IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Board Evaluations: making a fit between the purpose and the system


  • Alessandro Minichilli
  • Jonas Gabrielsson

    (School of Economics and Management, Lund University, Sweden)

  • Morten Huse

    (Tor Vergata University, Rome)


Board 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Alessandro Minichilli & Jonas Gabrielsson & Morten Huse, 2007. "Board Evaluations: making a fit between the purpose and the system," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(4), pages 609-622, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:corgov:v:15:y:2007:i:4:p:609-622

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Khanna, Tarun & Kogan, Joe & Palepu, Krishna, 2002. "Globalization and Similarities in Corporate Governance: A Cross-Country Analysis," CEI Working Paper Series 2002-6, Center for Economic Institutions, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Veltrop, D.B. & Hermes, C.L.M. & Postma, T.J.B.M. & de Haan, J., 2012. "A tale of two factions," Research Report 12001-HRM&OB, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    2. 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).
    3. repec:dgr:rugsom:12001-hrmob is not listed on IDEAS
    4. 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.
    5. Lin, Philip T. & Li, Bin & Bu, Danlu, 2015. "The relationship between corporate governance and community engagement: Evidence from the Australian mining companies," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 28-39.
    6. 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.
    7. Vandebeek, Alana & Voordeckers, Wim & Lambrechts, Frank & Huybrechts, Jolien, 2016. "Board role performance and faultlines in family firms: The moderating role of formal board evaluation," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 249-259.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    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:bla:corgov:v:15:y:2007:i:4:p:609-622. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.