Studying Board Context, Process and Dynamics: Some Challenges for the Future
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2005.00445.x |
| Date | 01 March 2005 |
| Published date | 01 March 2005 |
| Author | Annie Pye,Andrew Pettigrew |
Studying Board Context, Process and
Dynamics: Some Challenges for the Future
Annie Pye and Andrew Pettigrew
School of Management, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK
Corresponding author email: a.j.pye@bath.ac.uk
This paper contributes to the timely debate on research into boards and their
effectiveness by focusing on context, process and time, which are crucial to
understanding board dynamics. It also explores key principles of board process
research, and advocates the need to strengthen its theoretical and methodological
foundations in order to challenge the analytically particular assumptions of agency
theory. The paper concludes that there is still much more to be researched in this area
and encourages work that explores variation in board process and director effectiveness
in different organizational contexts, as well as seeking to go beyond the board to
address their impact and effectiveness in the broader organizational and external
context.
Introduction
We are delighted to be invited to contribute a
commentary on the paper by Roberts, McNulty
and Stiles that forms the focus of this Special
Issue. They describe an interesting piece of work
on an important and topical issue, which was part
of the Higgs Review of the role and effectiveness
of non-executive directors (NEDs) which, in turn,
has sparked lively debate in the UK about boards
and board effectiveness. Both of us have con-
ducted board process research (separately) for
more than two decades (Mangham and Pye, 1991;
McNulty and Pettigrew, 1999; Pettigrew, 1992;
Pettigrew and McNulty, 1995; Pye, 1995, 2002b)
and have seen interest and research in this field
flourish in recent years. So we welcome the
opportunity this Special Issue also gives us to
bring our ideas and interests together in a joint
commentary on the Roberts, McNulty and Stiles
research. Many of the issues raised by their paper
are also reflected in other board process research,
so our commentary will go wider, concluding with
an agenda for future research.
As our title indicates, our key focus is around
context and our desire to understand how
variations in context reveal differences in the
dynamic interplay of practices, processes and
performance over time amongst this unique cadre
of people. The work of Roberts, McNulty and
Stiles offers a helpful contribution to this area
and reminds us of the need for more empirical
work to be done that goes beyond current
universal truths about directors and boards. So
we draw attention to an array of contingency
factors that have influence on board conduct and
encourage mapping studies that might help us to
differentiate our understanding of processes and
performance: for example, comparative work
between, say, practices in different-sized organi-
zations, or at different life-cycle stages, or with
different ownership patterns, or different regula-
tory environments (Bonn and Pettigrew, unpub-
lished; Pye and Camm, 2003b;).
Another important theme underpinning our
commentary is about developing greater analytic
rigour to process studies. High-quality process
research has quality standards that are just as
demanding as those of any other research
approach, if not more so, given the mercurial
qualities of meaning in social context. A key
challenge here is the recurrent problem of levels
British Journal of Management, Vol. 16, S27–S38 (2005)
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2005.00445.x
r2005 British Academy of Management
To continue reading
Request your trial