IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/oabmxx/v4y2017i1p1357348.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Who should serve on health care boards? What should they do and how should they behave? A fresh look at the literature and the evidence

Author

Listed:
  • N. Chambers
  • G. Harvey
  • R. Mannion

Abstract

Public boards of directors face challenges in demonstrating effectiveness and return on investment. Health care boards in particular operate in a high risk service and political environment, where both patient safety and financial sustainability are paramount. The motivation in this article is to make sense of the conflicting and competing theories which explain the purpose of boards, and the sometimes weak and contradictory evidence for effective board practices. The main contributions of the study are, first, the use of a realist approach to understand underlying assumptions behind the main theories for health care boards, and, second, practical suggestions in relation to board composition, focus and behaviours, according to circumstances. Amongst its conclusions, this review indicates that board size should be limited, especially for newer organisations, physicians on boards are associated with better quality of clinical care, and choosing to operate diligently with a focus on strategy and on monitoring, a close grip on the business, and strong support for executives are all important.

Suggested Citation

  • N. Chambers & G. Harvey & R. Mannion, 2017. "Who should serve on health care boards? What should they do and how should they behave? A fresh look at the literature and the evidence," Cogent Business & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 1357348-135, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:oabmxx:v:4:y:2017:i:1:p:1357348
    DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2017.1357348
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/23311975.2017.1357348
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/23311975.2017.1357348?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tod Perry & Anil Shivdasani, 2005. "Do Boards Affect Performance? Evidence from Corporate Restructuring," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 78(4), pages 1403-1432, July.
    2. David W. Anderson & Stewart J. Melanson & Jiri Maly, 2007. "The Evolution of Corporate Governance: power redistribution brings boards to life," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(5), pages 780-797, September.
    3. João Vieito & Walayet Khan, 2012. "Executive compensation and gender: S&P 1500 listed firms," Journal of Economics and Finance, Springer;Academy of Economics and Finance, vol. 36(2), pages 371-399, April.
    4. Jensen, Michael C. & Meckling, William H., 1976. "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 305-360, October.
    5. Gianluca Veronesi & Ian Kirkpatrick & Francesco Vallascas, 2014. "Does clinical management improve efficiency? Evidence from the English National Health Service," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(1), pages 35-42, January.
    6. Gavin J. Nicholson & Geoffrey C. Kiel, 2007. "Can Directors Impact Performance? A case‐based test of three theories of corporate governance," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(4), pages 585-608, July.
    7. Adams, Renée B. & Ferreira, Daniel, 2009. "Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 291-309, November.
    8. Stiles, Philip & Taylor, Bernard, 2001. "Boards at Work: How Directors View their Roles and Responsibilities," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198288763, Decembrie.
    9. Bennedsen, Morten & Kongsted, Hans Christian & Nielsen, Kasper Meisner, 2008. "The causal effect of board size in the performance of small and medium-sized firms," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1098-1109, June.
    10. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Aldona Frączkiewicz-Wronka & Tomasz Ingram & Karolina Szymaniec-Mlicka & Piotr Tworek, 2021. "Risk Management and Financial Stability in the Polish Public Hospitals: The Moderating Effect of the Stakeholders’ Engagement in the Decision-Making," Risks, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-23, May.
    2. De Regge, Melissa & Eeckloo, Kristof, 2020. "Balancing hospital governance: A systematic review of 15 years of empirical research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 262(C).

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Nguyen, Tuan & Locke, Stuart & Reddy, Krishna, 2014. "A dynamic estimation of governance structures and financial performance for Singaporean companies," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 1-11.
    4. Chowdhury, Biplob & Dungey, Mardi & Pham, Thu Phuong, 2014. "The impact of post-IPO changes in corporate governance mechanisms on firm performance: evidence from young Australian firms," Working Papers 2014-11, University of Tasmania, Tasmanian School of Business and Economics, revised 24 Sep 2014.
    5. Eugenio Zubeltzu-Jaka & Eduardo Ortas & Igor Álvarez-Etxeberria, 2019. "Independent Directors and Organizational Performance: New Evidence from A Meta-Analytic Regression Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-25, December.
    6. Abdullah, Azrul & Ku Ismail, Ku Nor Izah, 2015. "Hedging Activities Information and Risk Management Committee Effectiveness: Malaysian evidence," MPRA Paper 85026, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Nguyen, Tuan & Locke, Stuart & Reddy, Krishna, 2015. "Ownership concentration and corporate performance from a dynamic perspective: Does national governance quality matter?," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 148-161.
    8. DasGupta, Ranjan & Dhochak, Monika, 2021. "Risk-Antecedents of Firms and Strategic Mediators – New Evidence from a Cross-Country Analysis," American Business Review, Pompea College of Business, University of New Haven, vol. 24(1), pages 3-35, May.
    9. Abdullah, Azrul Bin & Ismail, Ku Nor Izah Ku, 2018. "Hedging Activities Information and Risk Management Committee Effectiveness: Malaysian evidence," SocArXiv kxfqe, Center for Open Science.
    10. Franco Ernesto Rubino & Paolo Tenuta & Domenico Rocco Cambrea, 2017. "Board characteristics effects on performance in family and non-family business: a multi-theoretical approach," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 21(3), pages 623-658, September.
    11. Laura Cabeza-García & Esther B. Brío & Carlos Rueda, 2021. "The moderating effect of innovation on the gender and performance relationship in the outset of the gender revolution," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 755-778, April.
    12. Paolo Roffia & Virginia Simón-Moya & Javier Sendra García, 2022. "Board of director attributes: effects on financial performance in SMEs," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 1141-1172, September.
    13. Phillip C. James, 2020. "Understanding the Impact of Board Structure on Firm Performance: AComprehensive Literature Review," International Journal of Business and Social Research, LAR Center Press, vol. 10(1), pages 1-12, January.
    14. Franziska Handschumacher & Willi Ceschinski, 2020. "Besteht ein Zusammenhang zwischen der Gender-Diversity und Überwachungseffektivität des Aufsichtsrats? Eine empirische Analyse deutscher börsennotierter Unternehmen [Is There a Link Between Gender ," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 72(2), pages 213-251, June.
    15. Phillip C. James, 2020. "Understanding the Impact of Board Structure on Firm Performance: AComprehensive Literature Review," International Journal of Business and Social Research, MIR Center for Socio-Economic Research, vol. 10(1), pages 1-12, January.
    16. E. Chuke Nwude & Comfort Amaka Nwude, 2021. "Board Structure and Corporate Social Responsibility: Evidence From Developing Economy," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(1), pages 21582440209, January.
    17. Etienne Redor & Magnus Blomkvist, 2021. "Do all inside and affiliated directors hold the same value for shareholders?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 41(3), pages 882-895.
    18. Martin Kyere & Marcel Ausloos, 2021. "Corporate governance and firms financial performance in the United Kingdom," International Journal of Finance & Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(2), pages 1871-1885, April.
    19. Paul Tanyi & David B. Smith & Xiaoyan Cheng, 2021. "Does firm payout policy affect shareholders’ dissatisfaction with directors?," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 57(1), pages 279-320, July.
    20. Saha Rupjyoti & Kabra Kailash Chandra, 2019. "Does corporate governance influence firm performance? Evidence from India," Economics and Business Review, Sciendo, vol. 5(4), pages 70-89, December.

    More about this item

    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:taf:oabmxx:v:4:y:2017:i:1:p:1357348. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://cogentoa.tandfonline.com/OABM20 .

    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.