2005
DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.jdg.2040004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Paradigm flaw in the boardroom: Governance versus management

Abstract: Abstract:The purpose of this paper is to explore a more constructive role for corporate boards -one that would entail directors recognising the operational primacy of management and focusing their attention on the manner in which a corporation can best fulfil its long-term strategy. Paying more attention to nurturing long-term, sustainable value will help differentiate roles and will suggest the need for new metrics and a deeper appreciation by directors of corporate strategy and organisational capacity. At a … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…What emerges is a sense that university governance is potentially vibrant and robust but also characterized by potential for complicity, collusion, silencing, and diversion of important debates. Constructive conflict (Finkelstein & Mooney, 2003), loyal opposition (Bradshaw, 2002), taking the broad view (Waitzer & Enrione, 2005), and creating a culture characterized by candor and a willingness to challenge (Nadler, 2004) are all traits that characterize good governance regardless of whether it is in the context of corporate or university governance. Members of governing bodies need critical thinking skills and different ways of knowing (such as systems pattern recognition, emotions, and appreciation of interdependence) (Marshall, 2000).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…What emerges is a sense that university governance is potentially vibrant and robust but also characterized by potential for complicity, collusion, silencing, and diversion of important debates. Constructive conflict (Finkelstein & Mooney, 2003), loyal opposition (Bradshaw, 2002), taking the broad view (Waitzer & Enrione, 2005), and creating a culture characterized by candor and a willingness to challenge (Nadler, 2004) are all traits that characterize good governance regardless of whether it is in the context of corporate or university governance. Members of governing bodies need critical thinking skills and different ways of knowing (such as systems pattern recognition, emotions, and appreciation of interdependence) (Marshall, 2000).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Improved organisational performance is promoted when the organisation embraces good governance principles and practices (Australia, 2010; Carlei and Marra, 2010; Feizizadeh, 2012). Successful organisations are generally those that have created and sustained a governance environment exceeding mere compliance with laws, regulations and other prescripts but also by embracing the principles of efficiency, effectiveness and long-term sustainability (Waitzer and Enrione, 2005). Consequently, strong organisational governance promotes improved service delivery (Australia, 2010; Carlei and Marra, 2010; Feizizadeh, 2012), with internal auditing usually providing the organisation with assessments and value-adding recommendations to entrench strong organisational governance practices (IIA, 2017).…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%