Pathways to leadership:board independence, diversity, and the emerging pipeline in the US for women directors

In the wake of this decade's corporate scandals, crimes and excesses, improving the effectiveness of corporate governance in the United States has become a priority. An important influence on a board's effectiveness at monitoring is its members’ degree of independence from senior management. While the current definition of independence revolves around the absence of familial and economic connections between a firm and its directors, research suggests that this standard may be inadequate in ensuring independent oversight. Rather, diversity along racial, gender and other dimensions has been proposed as a potentially more effective standard for board independence. This is especially welcome news for women, who currently comprise 51 per cent of the US managerial workforce but only 14.8 per cent of the directors on boards of large, publicly traded US corporations. Some explain the current dearth of women board members by claiming that there are no qualified women available for board service and/or that women are not interested in board service. However, there is more anecdotal rather than empirical evidence on the issue. Surveying women at a women's leadership conference in Boston, this research investigates the extent to which women are currently involved in some type of board service and the extent to which women aspire to future board service. We find that women are currently more active in governance activities than prior research on corporate boards suggests and that they aspire to play a continued and expanded role in governance activities.

CEO power, government monitoring, and bank dividends

We investigate the role of CEO power and government monitoring on bank dividend policy for a sample of 109 European listed banks for the period 2005-2013. We employ three main proxies for CEO power: CEO ownership, CEO tenure, and unforced CEO turnover. We show that CEO power has a negative impact on dividend payout ratios and on performance, suggesting that entrenched CEOs do not have the incentive to increase payout ratios to discourage monitoring from minority shareholders. Stronger internal monitoring by board of directors, as proxied by larger ownership stakes of the board members, increases performance but decreases payout ratios. These findings are contrary to those from the entrenchment literature for non-financial firms. Government ownership and the presence of a government official on the board of directors of the bank, also reduces payout ratios, in line with the view that government is incentivized to favor the interest of bank creditors before the interest of minority shareholders. These results show that government regulators are mainly concerned about bank safety and this allows powerful CEOs to distribute low payouts at the expense of minority shareholders.