This study explores how perceived interactions in the boardroom are associated with perceptions of board effectiveness in nonprofit organizations. The relationships between board chair leadership, board meeting practices, board group dynamics, and the perceived effectiveness of the board in several governance roles and responsibilities are investigated. The results show that interactions in the boardroom matter: they are generally positively associated with both board chairs’ and chief executives’ perceptions of board effectiveness. Based on these results, several practical implications are formulated for boards seeking to improve their effectiveness.
BaileyB. C.PeckS. I. (2013). Boardroom strategic-decision-making style: Understanding the antecedents. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 21, 131-146.
2.
BeckD. B. (2014). Learning to be, learning about: A socio-cultural learning approach to board practice. In CornforthC.BrownW. A. (Eds.), Nonprofit governance: Innovative perspectives and approaches (pp. 103-122). London, England: Routledge.
3.
BradshawP.MurrayV.WolpinJ. (1992). Do nonprofit boards make a difference? An exploration of the relationships among board structure, process, and effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 21, 227-249.
4.
BrownW. A. (2005). Exploring the association between board and organizational performance in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 15, 317-339.
5.
BrownW. A. (2007). Board development practices and competent board members: Implications for performance. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 17, 301-317.
6.
BrownW. A. (2014). Antecedents to board member engagement in deliberation and decision-making. In CornforthC.BrownW. A. (Eds.), Nonprofit governance: Innovative perspectives and approaches (pp. 84-100). London, England: Routledge.
7.
BrownW. A.GuoC. (2010). Exploring the key roles for nonprofit boards. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39, 536-546.
8.
BrownW. A.HillmanA. J.OkunM. A. (2012). Factors that influence monitoring and resource provision among board members. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41, 145-156.
9.
CallenJ. L.KleinA.TinkelmanD. (2010). The contextual impact of nonprofit board composition and structure on organizational performance: Agency and resource dependence perspectives. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 21, 101-125.
10.
CornforthC. (2001). What makes boards effective? An examination of the relationships between board inputs, structures, processes, and effectiveness in non-profit organisations. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 9, 217-227.
11.
CornforthC.BrownW. A. (2014). Nonprofit governance: Innovative perspectives and approaches. London, England: Routledge.
12.
DavisJ.SchoormanF.DonaldsonL. (1997). Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22, 20-47.
13.
EisenhardtK. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14, 57-74.
14.
FinkelsteinS.MooneyA. C. (2003). Not the usual suspects: How to use board process to make boards better?The Academy of Management Executive, 17, 101-113.
15.
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.
16.
GreenJ. C.GriesingerD. W. (1996). Board performance and organizational effectiveness in nonprofit social services organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 6, 381-402.
17.
HarrisonY. D.MurrayV.CornforthC. (2013). Perceptions of board chair leadership effectiveness in nonprofit and voluntary sector organizations. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 24, 688-712.
18.
HarrisonY. D.MurrayV.CornforthC. (2014). The role and impact of chairs of nonprofit boards. In CornforthC.BrownW. A. (Eds.), Nonprofit governance: Innovative perspectives and approaches (pp. 71-83). London, England: Routledge.
19.
HeJ.HuangZ. (2011). Board informal hierarchy and firm financial performance: Exploring a tacit structure guiding boardroom interactions. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 1119-1139.
20.
HermanR. D.RenzD. O. (1997). Multiple constituencies and the social construction of nonprofit organization effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 26, 185-206.
21.
HermanR. D.RenzD. O. (1998). Nonprofit organizational effectiveness: Contrasts between especially effective and less effective organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 9, 23-38.
22.
HermanR. D.RenzD. O. (1999). Theses on nonprofit organizational effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28, 107-126.
23.
HermanR. D.RenzD. O. (2004). Doing things right: Effectiveness in local nonprofit organizations, a panel study. Public Administration Review, 64, 694-704.
24.
HermanR. D.RenzD. O. (2008). Advancing nonprofit organizational effectiveness research and theory: Nine theses. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 18, 399-415.
25.
HermanR. D.RenzD. O.HeimovicsR. D. (1997). Board practices and board effectiveness in local nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 7, 373-385.
26.
HillmanA. J.DalzielT. (2003). Boards of directors and firm performance: Integrating agency and resource dependence theory perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 28, 383-396.
27.
HillmanA. J.WithersM. C.CollinsB. J. (2009). Resource dependence theory: A review. Journal of Management, 35, 1404-1427.
28.
KreutzerK.JacobsC. (2011). Balancing control and coaching in CSO governance: A paradox perspective on board behavior. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22, 613-638.
29.
O’BrienR. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & Quantity, 41, 673-690.
30.
OlsonD. E. (2000). Agency theory in the not-for-profit sector: Its role at independent colleges. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29, 280-296.
31.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ. Y.PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
32.
PuglieseA.NicholsonG.BezemerP. J. (2015). An observational analysis of the impact of board dynamics and directors’ participation on perceived board effectiveness. British Journal of Management, 26, 1-25.
33.
ReidW. (2014). Beneath the surface and around the table: Explaining group dynamics in boards. In CornforthC.BrownW. A. (Eds.), Nonprofit governance: Innovative perspectives and approaches (pp. 123-141). London, England: Routledge.
34.
Van PuyveldeS.CaersR.Du BoisC.JegersM. (2012). The governance of nonprofit organizations: Integrating agency theory with stakeholder and stewardship theories. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41, 431-451.
35.
Van PuyveldeS.CaersR.Du BoisC.JegersM. (2016). Managerial objectives and the governance of public and non-profit organizations. Public Management Review, 18, 221-237.
36.
WillemsJ. (2016). Building shared mental models of organizational effectiveness in leadership teams through team member exchange quality. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45, 568-592.
37.
WillemsJ.BoenigkS.JegersM. (2014). Seven trade-offs in measuring nonprofit performance and effectiveness. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25, 1648-1670.
38.
ZanderA. (1993). Making boards effective: The dynamics of nonprofit governing boards. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
