‘Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 9, pp. 193–206.Google Scholar
Hanson, D, Dowling, P, Hitt, MA, Ireland, RD & Hoskisson, RE 2002, Strategic management: Competitiveness and globalization. Nelson Thomson Learning, Australia.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, M & Gul, FA 2002, ‘Investment opportunities and leverage: Some Australian evidence on the role of board monitoring and director equity ownership’, Managerial Finance, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, M 1993, ‘The modern industrial revolution, exit, and the failure of internal control systems’, The Journal of Finance, vol. 48, pp. 831–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judge, W & Zeithaml, C 1992, ‘Institutional and strategic choice perspectives on board involvement in the strategic decision processes’, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 35, pp. 766–794.Google Scholar
Kiel, GC & Nicholson, GJ 2003, ‘Board composition and corporate performance: How the Australian experience informs contrasting theories of corporate governance’, Corporate Governance: An International Review, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 189–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kosnik, R 1987, ‘Greenmail: A study of board performance in corporate governance’, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 32, pp. 163–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lange, H, Ramsay, I & Woo, LA 2000, ‘Corporate governance and anti-takeover devices: Evidence from Australia’, Corporate Governance: An International Review, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 227–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallin, C 2001, ‘Institutional investors and voting practices: An international comparison’, Corporate Governance: An International Review, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 118–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattis, MC 1993, ‘Women directors: Progress and opportunities for the future’, Business in the Contemporary World, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 140–156.Google Scholar
Milliken, FJ & Martins, LL 1996, ‘Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 21, pp. 402–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mizruchi, M 1983, ‘Who controls whom? An examination of the relationship between management and boards of directors in large American corporations’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 8, pp. 426–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, AM 1992, The new leaders: Guidelines on leadership diversity in America. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Pearce, JA & Zahra, SA 1992, ‘Board composition from a strategic contingency perspective’, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 29, pp. 411–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeffer, J & Salancik, GR 1978, The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective, New York, Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Rhoades, DL, Rechner, PL & Sundaramurthy, C 2000, ‘Board composition and financial performance: A meta-analysis of the influence of outside directors’, Journal of Managerial Issues, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 76–91.Google Scholar
Schwartz, F 1980, ‘Invisible resource: Women for boards’, Harvard Business Review, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 6–18.Google ScholarPubMed
Schwartz, F 1992, Breaking with tradition: Women and work, the new facts of life. Warner Books, New York.Google Scholar
Sheridan, A 2001, ‘A view from the top: Women on the boards of public companies’, Corporate Governance, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 8–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheridan, A 2002, ‘What you know and who you know: “Successful” women's experiences of accessing board positions’, Career Development International, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 203–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheridan, A & Milgate, G 2003, ‘“She says, he says”: women's and men's views of the composition of boards’, Women in Management Review, vol. 18, no.3, pp. 147–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shilton, J, McGregor, J & Tremaine, M 1996, ‘Feminizing the boardroom: A study of the effects of corporatization on the number and status of women directors in New Zealand Companies’, Women in Management Review, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 20–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shleifer, A & Vishny, RW 1997, ‘A survey of corporate governance’, The Journal of Finance, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 737–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shrader, CB, Blackburn, VB & Iles, P 1997, ‘Women in management and firm financial performance: An exploratory study’, Journal of Managerial Issues, vol. 9, pp. 355–372.Google Scholar
Singh, H & Harianto, F 1989, ‘Management-board relationships, takeover risk, and the adoption of golden parachutes’, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 32, pp. 7–24.Google Scholar
Stapledon, GP 1996, Institutional shareholders and corporate governance, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Stapledon, G & Lawrence, J 1996, ‘Corporate governance in the top 100’, Centre for Corporate Law and Securities Regulation, University of Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
Steane, P & Christie, M 2001, ‘Non-profit boards in Australia: A distinctive governance approach’, Corporate Governance: An International Review, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 48–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suchard, JA, Singh, M & Barr, R 2001, ‘The market effects of CEO turnover in Australian firms’, Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, vol. 9, pp. 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogt, SC & Vu, JD 2000, ‘Free cashflow and long-run firm value: Evidence from the value line survey’, Journal of Managerial Issues, vol. 12, pp.188–207.Google Scholar
Vroom, V & Pahl, B 1971, ‘Relationships between age and risk-taking among managers’, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 55, pp. 399–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, JA III, Stimpert, JL & Fubara, EI 1999, ‘Board composition and organizational performance: Two studies of insider/outsider effects’, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 655–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walters, K 2004, ‘Proxy power’, Business Review Weekly, 03 18-April 28, p. 28.Google Scholar
Walsh, JP & Seward, JK 1990, ‘On the efficiency of internal and external corporate control mechanisms’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 15, pp. 421–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weimer, J & Pape, JC 1999, ‘A taxonomy of systems of corporate governance’, Corporate Governance: An International Review, vol. 7, pp. 152–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiersema, MF & Bantel, KA 1992, ‘Top management team demography and corporate strategic change’, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 35, pp. 91–122.Google Scholar
Zahra, S & Pearce, J 1989, ‘Boards of directors and corporate financial performance: A review and integrative model’, Journal of Management, vol. 15, pp. 291–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar