Skip main navigation
Close Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Articles

Boards as a Source of Inertia: Examining the Internal Challenges and Dynamics of Boards of Directors in Times of Environmental Discontinuities

    Published Online:18 Apr 2019https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.1091

    Abstract

    The literature on corporate governance indicates that, by engaging in strategy-related activities, boards of directors can help firms adapt to environmental discontinuities. So far, however, studies shed limited light on board-internal challenges and dynamics in such difficult times, thus providing few insights into the conditions under which boards may contribute to organizational inertia. We use a comparative case study of 10 major Swiss electric utility companies during the energy transition to show in detail how environmental and strategic change impair boards’ ability to judge strategic issues, and how boards use self-evaluation and self-reconfiguration to renew this ability. Moreover, we offer original insights into the board-internal antecedents of board renewal, and show that environmental discontinuities pose a dilemma for boards, since self-evaluation and self-reconfiguration are critical for preventing organizational inertia yet may run counter to board members’ self-interest. By showing that board members, like managers, experience conflicts of interest that can harm firm performance, our study contributes to agency theory and an emerging micro-perspective on boards. Moreover, by highlighting boards as a source of organizational inertia, our study challenges existing findings in the field of strategic management and makes several more specific contributions to important debates in the corporate governance literature.

    REFERENCES

    • Alexander, J. A., Fennell, M. L., & Halpern, M. T. 1993. Leadership instability in hospitals: The influence of board–CEO relations and organizational growth and decline. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 74–99. Google Scholar
    • Almandoz, J., & Tilcsik, J. 2016. When experts become liabilities: Domain experts on boards and organizational failure. Academy of Management Journal, 59: 1124–1149.Link , Google Scholar
    • Arthaud-Day, M. L., Certo, S. T., Dalton, C. M., & Dalton, D. R. 2006. A changing of the guard: Executive and director turnover following corporate financial restatements. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 1119–1136.Link , Google Scholar
    • Barr, P. S. 1998. Adapting to unfamiliar environmental events: A look at the evolution of interpretation and its role in strategic change. Organization Science, 9: 644–669. Google Scholar
    • Baysinger, B., & Hoskisson, R. E. 1990. The composition of boards of directors and strategic control: Effects on corporate strategy. Academy of Management Review, 15: 72–87.Link , Google Scholar
    • Boeker, W., & Goodstein, J. 1991. Organizational performance and adaptation: Effects of environment and performance on changes in board composition. Academy of Management Journal, 34: 805–826.Link , Google Scholar
    • Boulton, W. R. 1978. The evolving board: A look at the board’s changing roles and information needs. Academy of Management Review, 3: 827–836.Link , Google Scholar
    • Boyd, B. 1990. Corporate linkages and organizational environment: A test of the resource dependence model. Strategic Management Journal, 11: 419–430. Google Scholar
    • Boyd, B. K. 1995. CEO duality and firm performance: A contingency model. Strategic Management Journal, 16: 301–312. Google Scholar
    • Carpenter, M. A., & Westphal, J. D. 2001. The strategic context of external network ties: Examining the impact of director appointments on board involvement in strategic decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 639–660.Link , Google Scholar
    • Christensen, C. M., & Rosenbloom, R. S. 1995. Explaining the attacker’s advantage: Technological paradigms, organizational dynamics, and the value network. Research Policy, 24: 233–257. Google Scholar
    • Conyon, M. J., & Peck, S. I. 1998. Board control, remuneration committees, and top management compensation. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 146–157.Link , Google Scholar
    • Daily, C. M. 1996. Governance patterns in bankruptcy reorganizations. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 355–375. Google Scholar
    • Daily, C. M., Dalton, D. R., & Cannella, A. A. 2003. Corporate governance: Decades of dialogue and data. Academy of Management Review, 28: 371–382.Link , Google Scholar
    • Daily, C. M., & Schwenk, C. 1996. Chief executive officers, top management teams, and boards of directors: Congruent or countervailing forces? Journal of Management, 22: 185–208. Google Scholar
    • Dalton, D. R., Daily, C. M., Johnson, J. L., & Ellstrand, A. E. 1999. Number of directors and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 674–686.Link , Google Scholar
    • Desai, V. M. 2016. The behavioral theory of the (governed) firm: Corporate board influences on organizations’ responses to performance shortfalls. Academy of Management Journal, 59: 860–879.Link , Google Scholar
    • Desender, K. A., Aguilera, R. V., Crespi, R., & García-Cestona, M. 2013. When does ownership matter? Board characteristics and behavior. Strategic Management Journal, 34: 823–842. Google Scholar
    • Dowell, G. W., Shackell, M. B., & Stuart, N. V. 2011. Boards, CEOs, and surviving a financial crisis: Evidence from the internet shakeout. Strategic Management Journal, 32: 1025–1045. Google Scholar
    • Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989a. Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14: 57–74.Link , Google Scholar
    • Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989b. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14: 532–550.Link , Google Scholar
    • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. 2007. Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 25–32.Link , Google Scholar
    • Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C. 2003. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar
    • Forbes, D. P., & Milliken, F. J. 1999. Cognition and corporate governance: Understanding boards of directors as strategic decision-making groups. Academy of Management Review, 24: 489–505.Link , Google Scholar
    • Gabrielsson, J., & Huse, M. 2004. Context, behavior, and evolution: Challenges in research on boards and governance. International Studies of Management & Organization, 34: 11–36. Google Scholar
    • Garg, S., & Eisenhardt, K. 2017. Unpacking the CEO–board relationship: How strategy-making happens in entrepreneurial firms. Academy of Management Journal, 60: 1828–1858.Link , Google Scholar
    • Gibbert, M., Ruigrok, W., & Wicki, B. 2008. What passes as a rigorous case study? Strategic Management Journal, 29: 1465–1474. Google Scholar
    • Gilbert, C. G. 2005. Unbundling the structure of inertia: Resource versus routine rigidity. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 741–763.Link , Google Scholar
    • Golden, B. R., & Zajac, E. J. 2001. When will boards influence strategy? Inclination x power = strategic change. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 1087–1111. Google Scholar
    • Goodstein, J., & Boeker, W. 1991. Turbulence at the top: A new perspective on governance structure changes and strategic change. Academy of Management Journal, 34: 306–330.Link , Google Scholar
    • Goodstein, J., Gautam, K., & Boeker, W. 1994. The effects of board size and diversity on strategic change. Strategic Management Journal, 15: 241–250. Google Scholar
    • Hambrick, D. C., & D’Aveni, R. A. 1992. Top team deterioration as part of the downward spiral of large corporate bankruptcies. Management Science, 38: 1445–1466. Google Scholar
    • Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. 1984. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9: 193–206.Link , Google Scholar
    • Hambrick, D. C., Werder, A. v., & Zajac, E. J. 2008. New directions in corporate governance research. Organization Science, 19: 381–385. Google Scholar
    • Haynes, K. T., & Hillman, A. 2010. The effect of board capital and CEO power on strategic change. Strategic Management Journal, 31: 1145–1163. Google Scholar
    • Hendry, K., & Kiel, G. C. 2004. The role of the board in firm strategy: Integrating agency and organisational control perspectives. Corporate Governance, 12: 500–520. Google Scholar
    • Hermalin, B. E., & Weisbach, M. S. 2003. Boards of directors as an endogenously determined institution: A survey of the economic literature. Economic Policy Review, 9: 7–26. Google Scholar
    • Hillman, A. J., Cannella, A. A., & Paetzold, R. L. 2000. The resource dependence role of corporate directors: Strategic adaptation of board composition in response to environmental change. Journal of Management Studies, 37: 235–256. Google Scholar
    • Hillman, A. J., & Dalziel, T. 2003. Boards of directors and firm performance: Integrating agency and resource dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 28: 383–396.Link , Google Scholar
    • Hillman, A. J., Nicholson, G., & Shropshire, C. 2008. Directors’ multiple identities, identification, and board monitoring and resource provision. Organization Science, 19: 441–456. Google Scholar
    • Hofer, C. W., & Schendel, D. 1978. Strategic formulation: Analytical concepts. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company. Google Scholar
    • Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. 1976. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3: 305–360. Google Scholar
    • Johnson, J. L., Daily, C. M., & Ellstrand, A. E. 1996. Boards of directors: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 22: 409–438. Google Scholar
    • Johnson, R. A., Hoskisson, R. E., & Hitt, M. A. 1993. Board of director involvement in restructuring: The effects of board versus managerial controls and characteristics. Strategic Management Journal, 14(S1): 33–50. Google Scholar
    • Judge, W. Q., & Zeithaml, C. P. 1992. Institutional and strategic choice perspectives on board involvement in the strategic decision process. Academy of Management Journal, 35: 766–794.Link , Google Scholar
    • Kaplan, S. 2008. Cognition, capabilities, and incentives: Assessing firm response to the fiber-optic revolution. Academy of Management Journal, 51: 672–695.Link , Google Scholar
    • Kaplan, S., Murray, F., & Henderson, R. 2003. Discontinuities and senior management: Assessing the role of recognition in pharmaceutical firm response to biotechnology. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12: 203–233. Google Scholar
    • Keck, S. L., & Tushman, M. L. 1993. Environmental and organizational context and executive team structure. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 1314–1344.Link , Google Scholar
    • Kelly, D., & Amburgey, T. L. 1991. Organizational inertia and momentum: A dynamic model of strategic change. Academy of Management Journal, 34: 591–612.Link , Google Scholar
    • Krause, R. 2017. Being the CEO’s boss: An examination of board chair orientations. Strategic Management Journal, 38: 697–713. Google Scholar
    • Krause, R., Semadeni, M., & Cannella, A. A. 2013. External COO/presidents as expert directors: A new look at the service role of boards. Strategic Management Journal, 34: 1628–1641. Google Scholar
    • Krause, R., Semadeni, M., & Cannella, A. A. 2014. CEO duality: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 40: 256–286. Google Scholar
    • Leonard-Barton, D. 1992. Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1): 111–125. Google Scholar
    • Lynall, M. D., Golden, B. R., & Hillman, A. J. 2003. Board composition from adolescence to maturity: A multitheoretic view. Academy of Management Review, 28: 416–431.Link , Google Scholar
    • Mace, M. L. 1971. Directors: Myth and reality. Boston, MA: Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration. Google Scholar
    • McDonald, M. L., Westphal, J. D., & Graebner, M. E. 2008. What do they know? The effects of outside director acquisition experience on firm acquisition performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29: 1155–1177. Google Scholar
    • McNulty, T., & Pettigrew, A. 1999. Strategists on the board. Organization Studies, 20: 47–74. Google Scholar
    • Meyer, A. D., Brooks, G. R., & Goes, J. B. 1990. Environmental jolts and industry revolutions: Organizational responses to discontinuous change. Strategic Management Journal, 11: 93–110. Google Scholar
    • Mizruchi, M. S. 1983. Who controls whom? An examination of the relation between management and boards of directors in large American corporations. Academy of Management Review, 8: 426–435.Link , Google Scholar
    • Mizruchi, M. S., & Stearns, L. B. 1988. A longitudinal study of the formation of interlocking directorates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33: 194–210. Google Scholar
    • Oehmichen, J., Schrapp, S., & Wolff, M. 2017. Who needs experts most? Board industry expertise and strategic change—A contingency perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 38: 645–656. Google Scholar
    • Pearce, J. A., & Zahra, S. A. 1991. The relative power of CEOs and boards of directors: Associations with corporate performance. Strategic Management Journal, 12: 135–153. Google Scholar
    • Pettigrew, A., & McNulty, T. 1995. Power and influence in and around the boardroom. Human Relations, 48: 845–873. Google Scholar
    • Pfeffer, J. 1972. Size and composition of corporate boards of directors: The organization and its environment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17: 218–228. Google Scholar
    • Pugliese, A., Bezemer, P. J., Zattoni, A., Huse, M., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. 2009. Boards of directors’ contribution to strategy: A literature review and research agenda. Corporate Governance, 17: 292–306. Google Scholar
    • Rindova, V. P. 1999. What corporate boards have to do with strategy: A cognitive perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 36: 953–975. Google Scholar
    • Romanelli, E., & Tushman, M. L. 1994. Organizational transformation as punctuated equilibrium: An empirical test. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 1141–1166.Link , Google Scholar
    • Selznick, P. 1949. TVA and the grass roots: A study of politics and organization. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Google Scholar
    • Shen, W. 2003. The dynamics of the CEO–board relationship: An evolutionary perspective. Academy of Management Review, 28: 466–476.Link , Google Scholar
    • Shivdasani, A., & Yermack, D. 1999. CEO involvement in the selection of new board members: An empirical analysis. Journal of Finance, 54: 1829–1853. Google Scholar
    • Siggelkow, N. 2007. Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 20–24.Link , Google Scholar
    • Stevenson, W. B., & Radin, R. F. 2009. Social capital and social influence on the board of directors. Journal of Management Studies, 46: 16–44. Google Scholar
    • Tripsas, M., & Gavetti, G. 2000. Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 1147–1161. Google Scholar
    • Tuggle, C. S., Schnatterly, K., & Johnson, R. A. 2010a. Attention patterns in the boardroom: How board composition and processes affect discussion of entrepreneurial issues. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 550–571.Link , Google Scholar
    • Tuggle, C. S., Sirmon, D. G., Reutzel, C. R., & Bierman, L. 2010b. Commanding board of director attention: Investigating how organizational performance and CEO duality affect board members’ attention to monitoring. Strategic Management Journal, 31: 946–968. Google Scholar
    • Tushman, M. L., & Anderson, P. 1986. Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31: 439–465. Google Scholar
    • Venkatraman, N., & Camillus, J. C. 1984. Exploring the concept of “fit” in strategic management. Academy of Management Review, 9: 513–525.Link , Google Scholar
    • Walsh, J. P., & Seward, J. K. 1990. On the efficiency of internal and external corporate control mechanisms. Academy of Management Review, 15: 421–458.Link , Google Scholar
    • Westphal, J. D. 1999. Collaboration in the boardroom: Behavioral and performance consequences of CEO–board social ties. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 7–24.Link , Google Scholar
    • Westphal, J. D., & Fredrickson, J. W. 2001. Who directs strategic change? Director experience, the selection of new CEOs, and change in corporate strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 1113–1137. Google Scholar
    • Yin, R. K. 2009. Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Google Scholar
    • Zahra, S. A., & Pearce, J. A. 1989. Boards of directors and corporate financial performance: A review and integrative model. Journal of Management, 15: 291–334. Google Scholar
    • Zahra, S. A., & Pearce, J. A. 1990. Determinants of board directors’ strategic involvement. European Management Journal, 8: 164–173. Google Scholar
    Academy of Management
      Academy of Management
      555 Pleasantville Road, Suite N200
      Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510-8020, USA
      Phone: +1 (914) 326-1800
      Fax: +1 (914) 326-1900
    © 2023 Academy of Management
    Powered by Atypon® Literatum