Leader character in board governance
Despite the critical leadership role that corporate boards play in organizations, the character of their members has been neglected in research studies. We used a multi-method data collection approach to explore whether current directors in the public, private, and not-for-profit sectors believe that leader character plays an important role in board governance, particularly with regards to how boards make decisions, recruit new members, lead their organizations, and work together to perform their fiduciary and other responsibilities. Despite the perceived importance of leader character as reported by highly experienced corporate directors, we found that leader character is not commonly attended to in board conversations as a means to purposively improve the way boards operate. We outline practical implications of our findings as well as offer a call to action for future research on character in the context of board governance with the intent to improve governance in the public, private, and not-for-profit sectors and hence to foster sustained excellence in organizations.
KeywordsLeadership Character Boards Board effectiveness Board governance
This study was funded by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (File: 435-2013-1889) awarded to the first, third and fourth authors.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: WH Freedman.Google Scholar
- Bednar, M. K., & Westphal, J. D. (2006). Surveying the corporate elite: Theoretical and practical guidance on improving response rates and response quality in top management survey questionnaires. In D. Ketchen & D. Bergh (Eds.), Research methodology in strategy and management (Vol. 3, pp. 37–56). Bingley: JAI Press.Google Scholar
- Bennis, W. G., & Goldsmith, J. (2003). Learning to lead: A workbook on becoming a leader. Philadelphia, PA: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Cameron, K., Bright, D., & Caza, A. (2004). Exploring the relationships between organizational virtuousness and performance. American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 1–24.Google Scholar
- Crossan, M., Seijts, G., & Gandz, J. (2016). Developing leadership character. New York, NY: Routledge Publishing.Google Scholar
- Deetz, S. A., Tracy, S. J., & Simpson, J. L. (2000). Leading organizations through transition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Finkelstein, S., & D’Aveni, R. A. (1994). CEO duality as a double-edged sword: How boards of directors balance entrenchment avoidance and unity of command. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1079–1108.Google Scholar
- Finkelstein, S., Hambrick, D. C., & Cannella, A. A. (2009). Strategic leadership: Theory and research on executives, top management teams, and boards. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Furlong, W., Crossan, M., Gandz, J., & Crossan, L. (2017). Character’s essential role in addressing misconduct in financial institutions. Business Law International, 18, 199–223.Google Scholar
- Gandz, J., Crossan, M., Seijts, G., & Stephenson, C. (2010). Leadership on trial: A manifesto for leadership development. London, ON: The Richard Ivey School of Business.Google Scholar
- Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Oxford: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
- Judge, W. Q., Jr., & Zeithaml, C. P. (1992). Institutional and strategic choice perspectives on board involvement in the strategic decision process. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 766–794.Google Scholar
- Kiel, F. (2015). Return on character: The real reason leaders and their companies win. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.Google Scholar
- Kotter, J. P., & Heskett, J. L. (2011). Corporate culture and performance. New York, NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar
- Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- Lorsch, J. W., & MacIver, E. (1989). Pawns or potentates: The reality of America’s corporate boards. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
- Monks, R. A. G., & Minow, N. (1995). Corporate governance. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Mumford, M. D., Barrett, J. D., & Hester, K. S. (2012). Background data: Use of experiential knowledge in personnel selection. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of personnel assessment and selection (pp. 353–382). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Nadler, D. A. (2004). Building better boards. Harvard Business Review, 82, 102–105.Google Scholar
- Nadler, D. A., Behan, B. A., & Nadler, M. B. (2006). Building better boards: A blueprint for effective governance. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (2011). The wise leader. Harvard Business Review, 89, 58–67.Google Scholar
- O’Connor, M. A. (2002). The Enron board: The perils of groupthink. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 71, 1233–1320.Google Scholar
- Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Pinto, J. A. (2016). An examination of the evolution of governance. Banking & Finance Law Review, 31, 325–348.Google Scholar
- PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2016). Annual corporate directors survey. https://www.pwc.com/us/en/corporate-governance/annual-corporate-directors-survey.html. Accessed November 5, 2017.
- Remler, D. K., & Van Ryzin, G. G. (2011). Research methods in practice: Strategies for description and causation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
- Salgado, J. F., Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2001). Predictors used for personnel selection: An overview of constructs. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology (pp. 165–199). Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
- Seijts, G., Latham, G. P., Tasa, K., & Latham, B. W. (2004). Goal setting and goal orientation: An integration of two different yet related literatures. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 227–239.Google Scholar
- Sharfman, B. S., & Toll, S. J. (2008). Dysfunctional deference and board composition: Lessons from Enron. Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, 103, 153–162.Google Scholar
- Van de Ven, A. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. New York, NY: Random House.Google Scholar