Community Care Access Centre accountability reforms: executive director perceptions /

The purpose of this study was to explore how four purposefully selected executive directors of Community Care Access Centres (CCACs) understood the idea of accountability, and how they viewed the accountability reforms that had been imposed on their sector of health care over the previous three years. Data were collected through personal interviews and a reflective journal. An analysis of key documents and the reflective journal informed the data analysis. The findings suggest that executive directors perceive that accountability relationships have shifted since reforms have been implemented. They noted that CCACs have become more accountable to the provincial government at the expense of accountability to the local community. From their perspective, the demand for greater standardization and bureaucratization has left fewer opportunities to adapt programs to meet particular community needs and has slowed the ability to respond quickly to community inquiries and concerns.

Mechanisms for sustainable accountability : a case study of a nonprofit educational organization

A qualitative case study of the capacity to be accountable in one nonprofit intennediary educational organization yielded an emergent conceptual framework of four mechanisms: structural, governing, communicative, and educative mechanisms to build and sustain the capacity of accountability. Drawing attention to the purposeful creation of structures that support accountability, purposeful navigation of the complex matrix of accountability relationships, and purposeful transfer of knowledge to infonn future accountability, this study calls for mindfulness in practice in broader educational contexts. Protocols to pass on knowledge gained in building the four capacities reveal a new dimension of accountability: continuity. In this model, the educative mechanism is the life force that feeds the other three mechanisms to increase accountability and sustain it over time.

Managerial Risk-Taking and CEO Excess Compensation

This paper examines risk taking and CEO excess compensation problems in U.S firms to determine their impact on shareholders wealth. Literature suggests a positive effect of CEO incentive risk and strong corporate governance on CEO risk taking. Furthermore, the strong governance mitigates excess compensation problem. Controlling for governance quality and incentive risk, I provide empirical evidence of a significant association between risk taking and CEO excess compensation. When I also control for pay-performance sensitivity (delta) and feedback effects of incentive compensation on CEO risk taking, I find that higher use of incentive pay encourages risk taking, and due to a high exposure to risk CEOs draws excess compensation. Furthermore, I find that the excess compensation problem is more serious with CEOs taking high risk than with those taking low risk. Finally, I find that CEO risk taking also has structural impacts on CEO compensation

Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Governance, And Managerial Risk-Taking

This dissertation investigates the association between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and managerial risk-taking, as well as the differences in governance structure that affect this association. Using a sample of US public firms from 1995 to 2009, we find that firms with strong CSR records engage in higher risk-taking. Furthermore, we find that this relationship is robust when accounting for differences in governance structure and correcting for endogeneity via simultaneous equations modeling. Additional testing indicates that performance in the employee relations dimension of CSR in particular increases with risk-taking, while high firm visibility dampens the association between CSR and the accounting-based measures of risk-taking. Prior literature establishes that high managerial risk-tolerance is necessary for the undertaking of risky yet value-enhancing investment decisions. Thus, the main findings suggest that CSR, rather than being a waste of scarce corporate resources, is instead an important aspect of shareholder value creation. They contribute to the debate on CSR by documenting that corporate risk-taking is one mechanism among others through which CSR maps into higher firm value.