IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/dur/durham/2011_12.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Performance effects of appointing other firms' executive directors

Author

Listed:
  • Charlie Weir

    (Aberdeen Business School)

  • Oleksandr Talavera

    (Durham Business School)

  • Alexander Muravyev

    (IZA and St. Petersburg University GSOM)

Abstract

This paper studies the relationship between directors’ human capital and the company’s performance. In particular, we focus on the effect on performance of non-executive directors who are also executive directors in other firms. We find a positive relationship between the presence of these non-executive directors and the accounting performance of the appointing company. The effect is stronger if these directors are also executive directors at companies that are performing well. Additionally, the similarity of industry plays a role. The results support the view that appointing firms benefit from the human capital of the appointee.

Suggested Citation

  • Charlie Weir & Oleksandr Talavera & Alexander Muravyev, 2011. "Performance effects of appointing other firms' executive directors," Working Papers 2011_12, Durham University Business School.
    • Handle: RePEc:dur:durham:2011_12
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dro.dur.ac.uk/10340
    File Function: main text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Hillier & Patrick McColgan, 2006. "An Analysis of Changes in Board Structure during Corporate Governance Reforms," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 12(4), pages 575-607, September.
    2. Gueorgui Kambourov & Iourii Manovskii, 2009. "Occupational Specificity Of Human Capital," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 50(1), pages 63-115, February.
    3. Michael C. Jensen, 2010. "The Modern Industrial Revolution, Exit, and the Failure of Internal Control Systems," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 22(1), pages 43-58, January.
    4. Milton Harris & Artur Raviv, 2008. "A Theory of Board Control and Size," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 21(4), pages 1797-1832, July.
    5. Fahlenbrach, Rüdiger & Low, Angie & Stulz, René M., 2010. "Why do firms appoint CEOs as outside directors?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(1), pages 12-32, July.
    6. Neslihan Ozkan, 2011. "CEO Compensation and Firm Performance: an Empirical Investigation of UK Panel Data," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 17(2), pages 260-285, March.
    7. Marianne Bertrand & Antoinette Schoar, 2003. "Managing with Style: The Effect of Managers on Firm Policies," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(4), pages 1169-1208.
    8. Steven Young, 2000. "The Increasing Use of Non-Executive Directors: Its Impact on UK Board Structure and Governance Arrangements," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(9&10), pages 1311-1342.
    9. Boone, Audra L. & Casares Field, Laura & Karpoff, Jonathan M. & Raheja, Charu G., 2007. "The determinants of corporate board size and composition: An empirical analysis," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 66-101, July.
    10. Guest, Paul M., 2008. "The determinants of board size and composition: Evidence from the UK," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 51-72, February.
    11. Renée B. Adams & Daniel Ferreira, 2007. "A Theory of Friendly Boards," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 62(1), pages 217-250, February.
    12. Yermack, David, 1996. "Higher market valuation of companies with a small board of directors," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 185-211, February.
    13. Eliezer M. Fich, 2005. "Are Some Outside Directors Better than Others? Evidence from Director Appointments by Fortune 1000 Firms," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 78(5), pages 1943-1972, September.
    14. Demsetz, Harold & Lehn, Kenneth, 1985. "The Structure of Corporate Ownership: Causes and Consequences," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 93(6), pages 1155-1177, December.
    15. Weisbach, Michael S., 1988. "Outside directors and CEO turnover," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1-2), pages 431-460, January.
    16. Klein, April, 1998. "Firm Performance and Board Committee Structure," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 41(1), pages 275-303, April.
    17. Agrawal, Anup & Knoeber, Charles R., 1996. "Firm Performance and Mechanisms to Control Agency Problems between Managers and Shareholders," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 31(3), pages 377-397, September.
    18. Fich, Eliezer M. & White, Lawrence J., 2005. "Why do CEOs reciprocally sit on each other's boards?," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 11(1-2), pages 175-195, March.
    19. Joseph G. Altonji & Nicolas Williams, 2005. "Do Wages Rise with Job Seniority? A Reassessment," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 58(3), pages 370-397, April.
    20. 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.
    21. Steven Young, 2000. "The Increasing Use of Non‐Executive Directors: Its Impact on UK Board Structure and Governance Arrangements," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(9‐10), pages 1311-1342, November.
    22. Kaplan, Steven N. & Reishus, David, 1990. "Outside directorships and corporate performance," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 389-410, October.
    23. Anup Agrawal & Charles R. Knoeber, "undated". "Firm Performance and Mechanisms to Control Agency Problems between Managers and Shareholders (Revision of 29-94)," Rodney L. White Center for Financial Research Working Papers 08-96, Wharton School Rodney L. White Center for Financial Research.
    24. Parent, Daniel, 2000. "Industry-Specific Capital and the Wage Profile: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth and the Panel Study of Income Dynamics," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 18(2), pages 306-323, April.
    25. Fama, Eugene F, 1980. "Agency Problems and the Theory of the Firm," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 88(2), pages 288-307, April.
    26. Alexandros Zangelidis, 2008. "Occupational And Industry Specificity Of Human Capital In The British Labour Market," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 55(4), pages 420-443, September.
    27. McKnight, Phillip J. & Weir, Charlie, 2009. "Agency costs, corporate governance mechanisms and ownership structure in large UK publicly quoted companies: A panel data analysis," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 139-158, May.
    28. Coles, Jeffrey L. & Daniel, Naveen D. & Naveen, Lalitha, 2008. "Boards: Does one size fit all," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 329-356, February.
    29. Anup Agrawal & Charles R. Knoeber, "undated". "Firm Performance and Mechanisms to Control Agency Problems between Managers and Shareholders (Revision of 29-94)," Rodney L. White Center for Financial Research Working Papers 8-96, Wharton School Rodney L. White Center for Financial Research.
    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. Charlie Weir & Oleksandr Talavera & Alexander Muravyev, 2011. "The Return on Human Capital: the Case of UK Non-executive Directors that are also Executive Directors," University of East Anglia Applied and Financial Economics Working Paper Series 029, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    2. Renee B. Adams & Benjamin E. Hermalin & Michael S. Weisbach, 2010. "The Role of Boards of Directors in Corporate Governance: A Conceptual Framework and Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 48(1), pages 58-107, March.
    3. Volonté, Christophe, 2015. "Boards: Independent and committed directors?," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 25-37.
    4. Germain, Laurent & Galy, Nadine & Lee, Wanling, 2014. "Corporate governance reform in Malaysia: Board size, independence and monitoring," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 126-162.
    5. Aziz Jaafar & Lynn Hodgkinson & Mao-Feng Kao, 2019. "Ownership Structure, Board of Directors and Firm Performance: Evidence from Taiwan," Working Papers 19011, Bangor Business School, Prifysgol Bangor University (Cymru / Wales).
    6. Coles, Jeffrey L. & Daniel, Naveen D. & Naveen, Lalitha, 2008. "Boards: Does one size fit all," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 329-356, February.
    7. Alexander Muravyev & Oleksandr Talavera & Charlie Weir, 2016. "Performance effects of appointing other firms’ executive directors to corporate boards: an analysis of UK firms," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 25-45, January.
    8. Guest, Paul M., 2008. "The determinants of board size and composition: Evidence from the UK," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 51-72, February.
    9. Mukesh Nepal & Rajat Deb, 2022. "Board Characteristics and Firm Performance: Indian Textiles Sector Panorama," Management and Labour Studies, XLRI Jamshedpur, School of Business Management & Human Resources, vol. 47(1), pages 74-96, February.
    10. James, Hui Liang & Borah, Nilakshi & Lirely, Roger, 2022. "The effectiveness of board independence in high-discretion firms," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 103-117.
    11. Bill B. Francis & Iftekhar Hasan & Qiang Wu, 2012. "Do corporate boards matter during the current financial crisis?," Review of Financial Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(2), pages 39-52, April.
    12. Wintoki, M. Babajide & Xi, Yaoyi, 2019. "Friendly directors and the cost of regulatory compliance," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 112-141.
    13. Stefanescu Cristina Alexandra, 2011. "Do Corporate Governance “Actors”’ Features Affect Banks’ Value? – Evidence From Romania," Studies in Business and Economics, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Faculty of Economic Sciences, vol. 6(2), pages 136-150, August.
    14. Akshita Arora & Chandan Sharma, 2015. "Impact of Firm Performance on Board Characteristics: Empirical Evidence from India," IIM Kozhikode Society & Management Review, , vol. 4(1), pages 53-70, January.
    15. Alexander Muravyev & Oleksandr Talavera & Charlie Weir, 2016. "Performance effects of appointing other firms’ executive directors to corporate boards: an analysis of UK firms," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 25-45, January.
    16. Hussein Abedi Shamsabadi & Byung-Seong Min & Richard Chung, 2016. "Corporate governance and dividend strategy: lessons from Australia," International Journal of Managerial Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 12(5), pages 583-610, October.
    17. M. Ameziane Lasfer, 2006. "The Interrelationship Between Managerial Ownership and Board Structure," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(7‐8), pages 1006-1033, September.
    18. Premepeh, kwadwo Boateng & Odartei-Mills, Eugene, 2015. "Corporate governance structure and shareholder wealth maximisation," MPRA Paper 68087, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Chen, Ming-Yuan, 2014. "Determinants of corporate board structure in Taiwan," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 62-78.
    20. Henrique Castro Martins & Cristiano Machado Costa, 2020. "Does control concentration affect board busyness? International evidence," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 24(3), pages 821-850, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    human capital; executive directors; non-executive directors; company performance;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G34 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Mergers; Acquisitions; Restructuring; Corporate Governance
    • G39 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Other

    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:dur:durham:2011_12. 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: IT Office (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deduruk.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.