This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Shareholders Should Welcome Knowledge Workers as Directors

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Margit Osterloh ()
Bruno Frey

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

The most influential approach of corporate governance, the view of shareholders’ supremacy does not take into consideration that the key task of modern corporations is to generate and transfer firm-specific knowledge. It proposes that, in order to overcome the widespread corporate scandals, the interests of top management and directors should be increasingly aligned to shareholder’ interests by making the board more responsible to shareholders, and monitoring of top management by independent outside directors should be strengthened. Corporate governance reform needs to go in another direction altogether. Firm-specific knowledge investments are, like financial investments, not ex ante contractible, leaving investors open to exploitation by shareholders. Employees therefore refuse to make firm-specific investments. To gain a sustainable competitive advantage, there must be an incentive to undertake such firm-specific investments. Three proposals are advanced to deal with this dilemma: (1) The board should rely more on insiders. (2) The insiders should be elected by those employees of the firm who are making firm-specific knowledge investments. (3) The board should be chaired by a neutral person. These proposals have major advantages: they provide incentives for knowledge investors; they countervail the dominance of executives; they encourage intrinsic work motivation and loyalty to the firm by strengthening distributive and procedural justice, and they ensure diversity on the board while lowering transaction costs. These proposals for reforming the board may help to overcome the crisis corporate governance is in. At the same time, they provide a step in the direction of a more adequate theory of the firm as a basis for corporate governance. Copyright Springer 2006

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. 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.

File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10997-006-9003-4
File Format: text/html
File Function:
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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.

Publisher Info
Article provided by Springer in its journal Journal of Management & Governance.

Volume (Year): 10 (2006)
Issue (Month): 3 (September)
Pages: 325-345
Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Handle: RePEc:kap:jmgtgv:v:10:y:2006:i:3:p:325-345

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=102940

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).

Related research
Keywords: corporate governance; shareholders; board directors; insiders; firm-specific knowledge; D23; D83; L14; G34; M50;

Other versions of this item:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
  1. Nicolai J. Foss & Mikael Iversne, . "Promoting Synergies in Multiproduct Firms: Toward a Resource-based View," IVS/CBS Working Papers 97-12, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy, Copenhagen Business School. [Downloadable!]
  2. John T. Addison & Claus Schnabel & Joachim Wagner, 2004. "The Course of Research into the Economic Consequences of German Works Councils," British Journal of Industrial Relations, Blackwell Publishers Ltd/London School of Economics, vol. 42(2), pages 255-281, 06. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  3. Zingales, Luigi, 1998. "Corporate Governance," CEPR Discussion Papers 1806, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  4. Kevin J. Murphy & Ján Zábojník, 2004. "CEO Pay and Appointments: A Market-Based Explanation for Recent Trends," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(2), pages 192-196, May. [Downloadable!]
  5. Zwick, Thomas, 2004. "Employee participation and productivity," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(6), pages 715-740, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  6. Renée B. Adams & Daniel Ferreira, 2007. "A Theory of Friendly Boards," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 62(1), pages 217-250, 02. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  7. Margit Osterloh, 2005. "Human Resources Management and Knowledge Creation," CREMA Working Paper Series 2005-09, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA). [Downloadable!]
Full references

Cited by:
(explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)

  1. Uwe Jirjahn & Jens Mohrenweiser & Uschi Backes-Gellner, 2009. "Works Councils and Learning: On the Dynamic Dimension of Codetermination," Working Papers 0116, University of Zurich, Institute for Strategy and Business Economics (ISU). [Downloadable!]
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? About 2700 working paper series are listed on RePEc.

This page was last updated on 2009-12-8.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.