The Organisation and Effectiveness of Boards of Directors

Chitayat, Gideon

doi:10.1177/030630708000600206

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The duty and responsibility of the board to establish policy is well documented in both nonprofit and for-profit literature. Chitayat's (1980) conclusion of a substantial difference between theory and practice seems to be supported. Although the trustees of both the most effective and the least effective agencies may have abandoned their role of policy formulation, the least effective trustees appear to have taken on the responsibility of day-to-day management.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…Because of this unique composition, that is, having no insiders as voting members of the board of directors, United States corporate research may not be applicable to the agency. Chitayat (1980) also found that board members attended meetings two thirds of the time. Directors who had valuable expertise did not use that knowledge to contribute to the organization because of lack of time.…”

Section: Comparison Of Private-and Public-sector Boardsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Corn (1978Corn ( /1983 listed governance functions as (a) compatibility with major shareholders and the executive team, (b) visible leadership, (c) decision making, (d) building a team, (e) board organization through committee appointments, (f) consensus in appointing directors, (g) replacement of the CEO, (h) public image, (i) social responsibility, and (j) data dissemination. Chitayat (1980) has studied the role and function of the boards of directors in companies in Israel, examining their organization structure and effectiveness. Both chairpersons of boards and CEOs reported a preference for working with a smaller group of from three to five in making important decisions, that a large board was not effective, and that as the size of the board increased, participation decreased.…”

Section: Responsibilitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Often, the board meeting was not best used, with much time was given to committee reports with little time given to long-range planning and strategic discussions. Chitayat (1980) also reported on the role of the board of directors in practical terms. His conclusion was that boards of directors in the private as well as in the public sector did not (a) initiate strategic proposals, (b) have final approval power in strategic decisions, or (c) evaluate the performance of the company or of the executives: &dquo;The role of the board of directors in practical terms differs substantially from the role of the board as defined in theory.&dquo; This statement is in agreement with Mace (1971), who said that there was a disparity between myth and reality of board role and function.…”

Section: Comparison Of Private-and Public-sector Boardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Most Effective and Least Effective Boards of Nonprofit Human Service Agencies

Cook

Brown

1990

Group & Organization Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A study was conducted of 13 United Way agencies to determine if there were variables that would significantly discriminate between the boards of human services agencies judged most effective and those least effective. Stepwise multiple discriminant analyses revealed three functions that discriminated: Organizational Awareness—accounting for 59% of the variance; Shared Managerial Responsibilities-accounting for 23% of the variance; and Administrative Trustee Duties—accounting for 18% of the variance.Since 1960, human services expenditures have come to represent over 25% of our gross national product (GNP), and the dollar value of volunteer hours in the United States annually exceeds the total GNP (Conrad & Glenn, 1983). The annual expenditures and capital assets of public agencies may exceed those in the private, profit sector (Zusman, 1975). Human services are over 50% of the federal budget and over 60% of state and local budgets (Dubois, 1981). Effectiveness and efficiency may be the hallmarks of national human services goals in the 1990s, yet, Dubois argues, effectiveness and efficiency measures and assessments are lacking.Retrenchment and funding cutbacks have become familiar words to the agency manager. However, there are no cutbacks in the demands for services; the opposite is more generally true. This combination of increased demand for services and cutbacks in funding produces a problem unknown in the profit sector. In the for-profit, private sector an increase in demand for goods or services may be accompanied by an increase in profits. In the nonprofit setting, demand for more services places a strain on the agency, as the agency 432 cannot always pass on cost increases to the consumers of its services. The agency may have to reorder priorities or drop programs, or it may have to set a higher level of eligibility for clients so that they serve only the &dquo;most needy.&dquo; The agency must be more flexible than private enterprise to respond to increased service demands without an increased budget (Zusman, 1975).There was an increased demand for services in the 1980s because of the increased number and types of problems being identified. For example, deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill and mentally retarded has placed large burdens on local communities for services. Other issues that have come to the forefront are substance abuse, teenage pregnancy, spouse and child abuse, sexual molestation, single parents, latchkey children, and the frail elderly. Added to these problems in a specific and geographic area may be population growth and increased demand for a variety of services. ROLE AND FUNCTION OF THE CORPORATE BOARDAram and Cowen (1983) state that there is often a lack of definition of the role of the corporate board of directors, and that &dquo;no single, university accepted classification of board functions exists.&dquo; Koontz (1967) said that many board of director members understand neither management nor their role in management. Whether or not role definition or understanding...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Comparison Of Private-and Public-sector Boardsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Responsibilitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Comparison Of Private-and Public-sector Boardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Most Effective and Least Effective Boards of Nonprofit Human Service Agencies

Cook

Brown

1990

Group & Organization Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Boards of Directors and Corporate Financial Performance: A Review and Integrative Model

Zahra¹,

Pearce

1989

Journal of Management

2,012

1,748

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article synthesizes empirical researchfindings on the impact of boards of directors on corporate financial performance. An integrative model of board attributes and roles is presented, and research support on their links is discussed. The review identifies critical short-comings of past studies and concludes by offering an agenda for future studies in this promising area of empirical research.

show abstract

The Organisation and Effectiveness of Boards of Directors

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Most Effective and Least Effective Boards of Nonprofit Human Service Agencies

Most Effective and Least Effective Boards of Nonprofit Human Service Agencies

Boards of Directors and Corporate Financial Performance: A Review and Integrative Model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About