Promising avenue or dead end street? A meta analytic review of the Forbes and Milliken model of board behaviour

Abstract

Purpose Over the past decades, growing interest in the behaviour of boards of directors has brought forth empirical studies on actual board behaviour. An important stream within this research followed the model proposed by Forbes and Milliken in 1999 in which the board processes, effort norms, cognitive conflict and the use of knowledge, are hypothesized to influence the performance of boards of directors. This paper aims to take stock of the results from this stream of research. The sometimes inconsistent results, and assumed methodological flaws of this research, leave open the question whether it makes sense to continue with this line of research. Design/methodology/approach Through a research synthesis of 17 primary studies on (parts of) the model proposed by Forbes and Milliken (1999), this question is addressed directly by clarifying what is known from the research done so far and by identifying possible distorting methodological moderators. Findings Strong empirical support is found for the effect of effort norms and the use of knowledge and skills on board task performance. The evidence for cognitive conflicts however was found to be inconclusive. Common method and respondent bias seem to be a lesser concern than often stated. Research limitations/implications Future studies should not only look closely at the construct validity of conflict, but should also have to account for the multidimensionality of conflicts and the interdependency and endogeneity in the relationship between behaviour and performance in boards. Originality/value This is the first paper that systematically integrates and reviews the empirical results of the research following the Forbes and Milliken model and sketches roads for future research on board behaviour.

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 — 21 citations exist upstream.

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