Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Strategische Board Dimension

Keep it strategic

  • Chapter
Integrierte Corporate Governance

  • 629 Accesses

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Vgl. Macus (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Macus (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Beiner/ Schmid/ Zimmermann in Noetzli (2004:24).

    Google Scholar 

  4. George (2002:22f) „... it’s hard to imagine that the failures at Enron, Swissair, Kmart, and other companies would have happened if they’d had robust governance systems in place.“

    Google Scholar 

  5. „The most common statement I heard from directors and executives about the Fortune 500 companies was ‚Oh the board of directors, that’s 10 friends of the chief executive, a woman and a black!‘“ Garratt (2003:xxi); ferner Macus in Noetzli (2004:51): „Studien haben gezeigt, dass formal unabhängige Verwaltungsratsmitglieder die dem CFO in soziodemographischen Charakteristiken (Alter, Ausbildung, Herkunft) gleichen, dazu tendieren, ihre Kontrollaufgabe weniger genau wahrzunehmen.“

    Google Scholar 

  6. Senge (1990:9).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Vgl. Fields/ Keys (2003:13): „A key factor in diversity’s successful impact on firm performance is the value found in the heterogeneity of ideas, experiences, and innovations that diverse individuals bring to the firm.“

    Google Scholar 

  8. Vgl. Cox (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Maier (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Macus (2002:11).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hilb/ Müller/ Wehrle (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Magerison/ McCann (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Henley (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Mayer (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Staffelbach in Noetzli (2004:47) „Das Team wird zu einer Gruppe von starken Persönlichkeiten, die sich in einer bestimmten Rhythmik zu Sitzungen treffen. Ein Mangel an gemeinsamen Auffassungen führt zu Integrationsverlusten. Individuelle Spezialisierungen steigern den Koordinationsaufwand. Folglich erhöht sich der Zeitbedarf für die Entscheidungsfindung.“

    Google Scholar 

  16. Macus (2002:12ff).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Jent (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Jent (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Heidrick & Struggles (2005:14).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Martin (2004:1) In Schweden soll dieses Jahr ein Gesetz beschlossen werden, dass der Frauenanteil in Boards mindestens 25% betragen soll; in der Schweiz liegt eine parlamentarische Initiative vor, in Bundesbehörden die Frauenquote in den Verwaltungsräten auf mindestens 30% festzulegen.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Martin (2004:1).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Rosener (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Vgl. Ackermann in Noetzli (2004:14).

    Google Scholar 

  24. „... The Report of the NACD Blue Ribbon Commission on Director Professionalism (NACD, 1998)... recommends that a substantial majority of the board should be independent and that serious consideration be given to board candidates with diverse backgrounds because of the unique experiences and perspectives that they offer. Candidates provide diverse contributions as a result of gender, ethic background, geographic origin, or professional experience gained in the public, private or for profit sectors.“ Fields/ Keys (2003:2).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Der Chairman muss dabei u. A. über die Fähigkeit verfügen, mögliche multikulturelle Konflikte zu erkennen und gezielt zu vermeiden bzw. zu lösen. Vgl. hierzu die Empfehlungen von Appelbaum/ Elbaz (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Westphal (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Carter/ Lorsch (2004:127).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ward (2003:21).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Vgl. Müller (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Carter/ Lorsch (2004:146).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Vgl. Müller (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ward (2003:24).

    Google Scholar 

  33. „Following the collapse of such one great companies as... Enron, Tyco, and WorldCom, much attention turned to the companies’ boards. Yet a close examination of these boards has revealed no broad pattern of incompetence or corruption. In fact, the boards followed most of the accepted standards for board operations... However, what distinguishes exemplary boards isn’t just following key structural tactics, but rather creating robust, effective social systems. The key to generating such a team includes creating a climate of trust and candour, fostering a culture of open dissent, utilizing a fluid portfolio of roles...“. Sonnenfeld, (2002:106).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Pirson (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Finkelstein/ Mooney (2003:101); vgl. ferner die „Checklist for Effective Board Processes“ im gleichen Beitrag.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Vgl. Macus (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Vgl. Healy (2003:154): „The board’s large size... increased the inside-the-boardroom free-rider problem. (‚Why prepare, if I’m a small player inside the boardroom?‘)“. Vgl. ferner Fidds/Keys (2003:16): „He finds that investors place a higher value on earnings for companies with a small board.“ Vorbildlich sind diesbezüglich australische und neuseeländische Firmen, die durchschnittlich eine Boardgröße von 7 Mitgliedern aufweisen. (Healey 2003:154).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Malik (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Vgl. PA-Ansatz (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Rindova (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Keller (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Vgl. Westphal/ Frederickson (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Wunderer (1995), vgl. ferner Westphal/Fredrickson (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Beatty (2003:18).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Guy (1999) und Chini (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Vgl. Abdell (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Vgl. Malik (1998); ferner Beatty (2003:18). Neben der alljährlichen Durchführung eines Board-Strategie-Workshops wird empfohlen to „... review at every board meeting recent developments (if any) that may impact growth strategy“.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Vgl. hierzu die einseitig shareholderorientierte Aussage von Sir Brian Pitman zitiert in Garratt (2003:xxv).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

(2006). Strategische Board Dimension. In: Integrierte Corporate Governance. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-32744-4_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-32744-4_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-32741-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-32744-8

  • eBook Packages: Business and Economics (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation