Boardroom Dissent: An Integrative Review and Future Research Agenda

IF 4.6 3区管理学 Q1 BUSINESS

Corporate Governance-An International Review Pub Date : 2024-07-30 DOI:10.1111/corg.12607

Aira Eirola, Pieter‐Jan Bezemer, Stephan Reinhold

{"title":"Boardroom Dissent: An Integrative Review and Future Research Agenda","authors":"Aira Eirola, Pieter‐Jan Bezemer, Stephan Reinhold","doi":"10.1111/corg.12607","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research Question/IssueScholars and practitioners view boardroom dissent as central to the functioning of boards of directors. However, there is a lack of consensus on what dissent is, who is involved, when and where it happens, and whether it is a behavioral or cognitive phenomenon. This conceptual unclarity and related fragmentation of empirical results call for an integrative literature review to build a coherent agenda for future research.Research Findings/ResultsA content‐analysis of 73 articles published between 1997 and 2023 reveals three distinct research clusters that explore the empirical phenomenon: (1) dissent as expressed through voting, (2) dissent as diverging views, and (3) dissent as behavior in and around the boardroom. Three overarching challenges hamper the advancement of the field: (1) conceptual inconsistencies, (2) several methodological challenges, and (3) a need for further theorizing connected to boardroom dissent.Theoretical ImplicationsWe propose a novel working definition for boardroom dissent to inspire new work related to its constituent parts and to facilitate advancing its measurement. In combination with alternative methods, it stands to advance the boardroom dissent literature. Furthermore, there is a need for future research to integrate competing explanations theorizing how boardroom dissent relates to outcomes at different levels and to examine how boundary conditions constrain these relationships.Practitioner/Policy ImplicationsThe article provides new nuances to reflect on boardroom dissent and related behaviors. The review highlights that there is no one‐size‐fits‐all approach automatically resulting in positive outcomes.","PeriodicalId":48209,"journal":{"name":"Corporate Governance-An International Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Corporate Governance-An International Review","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12607","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Research Question/IssueScholars and practitioners view boardroom dissent as central to the functioning of boards of directors. However, there is a lack of consensus on what dissent is, who is involved, when and where it happens, and whether it is a behavioral or cognitive phenomenon. This conceptual unclarity and related fragmentation of empirical results call for an integrative literature review to build a coherent agenda for future research.Research Findings/ResultsA content‐analysis of 73 articles published between 1997 and 2023 reveals three distinct research clusters that explore the empirical phenomenon: (1) dissent as expressed through voting, (2) dissent as diverging views, and (3) dissent as behavior in and around the boardroom. Three overarching challenges hamper the advancement of the field: (1) conceptual inconsistencies, (2) several methodological challenges, and (3) a need for further theorizing connected to boardroom dissent.Theoretical ImplicationsWe propose a novel working definition for boardroom dissent to inspire new work related to its constituent parts and to facilitate advancing its measurement. In combination with alternative methods, it stands to advance the boardroom dissent literature. Furthermore, there is a need for future research to integrate competing explanations theorizing how boardroom dissent relates to outcomes at different levels and to examine how boundary conditions constrain these relationships.Practitioner/Policy ImplicationsThe article provides new nuances to reflect on boardroom dissent and related behaviors. The review highlights that there is no one‐size‐fits‐all approach automatically resulting in positive outcomes.

查看原文本刊更多论文

董事会议室的异议：综合评论与未来研究议程

研究问题/议题学者和从业人员认为，董事会异议是董事会运作的核心。然而，对于什么是异议、谁参与了异议、异议发生的时间和地点以及异议是一种行为现象还是认知现象等问题却缺乏共识。对 1997 年至 2023 年间发表的 73 篇文章进行的内容分析显示，有三个不同的研究集群探讨了这一经验现象：（1）通过投票表达的异议；（2）作为不同意见的异议；以及（3）作为董事会内外行为的异议。三大挑战阻碍了这一领域的发展：（1）概念上的不一致，（2）方法上的若干挑战，以及（3）需要进一步理论化董事会异议。结合其他方法，它将推动董事会异议文献的发展。此外，未来的研究还需要整合各种相互竞争的解释，从理论上说明会议室异议与不同层面的结果之间的关系，并研究边界条件是如何制约这些关系的。评论强调，没有一种放之四海而皆准的方法能自动产生积极的结果。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Corporate Governance-An International Review Multiple-

CiteScore

7.00

自引率

11.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： The mission of Corporate Governance: An International Review is to publish cutting-edge international business research on the phenomena of comparative corporate governance throughout the global economy. Our ultimate goal is a rigorous and relevant global theory of corporate governance. We define corporate governance broadly as the exercise of power over corporate entities so as to increase the value provided to the organization"s various stakeholders, as well as making those stakeholders accountable for acting responsibly with regard to the protection, generation, and distribution of wealth invested in the firm. Because of this broad conceptualization, a wide variety of academic disciplines can contribute to our understanding.