The validity of measuring director and board performance: continuum or categorisation? Online publication date: Sun, 01-Jul-2007
by Susan P. Jauncey, David N. Moseley-Greatwich
International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics (IJBGE), Vol. 3, No. 3, 2007
Abstract: This paper investigated the effects, ramifications and limitations of categorising and labelling Directors and Boards when measuring or evaluating performance. According to Weiner (1982) labelling can have a profound impact on a person's life, leading to stigmas, reputation bias, prejudice or discrimination which can adversely impact Director and Board performance. Labelling Directors' behavioural traits can lead to the exaggeration of behaviours and lead fellow Directors or shareholders to have preconceived expectations about Directors. This study hypothesised that measurement of Directors and Boards should be measured on a continuum and remain fluid. Fluid measurement takes into account all aspects of a Directors behaviour, circumstances and situational impacts, without categorisation or judgement. Results suggest Directors feel more confident in their ability to perform as Directors and evidence a greater state of preparedness and readiness for change. Findings are discussed in terms of the impacts for Directors, decision-making ability and Board performance.
Online publication date: Sun, 01-Jul-2007
If you are not a subscriber and you just want to read the full contents of this article, buy online access here.Complimentary Subscribers, Editors or Members of the Editorial Board of the International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics (IJBGE):
Login with your Inderscience username and password:
Want to subscribe?
A subscription gives you complete access to all articles in the current issue, as well as to all articles in the previous three years (where applicable). See our Orders page to subscribe.
If you still need assistance, please email firstname.lastname@example.org