Teachers' perceptions of the national board certification process: Developing a sense of professionalism

This study describes and explains the experiences and perceptions of six public school teachers who had undergone the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards national certification process as a vehicle for promoting a teacher's sense of professionalism. Of these six participants, two achieved National Board certification, two did not achieve National Board certification, and two are awaiting results of their certification status. The study took place over a period of eleven months and focused on the participants' perceptions regarding the National Board certification process as it affected their sense of (a) efficacy and (b) professionalism. Data for this collective case study were gathered from interviews, portfolios and videotapes, and artifacts. Using case analysis, this study's participants' responses gathered through the interview process were examined. ^ The findings indicated that participants had concerns about the National Board certification process in the following areas: process, sense of efficacy, and sense of professionalism. All participants reported the process to be overwhelmingly demanding. Analysis of the data also reveals that those who were successful in achieving National Board certification had a greater sense of efficacy than those who did not. A disappointing finding was that the National Board process impacting participants' sense of professionalism could not be sustained; however, the participants in this study suggested the process was a step towards providing opportunities for collaboration, collegiality, and reflective practice. This study raises the question as to whether or not the espoused purposes of National Board certification are achieved via the certification process. ^

What does board capital really bring to the table? Exploring the effect of directors' human and social capital on effective governance during international expansion

What constitutes effective corporate governance? Which director characteristics render boards effective at positively influencing firm-level performance outcomes? This dissertation examines these questions by taking a multilevel, multidisciplinary approach to corporate governance. I explore the individual-, team-, and firm- level factors that enable directors to serve effectively as strategic resources during international expansion. I argue that directors' international experience improves their ability to serve as effective strategic consultants and resource providers to firms during the complex internationalization process. However, unlike prior research, which tends to assume that directors with the potential to provide important resources uniformly do so, I acknowledge contextual factors (i.e. board cohesiveness, strategic relevance of directors' experience) that affect their propensity to actually influence outcomes. I explore these issues in three essays: one review essay and two empirical essays.^ In the first empirical essay, I integrate resource dependence theory with insights from social-psychological research to explore the influence of board capital on firms' cross-border M&A performance. Using a sample of cross-border M&As completed by S&P 500 firms from 2004-2009, I find evidence that directors' depth of international experience is associated with superior pre-deal outcomes. This suggests that boards' deep, market-specific knowledge is valuable during the target selection phase. I further find that directors' breadth of international experience is associated with superior post-deal performance, suggesting that these directors' global mindset helps firms in the post-M&A integration phase. I also find that these relationships are positively moderated by board cohesiveness, measured by boards' internal social ties.^ In the second empirical essay, I explore the boundary conditions of international board capital by examining how the characteristics of firms' internationalization strategy moderate the relationship between board capital and firm performance. Using a panel of 377 S&P 500 firms observed from 2004-2011, I find that boards' depth of international experience and social capital are more important during early stages of internationalization, when firms tend to lack market knowledge and legitimacy in the host markets. On the other hand, I find that breadth of international experience has a stronger relationship with performance when firms' have higher scope of internationalization, when information-processing demands are higher.^

What Does Board Capital Really Bring to the Table? Exploring the Effect of Directors’ Human and Social Capital on Effective Governance During International Expansion

What constitutes effective corporate governance? Which director characteristics render boards effective at positively influencing firm-level performance outcomes? This dissertation examines these questions by taking a multilevel, multidisciplinary approach to corporate governance. I explore the individual-, team-, and firm- level factors that enable directors to serve effectively as strategic resources during international expansion. I argue that directors’ international experience improves their ability to serve as effective strategic consultants and resource providers to firms during the complex internationalization process. However, unlike prior research, which tends to assume that directors with the potential to provide important resources uniformly do so, I acknowledge contextual factors (i.e. board cohesiveness, strategic relevance of directors’ experience) that affect their propensity to actually influence outcomes. I explore these issues in three essays: one review essay and two empirical essays. In the first empirical essay, I integrate resource dependence theory with insights from social-psychological research to explore the influence of board capital on firms’ cross-border M&A performance. Using a sample of cross-border M&As completed by S&P 500 firms from 2004-2009, I find evidence that directors’ depth of international experience is associated with superior pre-deal outcomes. This suggests that boards’ deep, market-specific knowledge is valuable during the target selection phase. I further find that directors’ breadth of international experience is associated with superior post-deal performance, suggesting that these directors’ global mindset helps firms in the post-M&A integration phase. I also find that these relationships are positively moderated by board cohesiveness, measured by boards’ internal social ties. In the second empirical essay, I explore the boundary conditions of international board capital by examining how the characteristics of firms’ internationalization strategy moderate the relationship between board capital and firm performance. Using a panel of 377 S&P 500 firms observed from 2004-2011, I find that boards’ depth of international experience and social capital are more important during early stages of internationalization, when firms tend to lack market knowledge and legitimacy in the host markets. On the other hand, I find that breadth of international experience has a stronger relationship with performance when firms’ have higher scope of internationalization, when information-processing demands are higher.