Board Evaluations: making a fit between the purpose and the system
AbstractBoard 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. Copyright (c) 2007 The Authors; Journal compilation (c) 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Wiley Blackwell in its journal Corporate Governance: An International Review.
Volume (Year): 15 (2007)
Issue (Month): 4 (07)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0964-8410&site=1
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- 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.
- 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).
- Alessandro Carretta & Vincenzo Farina & Paola Schwizer, 2010. "Assessing effectiveness and compliance of banking boards," Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 18(4), pages 356-369, November.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum).
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.