An observational analysis of the impact of board dynamics and directors’ participation on perceived board effectiveness

This study addresses calls for closer examination of board dynamics by offering an inside view of director interactions. Video-observations of three board meetings at each of two Australian corporations matched with director interviews and secondary data reveal distinct patterns of director interactions, their sources of variation and impact on perceived board effectiveness. Our data reveal that director interactions are multi-dimensional and dynamic: while group interactions across agenda items are similar, with a few directors leading the discussion, the contributing directors change across items. Moreover, directors’ inclusiveness and evenness of participation are associated with higher perceptions of board effectiveness. Last, we find that director interactions change with the nature of the items, board climate and board meeting arrangements. The study contributes to the literature by moving beyond the individual-level analysis of directors’ skills or independence, and offering a detailed view of how the joint group and individual dimensions of board dynamics affect board functioning.

Banking sector contingent liabilities and sovereign risk

The global financial crisis has underscored the need to pay attention to contingent government liabilities that could arise from bank failures for sovereign risk management. This paper proposes a simple method to construct a contingent liability index (CLI) for a banking sector that takes into account the size and concentration of the banking system, market expectations of bank defaults, and perceptions of government support to each bank. This method allows us to track potential government liabilities related to bank failures for 32 advanced and emerging economies on a monthly basis from 2006 to 2013. Furthermore, we find that the CLI is a significant determinant of sovereign CDS spreads. Our results suggest that a 1 percentage point increase in the CLI is associated with an increase in sovereign CDS spreads by 24 basis points for advanced economies and 75 basis points for emerging markets on average.

Leading or managing? Assistant Regional Directors, School Performance, in Queensland

Purpose Education reform aimed at achieving improved student learning is a demanding challenge for leaders and managers at all levels of education across the globe. In 2010, the position of Assistant Regional Directors, School Performance (ARD-SP), was established to positively impact upon student learning across public schools in Queensland, Australia. This study explores the perceptions of the role and leadership understandings of ARDs in Queensland in order to understand more fully the tensions and opportunities they face within this reasonably newly created position. Design/methodology/approach This qualitative study is based on interviews with 18 Assistant Regional Directors and two of their supervisors to gauge a better understanding of the nature of the role as it relates to leadership and management in the Queensland context. Findings Interview data revealed three key themes pertaining to the nature of the role and these were performance, supervision, and professional challenges. A key finding was that the notion of supervision was experienced as problematic for ARDs-SP. Research limitations/implications This study has limitations and these include a sample that focused on Assistant Regional Directors within one State of Australia and one schooling system (i.e. public education); and interviews were the primary data collection source. Originality/value Although there have been studies of supervisors of principals (referred to as superintendents, directors) in other countries and other systems, this study is a first to explore the tensions and opportunities faced by executive leaders in Queensland.

Enterprise business technology governance: A validation of three technology-governance competencies for boards of directors

The competent leadership and governance of digital transformation needs to involve the board of directors. The reported lack of such capability in boards is becoming a pressing issue. Underpinning leadership in such transformation are the competencies to effectively govern Enterprise Technology (ETG). In this paper we take the position that ETG competencies are essential in boards because competent enterprise business technology governance has been shown to contribute to increased revenue, profit, and returns. We report the industry validation processes of a set of three board-of-director competencies needed for effective ETG related to strategy and planning; investment and risk; and, innovation and value creation. We conclude that gaps in board ETG competence remain.

Integrated reporting and directors’ concerns about personal liability exposure: Law reform options

Integrated reporting () holds significant promise as a new reporting paradigm that is holistic, strategic, responsive, material, and relevant across multiple time frames. However, its uptake in Australia is being hampered by directors’ concerns about personal liability exposure, particularly for forward-looking statements that subsequently prove to be unfounded. This article seeks to illuminate the bases for these liability concerns by outlining the similarities between and the operating and financial review requirements under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), and the relevant grounds for liability for misleading and deceptive disclosures, and breach of directors’ duties. In light of this discussion, this article proposes four possible reform options, ranging from minor adaptations to the Framework to far-reaching reforms of the Corporations Act. As assurance is desirable to ensure that reliance can be placed on integrated reports, the development of a legal safe harbour for auditors of forward-looking information is also canvassed.

Enterprise technology governance: New information and technology core competencies for boards of directors

Boards of directors have legal and ethical responsibilities to be competent. Yet, in a world where business models and whole sectors are being disrupted by rapid information and technology change, a majority of directors lack IT governance knowledge and skills. Individual IT competency and collective board Enterprise Technology Governance capability is a global problem. Without capability, boards are potentially flying blind, and risk is increased and opportunities to lead and govern digital transformation lost. To address this capability gap, this research provides the first multi-industry validated Enterprise Technology Governance competency set for use in board evaluation, recruitment and professional development.

Directors and officers insurance – Recent critical issues in Australia and New Zealand

Directors and Officers Liability Insurance (“D&O insurance”) has grown and evolved rapidly over the past 80 years to assume an important position in most corporations’ corporate governance and risk management strategies. This article focuses upon certain topical matters of particular concern to directors and officers including the availability of defence costs where a D&O policy is subject to a statutory charge; the commercial desirability of stand-alone “A-side” coverage, being the cover provided directly to directors and officers for loss resulting from claims made against them for wrongful acts; the impact of fraud and/or dishonesty upon D&O cover; and disclosure of the nature and extent of D&O cover to the directors and officers themselves and to third parties – in the latter case such access frequently being necessary to determine the economic viability of pursuing a proposed action against a company and its directors and officers.

Governance of enterprise Information and Technology: A new core competency for boards of directors

With the level of digital disruption that is affecting businesses around the globe, you might expect high levels of Governance of Enterprise Information and Technology (GEIT) capability within boards. Boards and their senior executives know technology is important. More than 90% of boards and senior executives currently identify technology as essential to their current businesses, and to their organization’s future. But as few as 16% have sufficient GEIT capability. Global Centre for Digital Business Transformation’s recent research contains strong indicators of the need for change. Despite board awareness of both the likelihood and impact of digital disruption, things digital are still not viewed as a board-level matter in 45% of companies. And, it’s not just the board. The lack of board attention to technology can be mirrored at senior executive level as well. When asked about their organization’s attitude towards digital disruption, 43% of executives said their business either did not recognise it as a priority or was not responding appropriately. A further 32% were taking a “follower” approach, a potentially risky move as we will explain. Given all the evidence that boards know information and technology (I&T***) is vital, that they understand the inevitably, impact and speed of digital change and disruption, why are so many boards dragging their heels? Ignoring I&T disruption and refusing to build capability at board level is nothing short of negligence. Too many boards risk flying blind without GEIT capability [2]. To help build decision quality and I&T governance capability, this research: • Confirms a pressing need to build individual competency and cumulative, across-board capability in governing I&T • Identifies six factors that have rapidly increased the need, risk and urgency • Finds that boards may risk not meeting their duty of care responsibilities when it comes to I&T oversight • Highlights barriers to building capability details three GEIT competencies that boards and executives can use for evaluation, selection, recruitment and professional development.

Leading Digital Transformation: Building Technology and Information Governance Capability in Boards of Directors and the C-Suite

Information and technology and its use in organisation transformation presents unprecedented opportunities and risks. Increasingly, the Governance of Enterprise Information and Technology (GEIT) competency in the board room and executive is needed. Whether your organization is small or large, public, private or not for profit or whether your industry is not considered high-tech, IT is impacting your sector – no exceptions. But there is a skill shortage in boards: GEIT capability is concerningly low. This capability is urgently needed across the board, including those directors who come from finance, legal, marketing, operations and HR backgrounds. Digital disruption also affects all occupations. Putting in place a vision will help ensure emergency responses will meet technology-related duty of care responsibilities. When GEIT-related forward thinking and planning is carried out at the same time that you put your business strategy and plan in place, your organization has a significantly increased chance of not only surviving, but thriving into the future. Those organizations that don’t build GEIT capability risk joining the growing list of once-leading firms left behind in the digital ‘cloud of smoke’. Those organizations that do will be better placed to reap the benefits and hedge against the risks of a digital world. This chapter provides actionable, research-based considerations and processes for boards to use, to build awareness, knowledge and skills in governing technology-related organization strategy, risk and value creation.

Nonprofit Boards in Australia: A Distinctive Governance Appoach

This article reports the findings into patterns of governance on nonprofit boards in Australia. The research surveys 118 boards, upon which serve a total of 1405 directors. The findings indicate that nonprofit boards can mimic some aspects of a shareholder approach to governance. But nonprofit boards, in the main, indicate priorities and activities of a stakeholder approach to governance. The features of `isomorphism' that arise largely stem from legislative requirements in corporate governance. Generally, nonprofit directors are influenced by agenda and motivations that can be differentiated from the influences upon director activity in the corporate sector. The study indicates that nonprofit boards prize knowledge and loyalty to the sector when considering board composition. The survey suggests nonprofits ``compensate'' for the demands placed upon them about fiduciary duty and due diligence responsibilities with the diverse intellectual expertise of non-executive directors. Nonprofit boards possess greater diversity than boards in the corporate sector; they include more women as directors than corporate boards and they include a greater proportion of directors from minority groups. While strategic issues feature significantly as a task of the nonprofit board, they distinguish themselves from their corporate counterparts by engaging in operational management. The findings indicate that, in the main, directors on nonprofit boards deliberate and operate in ways distinctive from their corporate counterparts. Such findings offer a contribution to the reform of Corporations Law in other countries and the likely consequence on boards outside the corporate sector.

From the account manager’s conscience to top-of-mind : account planning in Australia

What began as the “account manager’s conscience” has grown to be top-of-mind in Australian advertising today. Account planning is a hybrid discipline which uses research to bring the consumer voice to the campaign process during strategy generation, creative development and evaluation. In Australia, account planning is subjected to the “Vegemite Factor” where planners are spread too thinly across accounts and much of the market is dominated by freelance researchers and planners. This unique environment has shaped many different perceptions of account planning in Australia. These are compared with an international definition of account planning and the current research. While many basic tenants of the definition are shared by Australian advertising professionals, the difference appears to be in the ongoing nature, team approach and level of commitment. In Australia, account planners seem to be more facilitators of the strategic direction, than directors of it. Instead of exerting a sustained influence across the campaign, most energy appears to be expended at the start of campaign development, rather than extending through to its evaluation.

Operationalizing the resource based view for nascent and young firms : developing scales for resource advantages and disadvantages

Principal Topic: It is well known that most new ventures suffer from a significant lack of resources, which increases the risk of failure (Shepherd, Douglas and Shanley, 2000) and makes it difficult to attract stakeholders and financing for the venture (Bhide & Stevenson, 1999). The Resource-Based View (RBV) (Barney, 1991; Wernerfelt, 1984) is a dominant theoretical base increasingly drawn on within Strategic Management. While theoretical contributions applying RBV in the domain of entrepreneurship can arguably be traced back to Penrose (1959), there has been renewed attention recently (e.g. Alvarez & Busenitz, 2001; Alvarez & Barney, 2004). This said, empirical work is in its infancy. In part, this may be due to a lack of well developed measuring instruments for testing ideas derived from RBV. The purpose of this study is to develop a measurement scales that can serve to assist such empirical investigations. In so doing we will try to overcome three deficiencies in current empirical measures used for the application of RBV to the entrepreneurship arena. First, measures for resource characteristics and configurations associated with typical competitive advantages found in entrepreneurial firms need to be developed. These include such things as alertness and industry knowledge (Kirzner, 1973), flexibility (Ebben & Johnson, 2005), strong networks (Lee et al., 2001) and within knowledge intensive contexts, unique technical expertise (Wiklund and Shepard, 2003). Second, the RBV has the important limitations of being relatively static and modelled on large, established firms. In that context, traditional RBV focuses on competitive advantages. However, newly established firms often face disadvantages, especially those associated with the liabilities of newness (Aldrich & Auster, 1986). It is therefore important in entrepreneurial contexts to expand to an investigation of responses to competitive disadvantage through an RBV lens. Conversely, recent research has suggested that resource constraints actually have a positive effect on firm growth and performance under some circumstances (e.g., George, 2005; Katila & Shane, 2005; Mishina et al., 2004; Mosakowski, 2002; cf. also Baker & Nelson, 2005). Third, current empirical applications of RBV measured levels or amounts of particular resources available to a firm. They infer that these resources deliver firms competitive advantage by establishing a relationship between these resource levels and performance (e.g. via regression on profitability). However, there is the opportunity to directly measure the characteristics of resource configurations that deliver competitive advantage, such as Barney´s well known VRIO (Valuable, Rare, Inimitable and Organized) framework (Barney, 1997). Key Propositions and Methods: The aim of our study is to develop and test scales for measuring resource advantages (and disadvantages) and inimitability for entrepreneurial firms. The study proceeds in three stages. The first stage developed our initial scales based on earlier literature. Where possible, we adapt scales based on previous work. The first block of the scales related to the level of resource advantages and disadvantages. Respondents were asked the degree to which each resource category represented an advantage or disadvantage relative to other businesses in their industry on a 5 point response scale: Major Disadvantage, Slight Disadvantage, No Advantage or Disadvantage, Slight Advantage and Major Advantage. Items were developed as follows. Network capabilities (3 items) were adapted from (Madsen, Alsos, Borch, Ljunggren & Brastad, 2006). Knowledge resources marketing expertise / customer service (3 items) and technical expertise (3 items) were adapted from Wiklund and Shepard (2003). flexibility (2 items), costs (4 items) were adapted from JIBS B97. New scales were developed for industry knowledge / alertness (3 items) and product / service advantages. The second block asked the respondent to nominate the most important resource advantage (and disadvantage) of the firm. For the advantage, they were then asked four questions to determine how easy it would be for other firms to imitate and/or substitute this resource on a 5 point likert scale. For the disadvantage, they were asked corresponding questions related to overcoming this disadvantage. The second stage involved two pre-tests of the instrument to refine the scales. The first was an on-line convenience sample of 38 respondents. The second pre-test was a telephone interview with a random sample of 31 Nascent firms and 47 Young firms (< 3 years in operation) generated using a PSED method of randomly calling households (Gartner et al. 2004). Several items were dropped or reworded based on the pre-tests. The third stage (currently in progress) is part of Wave 1 of CAUSEE (Nascent Firms) and FEDP (Young Firms), a PSED type study being conducted in Australia. The scales will be tested and analysed with a random sample of approximately 700 Nascent and Young firms respectively. In addition, a judgement sample of approximately 100 high potential businesses in each category will be included. Findings and Implications: The paper will report the results of the main study (stage 3 – currently data collection is in progress) will allow comparison of the level of resource advantage / disadvantage across various sub-groups of the population. Of particular interest will be a comparison of the high potential firms with the random sample. Based on the smaller pre-tests (N=38 and N=78) the factor structure of the items confirmed the distinctiveness of the constructs. The reliabilities are within an acceptable range: Cronbach alpha ranged from 0.701 to 0.927. The study will provide an opportunity for researchers to better operationalize RBV theory in studies within the domain of entrepreneurship. This is a fundamental requirement for the ability to test hypotheses derived from RBV in systematic, large scale research studies.