The role of non-executive directors in corporate governance: an evaluation

Abstract

Corporate governance has become an increasingly topical issue in recent years. This has been fuelled by such corporate collapses as Enron, Worldcom, Parmalat, One.Tel and HIH. The role and responsibility of the board and directors has emerged as an important issue in examining the cause of these collapses. This has created much debate on what the role of the directors is in 'directing', 'monitoring' or 'advising' a company. Research indicates that investors are prepared to a pay a premium for good governance. This raises a number of questions. What is governance? How do we determine what is good governance? What role do directors have in this? Does the company's performance improve by adopting good governance practices? There are numerous approaches to examining what makes a good board. Quantitative techniques have included the use of such measurable concepts as the number of executive and non-executive directors, directors' skill base (for example, accountancy, marketing etc) and frequency of meetings attended. Researchers have also attempted to measure board performance and effectiveness by using indicators such as share values and shareholder returns. There is a lack of qualitative research in board behaviour and effectiveness. This exploratory study adopts a qualitative approach in order to provide richer data. It uses interviews to evaluate directors' views on some aspects of corporate governance, specifically in relation to the executive and non-executive director debate. The interviews were conducted with 11 directors from a variety of organizations in the forprofit and not-for-profit sectors. Two major themes have emerged from the analysis of the interviews. Firstly, directors are traditionally considered to be responsible for maximising shareholder wealth. However, directors are now expected to broaden their responsibilities to include other stakeholders and to consider social and environmental issues in making their decisions. The findings indicate that it is now more demanding to be a director due to increased workloads arising from the regulatory and legal requirements. This has also impacted on director and board evaluations, multiple directorships and directors remuneration levels. The second major theme that emerged from this study is that directors' personal experiences did not necessarily concur with governance principles and guidelines. For example, the widely recommended method of achieving 'best practice' by having a majority of non-executive directors on a board is considered too simplistic. Further studies are required on the behavioural and personality traits, technical skills of the directors, board structure, composition and type of organization which make the best contribution to achieving boardroom effectiveness.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 17 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.