In this article, we examine the link between board composition and an enterprise strategy outcome, stakeholder relations. Because a firm’s enterprise strategy is set at the highest level of the organization, we expect the presence of stakeholder directors (suppliers, customers, employees, and community representatives) to be positively associated with stakeholder performance.Results from an analysis of 3,268 board members representing 250 firms are discussed in the context of both corporate governance and stakeholder management literatures.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Atkinson, A.
, Waterhouse, J., & Wells, R. (1997, Spring). A stakeholder approach to strategic performance measurement. Sloan Management Review, pp. 25-37.
2.
Baysinger, B.
, & Butler, H. (1985). Corporate governance and the board of directors: Perfomance effects of changes in board composition. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 1, 101-124.
3.
Berle, A.
, & Means, G. (1932). The modern corporation and private property. New York: Macmillan.
4.
The best and worst corporate boards
. (1997, December 8). Business Week, pp. 90-104.
5.
Boyd, B.
(1990). Corporate linkages and organizational environment: A test of the resource dependence model. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 419-430.
6.
Browder, D.
(1995). Shareholders are valuing diversity. Directors and Boards, 19, 12-17.
7.
Bryan, J.
(1995). Allegiance to a diverse board. Directors & Boards, 19, 6-10.
Clarkson, M.
(1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20, 92-117.
10.
Cyert, R.
, & March, J. (1963). The behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
11.
Daily, C.
, & Schwenk, C. (1996). Chief executive officers, top management teams, and boards of directors: Congruent or countervailing forces?Journal of Management, 22, 185-208.
12.
Dalton, D.
, Daily, C., Ellstrand, A., & Johnson, J. (1998). Meta-analytic reviews of board composition, leadership structure, and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 269-290.
13.
Donaldson, T.
, & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20, 65-91.
14.
Freeman, E.
(1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.
15.
Freeman, E.
(1999). Divergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24, 233-236.
16.
Gales, L.
, & Kesner, I. (1994). An analysis of board of director size and composition in bankrupt organizations. Journal of Business Research, 30, 271-282.
17.
Goodstein, J.
, & Boeker, W. (1991). Turbulence at the top: A new perspective on governance structure changes and strategic change. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 306-330.
18.
Graves, S.
, & Waddock, S. (1994). Institutional investors and corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1035-1046.
19.
Harrison, J.
, & St. John, C. (1996). Managing and partnering with external stakeholders. Academy of Management Executive, 10, 46-60.
20.
Hill, C.
, & Snell, S. (1988). External control, corporate strategy, and firm performance in research-intensive industries. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 577-590.
21.
Hillman, A.
, Cannella, A., & Paetzold, R. (2000). The resource dependence role of corporate directors: Strategic adaptation of board composition in response to environmental change. Journal of Management Studies, 37, 235-256.
22.
Hillman, A.
, & Keim, G. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line?Strategic Management Journal, 22, 125-139.
23.
Jensen, M.
, & Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305-360.
24.
Johnson, J.
, Daily, C., & Ellstrand, A. (1996). Boards of directors: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 22, 409-438.
25.
Johnson, R.
, & Greening, D. (1999). The effects of corporate governance and institutional ownership types on corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 564-580.
26.
Jones, T.
(1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20, 404-437.
27.
Jones, T. M.
, & Wicks, A. C. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24, 206-221.
28.
Judge, W.
, & Zeithaml, C. (1992). Institutional and strategic choice perspectives on board involvement in the strategic decision process. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 766-794.
29.
Kesner, I.
(1988). Director’s characteristics and committee membership: An investigation of type, occupation, tenure, and gender. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 499-508.
30.
Kosnik, R.
(1990). The effects of board demography and directors’ incentives on corporate greenmail decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 129-150.
31.
Lorsch, J.
, & MacIver, E. (1989). Pawns or potentates: The reality of America’s corporate boards. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
32.
Lublin, J.
(1997, February 18). Competition for minority directors heats up. Wall Street Journal, pp. B1-B1, B10-B10.
33.
Luoma, P.
, & Goodstein, J. (1999). Stakeholders and corporate boards: Institutional influences on board composition and structure. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 553-563.
34.
Mace, M.
(1971). Directors: Myth and reality. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
35.
Mitchell, R.
, Agle, B., & Wood, D. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22, 853-886.
36.
Pfeffer, J.
, & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
37.
Schendel, D.
, & Hofer, C. (1979). Strategic management: A new view of business policy and planning. Boston: Little, Brown.
38.
Sharfman, M.
(1996). The construct validity of the Kinder, Lydenberg, & Domini social performance ratings data. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 287-296.
39.
Treviño, L.
, & Weaver, G. (1999). The stakeholder research tradition: Converging theorists—not convergent theory. Academy of Management Review, 24, 222-227.
40.
Ullman, A.
(1985). Data in search of a theory: A critical examination of the relationships among social performance, social disclosure, and economic performance of US firms. Academy of Management Review, 10, 540-557.
41.
Venkatraman, N.
, & Ramanujam, V. (1986). Measurement of business performance in strategy research: A comparison of approaches. Academy of Management Review, 11, 801-814.
42.
Waddock, S.
, & Graves, S. (1997a). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 303-319.
43.
Waddock, S.
, & Graves, S. (1997b). Quality of management and quality of stakeholder relations. Business & Society, 36, 250-279.
44.
Westphal, J.
, & Zajac, E. (1997). Defections from the inner circle: Social exchange, reciprocity, and the diffusion of board independence on U.S. corporations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 161-183.
45.
Williamson, O.
(1984). Corporate governance. Yale Law Journal, 93, 1197-1229.
46.
Wood, D.
(1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16, 691-718.
47.
Wiley, F.
(1995). A source of vital relationships. Directors & Boards, 19, 28-30.
48.
Zahra, S.
, & Pearce, J. (1989). Boards of directors and corporate financial performance: A review and integrative model. Journal of Management, 15, 291-344.
49.
Zahra, S.
, & Stanton, W. (1988). The implications of board of directors’ composition for corporate strategy and performance. International Journal of Management, 5, 229-237.
50.
Zald, M.
(1969). The power and functions of boards of directors: A theoretical synthesis. American Journal of Sociology, 75,97-111.
