This study brings together developments in corporate governance and organization studies to examine the work of the company secretary, a mandatory legal officer in UK listed corporations, typically positioned close to the board of directors, but hitherto largely ignored in governance and organizational research. Regulation continues to use distinctions between inside executive and outside independent non-executives on boards, opening up organizational space between what one director actually does vis-a-vis another. This study combines a socio-spatial perspective of organization with theories of board behaviour to identify the potential for company secretaries to engage in a vibrant role performance in and around the boardroom. Findings show the potential for company secretaries to act as boundary spanners, ‘walking the lines and working the spaces’ that connect executive and non-executive directors, so developing the governance space in ways that enable board effectiveness.
AguileraR. V.Cuervo-CazurraA. (2004). Codes of good governance worldwide: What is the trigger?Organization Studies, 25, 415–443.
2.
AguileraR. V.Cuervo-CazurraA. (2009). Codes of good governance. Corporate Governance: An international review, 17, 376–387.
3.
AldrichH.HerkerD. (1977). Boundary spanning roles and organization structure. Academy of Management Review, 2, 217–230.
4.
AllenT. (1977). Managing the flow of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5.
BattilanaJ.CasciaroT. (2012). Change agents, networks and institutions: A contingency theory of organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 55(2), 1–41.
6.
BechkyB. A. (2003). Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The transformation of understanding on a production floor. Organization Science, 14, 312–330.
7.
BeechlerS.SondergaardM.MillerE. L.BirdA. (2004). Boundary spanning. In LaneH. W.MaznevskiM. L.MendenhallM. E.McNettJ. (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of global management: A guide to managing complexity. Oxford: Blackwell.
8.
BennisW. G. (1966). Changing organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill.
9.
BeyesT.SteyaertC. (2012). Spacing organization: Non-representational theory and performing organizational space. Organization, 19(1), 45–61.
10.
BolanR. S. (1971). Social relations of the planner. AIP Journal, November, 386–396.
11.
BolandR. J.LyytinenK.YooY. (2007). Wakes of innovation in project networks: The case of digital 3-D representation in architecture, engineering and construction. Organization Science, 2, 40–57.
12.
BrassD. J. (1984). Being in the right place: A structural analysis of individual influence in an organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 518–539.
13.
BrassD. J.BurkhardtM. E. (1993). Potential power and power use: An investigation of structure and behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 441–470.
14.
CadburyA. (1992). Report of the committee on the financial aspects of corporate governance. London: Gee Publishing.
15.
CarlileP. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13, 442–455.
16.
CarlileP. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15, 555–568.
CourpassonD.Arellano-GaultD.BrownA.LounsburyM. (2008). Organization studies on the look-out? Being read to and being listened to. Organization Studies, 29, 1383–1390.
19.
DaleK. (2005). Building a social materiality: Spatiality and embodied politics in organizational control. Organization, 12, 649–678.
20.
DaleK.BurrellG. (2008). Spaces of organization and the organization of space: Power, identity and materiality at work. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
21.
DiamondM. A.AllcornS.SteinH. (2004). The surface of organizational boundaries: A view from psychoanalytic object relations theory. Human Relations, 57, 31–53.
22.
DiamondM. A.SteinH. F.AllcornS. (2002). Organizational silos: Horizontal organizational fragmentation. Journal for the Psychoanalysis of Culture and Society, 7, 280–296.
23.
EisenhardtK. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 532–550.
FerlieE.FitzgeraldL.WoodM.HawkinsC. (2005). The nonspread of innovations: The mediating role of professionals. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 117–134.
26.
Financial Reporting Council (2011). Guidance on Board Effectiveness.
27.
Financial Reporting Council (2012). The UK Corporate Governance Code.
28.
FliegelF. C.KivlinF. (1966). Attributes of innovations as factors in diffusion. American Journal of Sociology, 73, 235–248.
29.
ForbesD. P.MillikenF. J. (1999). Cognition and corporate governance: Understanding boards of directors as strategic decision-making groups. Academy of Management Review, 24, 489–505.
30.
GalisonP. (1999). Trading zone: Coordinating action and belief. In BiagioliM. (Ed.), The science studies reader (pp. 137–160). New York: Routledge.
HatchM. J. (1987). Physical barriers, task characteristics, and interaction activity in research and development firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 387–399.
33.
HillmanA.DalzielT. (2003). Boards of directors and firm performance: Integrating agency and resource dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 28, 383–396.
34.
HsiaoR. L.TsaiD. H.LeeC. F. (2012). Collaborative knowing: The adaptive nature of cross-boundary spanning. Journal of Management Studies, 49, 463–491.
35.
IbarraH. (1993). Network centrality, power, and innovation involvement: Determinants of technical and administrative roles. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 277–303.
36.
JohnsonK. L.DuxburyL. (2010). The view from the field: A case study of the expatriate boundary-spanning role. Journal of World Business, 45(1), 29–40.
37.
KelloggK. C.OrlikowskiW. J.YatesJ. (2006). Life in the trading zone: Structuring coordination across boundaries in post-bureaucratic organizations. Organization Science, 17, 22–47.
38.
LefebvreH. (1991). The production of space. Oxford: Blackwell.
39.
LeiferR.DelbecqA. (1978). Organizational/environmental interchange: A model of boundary spanning activity. Academy of Management Review, 3(1), 40–50.
40.
LevinaN.VaastE. (2008). Innovating or doing as told? Status differences and overlapping boundaries in offshore collaborations. MIS Quarterly, 32, 307–332.
41.
LyonskiS.SingerA.WilemonD. (1992). Coping with environmental uncertainty and boundary spanning in the product manager’s role. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 1(2), 25–36.
42.
MacAvoyP. W.MillsteinI. M. (2003). The recurrent crisis in corporate governance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
43.
MaceM. (1971). Directors: Myth and reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
44.
MasseyD. (2005). For Space. London: SAGE Publications.
45.
McNultyT.A. PettigrewA. M. (1999). Strategists on the board. Organization Studies, 20, 47–74.
46.
New York Stock Exchange (2010). Report of the New York Stock Exchange Commission on Corporate Governance, September23. NYX.Com
OldhamG.BrassD. (1979). Employee reactions to an open-plan office: A naturally occurring quasi-experiment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 267–284.
49.
OrlikowskiW. J. (2002). Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organization Science, 13, 249–273.
50.
PerroneV.ZaheerA.McEvilyB. (2003). Free to be trusted? Organizational constraints on trust in boundary spanners. Organization Science, 14, 422–439.
51.
PettigrewA. M.McNultyT. (1995). Power and influence in and around the boardroom. Human Relations, 48, 845–873.
52.
RobertsJ.McNultyT.StilesP. (2005). Beyond agency conceptions of the work of the non-executive director: Creating accountability in the boardroom. British Journal of Management, 16, 1–22.
53.
SojaE. W. (1989). Postmodern geographies. London: Verso.
54.
SojaE. W. (1996). Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and other real-and-imagined places. Oxford: Blackwell.
55.
SpicerA. (2006). Beyond the convergence-divergence debate: The role of spatial scales in transforming organizational logic. Organization Studies, 27, 1467–1483.
56.
SundaramurthyC.LewisM. (2003). Control and collaboration: Paradoxes of governance. Academy of Management Review, 28, 397–415.
57.
SwanJ.BresnenM.NewellS.RobertsonM. (2007). The object of knowledge: The role of objects in biomedical innovation. Human Relations, 60, 1809–1837.
58.
SydowJ. (1998). Understanding the constitution of interorganizational trust. In LaneC.BachmanR. (Eds.), Trust in and between organizations. Oxford: Blackwell.
59.
TaylorS.SpicerA. (2007). Time for space: A narrative review of research on organizational spaces. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9, 325–346.
60.
TrevillionS. (1991). Caring in the community. London: Longman.
61.
TylerM.CohenL. (2010). Spaces that matter: Gender performativity and organizational space. Organization Studies, 31, 175–198.
62.
WatkinsC. (2005). Representations of space, spatial practices, and spaces of representation: An application of Lefebvre’s spatial triad. Culture and Organization, 11, 209–220.
63.
WebbA. (1991). Co-ordination: A problem in public sector management. Policy and Politics, 19, 229–241.
64.
WestphalJ. D.BednarM. K. (2005). Pluralistic ignorance in corporate boards and firms’ strategic persistence in response to low firm performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 262–298.
65.
WilliamsP. (2002). The competent boundary spanner. Public Administration, 80, 103–124.
66.
YagiN.KleinbergJ. (2011). Boundary work: An interpretative ethnographic perspective on negotiating and leveraging cross-cultural identity. Journal of International Business Studies, 42, 629–653.
67.
ZhangC.ViswanathanS.HenkeJ. W. (2011). The boundary spanning capabilities of purchasing agents in buyer-supplier trust development. Journal of Operations Management, 29, 318–328.
68.
ZhangZ.SpicerA.HancockP. (2008). Hyper-organizational space in the work of J. G. Ballard. Organization, 15, 889–910.
