Behavioral Finance in Corporate Governance - Independent Directors, Non-Executive Chairs, and the Importance of the Devil's Advocate
The Common Law, parliamentary democracy, and academia all institutionalize dissent to check undue obedience to authority; and corporate governance reformers advocate the same in boardrooms. Many corporate governance disasters could often be averted if directors asked hard questions, demanded clear answers, and blew whistles. Work by Milgram suggests humans have an innate predisposition to obey authority. This excessive subservience of agent to principal, here dubbed a "type II agency problem", explains directors' eerie submission. Rational explanations are reviewed, but behavioral explanations appear more complete. Experimental work shows this predisposition disrupted by dissenting peers, conflicting authorities, and distant authorities. Thus, independent directors, chairs, and committees excluding CEOs might induce greater rationality and more considered ethics in corporate governance. Empirical evidence of this is scant - perhaps reflecting problems identifying genuinely independent directors.
|Date of creation:||Jul 2004|
|Date of revision:|
|Publication status:||published as Randall Morck, 2008. "Behavioral finance in corporate governance: economics and ethics of the devilâ€™s advocate," Journal of Management and Governance, Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 179-200, May.|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.|
Web page: http://www.nber.org
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Renée B. Adams & Heitor Almeida & Daniel Ferreira, 2005. "Powerful CEOs and Their Impact on Corporate Performance," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 18(4), pages 1403-1432.
- Michael C. Jensen, 1994.
"The Modern Industrial Revolution, Exit, And The Failure Of Internal Control Systems,"
Journal of Applied Corporate Finance,
Morgan Stanley, vol. 6(4), pages 4-23.
- 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.
- Jensen, Michael C, 1993. " The Modern Industrial Revolution, Exit, and the Failure of Internal Control Systems," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 48(3), pages 831-80, July.
- Benjamin E. Hermalin & Michael S. Weisbach, 2003.
"Boards of directors as an endogenously determined institution: a survey of the economic literature,"
Economic Policy Review,
Federal Reserve Bank of New York, issue Apr, pages 7-26.
- Benjamin E. Hermalin & Michael S. Weisbach, 2001. "Boards of Directors as an Endogenously Determined Institution: A Survey of the Economic Literature," NBER Working Papers 8161, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Randall Morck & Andrel Shleifer & Robert W. Vishny, 1988.
"Alternative Mechanisms for Corporate Control,"
University of Chicago - George G. Stigler Center for Study of Economy and State
52, Chicago - Center for Study of Economy and State.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:10644. 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: ()
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.