Prior research has overlooked board processes and examined direct links between board structure and monitoring financial reporting with mixed results. We use an input–process–output heuristic model to argue that board processes mediate the association between board structure and earnings persistence. Our results support this assertion by showing the mediating effect of board processes and the impact on managerial behaviour in relation to monitoring financial reporting. We contribute to the accounting and finance literature by demonstrating the importance of examining alternative theoretical models and board-process variables, along with structure. This article also highlights the importance of establishing best-practice guidelines around board processes in governance regulations.
AbbottLJParkerSPresleyTJ (2012) Female board presence and the likelihood of financial restatement. Accounting Horizons26: 607–629.
2.
AdamsRBFerreiraD (2009) Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. Journal of Financial Economics94: 291–309.
3.
AhmedASDuellmanS (2007) Accounting conservatism and board of director characteristics: An empirical analysis. Journal of Accounting and Economics43: 411–437.
4.
AliMParkK (2016) The mediating role of an innovative culture in the relationship between absorptive capacity and technical and non-technical innovation. Journal of Business Research69: 1669–1675.
5.
AmasonAC (1996) Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal39: 123–148.
6.
AmasonACSapienzaHJ (1997) The effects of top management team size and interaction norms on cognitive and affective conflict. Journal of Management23: 495–516.
7.
BlanthorneCJones-FarmerLAAlmerED (2006) Why you should consider SEM: A guide to getting started. Advances in Accounting Behavioural Research9: 179–207.
BrooksAOliverJVeljanovskiA (2009) The role of the independent director: Evidence from a survey of independent directors in Australia. Australian Accounting Review50: 161–177.
10.
BrownPBeekesWVerhoevenP (2011) Corporate governance, accounting and finance: A review. Accounting and Finance51: 96–172.
11.
CarterCBLorschJ (2013) Back to the Drawing Board: Designing Corporate Boards for a Complex World. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
12.
ChenKYZhouJ (2007) Audit committee, board characteristics, and auditor switch decisions by Andersen’s clients. Contemporary Accounting Research24: 1085–1117.
13.
CohenJKrishnamoorthyGWrightA (2004) The corporate governance mosaic and financial reporting quality. Journal of Accounting Literature23: 87–152.
14.
CohenSGBaileyDE (1997) What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management23: 239–290.
15.
DailyCMDaltonDRCannellaAA (2003) Corporate governance: Decades of dialogue and data. Academy of Management Review28: 371–382.
16.
DaltonDRDailyCMJohnsonJL, et al. (1999) Number of directors and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal42: 674–686.
17.
DavidsonRGoodwin-StewartJKentP (2005) Internal governance structures and earnings management. Accounting and Finance45: 241–267.
18.
De BaerdemaekerJBruggemanW (2015) The impact of participation in strategic planning on managers’ creation of budgetary slack: The mediating role of autonomous motivation and affective organisational commitment. Management Accounting Research29: 1–12.
19.
De DreuCK (2006) When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management32: 83–107.
20.
DechowPGeWSchrandC (2010) Understanding earnings quality: A review of the proxies, their determinants and their consequences. Journal of Accounting and Economics50: 344–401.
21.
DeVellisRF (2003) Scale Development: Theory and Application. 2nd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
22.
DhaliwalDNaikerVNavissiF (2010) The association between accruals quality and the characteristics of accounting experts and mix of expertise on audit committees. Contemporary Accounting Research27: 787–827.
23.
DillmanDA (2011) Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method – 2007 Update with New Internet, Visual, and Mixed-mode Guide. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
24.
EaglyAHCarliLL (2003) Finding gender advantage and disadvantage: Systematc research integration is the solution. The Leadership Quarterly14: 851–859.
25.
EisenhardtKM (1989) Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review14: 57–74.
26.
FamaEFJensenMC (1983) Agency problems and residual claims. Journal of Law and Economics26: 327–349.
27.
Federal Court of Australia (2011) Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Healey and Others, FCA 717; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Healey and Others (No. 2), FCA 1003. Federal Court of Australia, Middleton J, 27June2011, 31August2011.
28.
FieldA (2013) Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
29.
FinkelsteinSMooneyAC (2003) Not the usual suspects: How to use board process to make boards better. Academy of Management Executive17: 101–113.
30.
ForbesDPMillikenFJ (1999) Cognition and corporate governance: Understanding boards of directors as strategic decision-making groups. Academy of Management Review24: 489–505.
31.
FornellCLarckerDF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research18: 39–50.
32.
GabrielssonJWinlundH (2000) Boards of directors in small and medium-sized industrial firms: examining the effects of the board’s working style on board task performance. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development12: 311–330.
33.
García-MecaESánchez-BallestaJP (2009) Corporate governance and earnings management: A meta-analysis. Corporate Governance: An International Review17: 594–610.
34.
GladsteinDL (1984) Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly29: 499–517.
35.
GoodsteinJGautamKBoekerW (1994) The effects of board size and diversity on strategic change. Strategic Management Journal15: 241–250.
36.
HairJFHollingsworthCLRandolphAB, et al. (2017a) An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Industrial Management and Data Systems117: 442–458.
37.
HairJFHult TomasGMRingleCM, et al. (2017b) A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
38.
HairJFRingleCMSarstedtM (2011) PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice19: 139–151.
39.
HambrickDCWerderAVZajacEJ (2008) New directions in corporate governance research. Organization Science19: 381–385.
40.
HillmanAJShropshireCCannellaAA, et al. (2007) Organizational predictors of women on corporate boards. Academy of Management Journal50: 941–952.
41.
HuseM (2005) Accountability and creating accountability: A framework for exploring behavioural perspectives of corporate governance. British Journal of Management16: S65–S79.
42.
HuseMSolbergAG (2006) Gender-related boardroom dynamics: How Scandinavian women make and can make contributions on corporate boards. Women in Management Review21: 113–130.
43.
JacksonSE (1992) Consequences of group composition for the interpersonal dynamics of strategic issue processing. Advances in Strategic Management8: 345–382.
44.
JehnKA (1995) A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly40: 256–282.
45.
JohnsonJLDailyCMEllstrandAE (1996) Boards of directors: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management22: 409–438.
46.
JudgeWQZeithamlCP (1992) Institutional and strategic choice perspectives on board involvement in the strategic decision process. Academy of Management Journal35: 766–794.
47.
KentPRoutledgeJStewartJ (2010) Innate and discretionary accruals quality and corporate governance. Accounting and Finance50: 171–195.
48.
KlineRB (2011) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
49.
KumarNSternLWAndersonJC (1993) Conducting interorganizational research using key informants. Academy of Management Journal36: 1699–1651.
50.
LarckerDFRichardsonSATunaI (2007) Corporate governance, accounting outcomes, and organizational performance. The Accounting Review82: 963–1008.
51.
LeeIPetterSFayardDRobinsonS (2011) On the use of partial least squares path modeling in accounting research. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems12: 305–328.
52.
LePineJAPiccoloRFJacksonCL, et al. (2008) A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: Tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology61: 273–307.
53.
LiptonMLorschJW (1992) A modest proposal for improved corporate governance. The Business Lawyer48: 59–77.
54.
LohmöllerJB (1989) Latent Variable Path Modeling with Partial Least Squares. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.
55.
MacKinnonDPLockwoodCMHoffmanM, et al. (2002) A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods7: 83–104.
56.
MatherPRamsayA (2006) The effects of board characteristics on earnings management around Australian CEO changes. Accounting Research Journal19: 78–93.
57.
MatolcsyZTylerJWellsP (2012) Is continuous disclosure associated with board independence?Australian Journal of Management37: 99–124.
58.
McGrathJE (1964) Social Psychology: A Brief Introduction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
59.
McNultyTFlorackisCOrmrodP (2013) Boards of directors and financial risk during the credit crisis. Corporate Governance: An International Review21: 58–78.
60.
MinichilliAZattoniAZonaF (2009) Making boards effective: An empirical examination of board task performance. British Journal of Management20: 55–74.
61.
MinichilliAZattoniANielsenS, et al. (2012) Board task performance: An exploration of micro-and macro-level determinants of board effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behavior33: 193–215.
62.
NielsenSHuseM (2010) The contribution of women on boards of directors: Going beyond the surface. Corporate Governance: An International Review18: 136–148.
63.
NitzlCRoldánJLCepedaG (2016) Mediation analyses in partial least squares structural equation modeling: Helping researchers discuss more sophisticated models. Industrial Management & Data Systems116: 1849–1864.
64.
OeiRRamsayAMatherP (2008) Earnings persistence, accruals and managerial share ownership. Accounting and Finance48: 475–502.
65.
OngCWanD (2008) Three conceptual models of board role performance. Corporate Governance8: 317–329.
66.
ParkerRJNouriHHayesAF (2011) Distributive justice, promotion instrumentality, and turnover intentions in public accounting firms. Behavioral Research in Accounting23: 169–186.
67.
PearceJAZahraSA (1992) Board composition from a strategic contingency perspective. Journal of Management Studies29: 411–438.
68.
PeasnellKVPopePYoungS (2000) Accrual management to meet earnings targets: UK evidence pre- and post-Cadbury. British Accounting Review32: 415–445.
69.
PetraST (2007) The effects of corporate governance on the informativeness of earnings. Economics of Governance8: 129–152.
70.
PettigrewAM (1992) On studying managerial elites. Strategic Management Journal13: 163–182.
71.
PfefferJSalancikGR (1978) The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.
72.
PodsakoffPMMacKenzieSBLeeJY (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology88: 879–903.
73.
PreacherKJHayesAF (2004) SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers36: 717–731.
74.
PreacherKJHayesAF (2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods40: 879–891.
75.
PuglieseABezemerPJZattoniAHuseMVan den BoschFAVolberdaHW (2009) Boards of directors’ contribution to strategy: A literature review and research agenda. Corporate Governance: An International Review17: 292–306.
76.
RichardsonSASloanRGSolimanMT, et al. (2005) Accrual reliability, earnings persistence and stock prices. Journal of Accounting and Economics39: 437–485.
77.
SloanRG (1996) Do stock prices fully reflect information in accruals and cash flows about future earnings?Accounting Review71: 289–315.
78.
SonnenfeldJA (2002) What makes great boards great. Harvard Business Review80: 106–113.
79.
StrydomMYongHHARankinM (2017) A few good (wo)men? Gender diversity on Australian boards. Australian Journal of Management42: 404–427.
80.
TabachnickBFidellL (2007) Multivariate Analysis of Variance and Covariance Using Multivariate Statistics. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, pp. 243–310.
81.
ThomasDAElyRJ (1996) Making differences matter: A new paradigm for managing diversity. Harvard Business Review74: 79–90.
82.
Van EesHVan der LaanGPostmaTJ (2008) Effective board behavior in the Netherlands. European Management Journal26: 84–93.
83.
WagemanR (1995) Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly40: 145–180.
84.
WanDOngCH (2005) Board structure, process and performance: Evidence from public-listed companies in Singapore. Corporate Governance: An International Review13: 277–290.
85.
XieBDavidsonWNIIIDaDaltPJ (2003) Earnings management and corporate governance: The role of the board and the audit committee. Journal of Corporate Finance9: 295–316.
86.
ZonaFZattoniA (2007) Beyond the black box of demography: Board processes and task effectiveness within Italian firms. Corporate Governance: An International Review15: 852–864.
