Boards of Directors and State-Owned Enterprises’ Innovation

  • Andrea Calabrò
Part of the Contributions to Management Science book series (MANAGEMENT SC.)


In the wake of the global financial crisis of 2008–2009, many industrialized States have increased their stakes in corporations (State-owned enterprises) worldwide. Therefore, the idea of governments as value-creating institution is increasing and questions concerning innovation are even more pressing. Indeed, there has been a great deal of both scholarly and professional interest in innovation believing that it is essential to public sector effectiveness. Theoretical insights from the innovation literature, agency and resource-based theories are done seeking to add knowledge on the relationships between governance mechanisms and State-owned enterprises’ innovation. The analysis is on a sample of 88 Norwegian State-owned enterprises mainly operating in the service sector. The results show that some characteristics of the board of directors (e.g., composition, board working-style and board members’ knowledge and competences) significantly influence innovation types. Implications for theory and practice and future research directions are discussed.


Corporate Governance Board Member Woman Director Organizational Innovation Board Size 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Abernathy, W., Clark, K., & Kantrow, A. (1983). Industrial renaissance. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  2. Albury, D. (2005). Fostering innovation in public services. Public Money & Management, 25(1), 51–56.Google Scholar
  3. Altschuler, A. A., & Behn, R. D. (1997). Innovation in American government: Challenges, opportunities, and dilemmas. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, N. R., & King, N. (1991). Managing innovation in organizations. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 12(1), 17–21.Google Scholar
  5. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.Google Scholar
  6. Barney, J. B. (2001). Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for strategic management research? Yes. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 41–56.Google Scholar
  7. Bauer, J. M. (2005). Regulation and State ownership: Conflicts and complementarities in EU telecommunications. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 76(2), 151–177.Google Scholar
  8. Baysinger, B. D., Kosnik, R. D., & Turk, T. A. (1991). Effects of board and ownership structure on corporate R&D strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 34(1), 205–214.Google Scholar
  9. Bilimoria, D. (2000). Building the business case for women corporate directors. In R. Burke & M. C. Mattis (Eds.), Women on corporate boards of directors. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Boardman, A. E., & Vining, A. R. (1989). Ownership and performance in competitive environments: A comparison of the performance of private, mixed and State-owned enterprises. Journal of Law and Economics, 32(1), 1–33.Google Scholar
  11. Boer, H., & During, W. E. (2001). Innovation, what innovation? A comparison between product, process, and organizational innovation. International Journal of Technology Management, 22(13), 83–107.Google Scholar
  12. Borins, S. (1998). Innovating with integrity: How local heroes are transforming American government. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Boyne, G. A., Gould-Williams, J. S., Law, J., & Walker, R. M. (2005). Explaining the adoption of innovation. an empirical analysis of Public Management reform. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 23(3), 419–436.Google Scholar
  14. Bozec, R., & Dia, M. (2007). Board structure and firm technical efficiency: Evidence from Canadian State-owned enterprises. European Journal of Operational Research, 177(3), 1734–1750.Google Scholar
  15. Bozeman, B. (2009). Public values theory: Three big questions. International Journal of Public Policy, 4(5), 369–375.Google Scholar
  16. Brunninge, O., Nordqvist, M., & Wiklund, J. (2007). Corporate governance and strategic change in SMEs: The effects of ownership, board composition and top management teams. Small Business Economics, 29(3), 295–308.Google Scholar
  17. Burns, D. (2007). Toward an explanatory model of innovative behaviour. Journal of Business Psychology, 21(4), 462–488.Google Scholar
  18. Caves, B. E., & Ghemawat, P. (1992). Identifying mobility barriers. Strategic Management Journal, 13(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
  19. Christensen, T. (2003). Narratives of Norwegian governance: Elaborating the strong State tradition. Public Administration, 81(1), 163–190.Google Scholar
  20. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2003). Coping with complex leadership roles: The problematic redefinition of Government-owned enterprises. Public Administration, 81(4), 803–831.Google Scholar
  21. Christensen, T., & Laegreid, P. (2005). Trust in Government: The relative importance of service satisfaction, political factors, and demography. Public Performance & Management Review, 28(4), 487–511.Google Scholar
  22. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2009). Public Management reform in Norway: Reluctance and tensions. In G. Shaun & W. Joe (Eds.), International handbook of Public Management reform. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  23. Considine, M. (2003). Governance and competition: The role of non-profit organisations in the delivery of public services. Australian Journal of Political Science, 38(1), 63–77.Google Scholar
  24. Conyon, M., & Peck, S. (1998). Board control, remuneration committees, and top management compensation. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 146–157.Google Scholar
  25. Cornforth, C. (2003). Introduction: The changing context of governance. Emerging issues and paradoxes. In C. Cornforth (Ed.), The governance of public and non-profit organisations: What do boards do? London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Daft, R. L. (1978). A dual-core model of organizational innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 21(2), 193–210.Google Scholar
  27. Dalton, D., Daily, C., Johnson, J., & Ellstrand, A. (1999). Number of directors and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 42(6), 674–684.Google Scholar
  28. Damanpour, F. (1987). The adoption of technological, administrative and ancillary innovations: Impact of organizational factors. Journal of Management, 13(4), 675–688.Google Scholar
  29. Damanpour, F., & Evan, W. M. (1984). Organizational innovation and performance: The problem of organizational lag. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(1), 392–402.Google Scholar
  30. Damanpour, F., Walker, R. M., & Avellaneda, C. N. (2009). Combinative effects of innovation types and organizational performance: A longitudinal study of service organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), 650–675.Google Scholar
  31. Downe, J., & Martin, S. (2007). Regulation inside government: Processes and impacts of inspection of local public services. Policy and Politic, 35(2), 215–232.Google Scholar
  32. Eagly, A. H. (2005). Achieving relational authenticity in leadership: Does gender matter? Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 459–474.Google Scholar
  33. Edquist, C., Hommen, L., & McKelvey, M. (2001). Innovation and employment: Process versus product innovation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. Erhardt, N. L., Werbel, J. D., & Schrader, C. B. (2003). Board of director diversity and firm financial performance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 11(2), 102–111.Google Scholar
  35. Ettlie, J. E., Bridges, W. P., & O’Keefe, R. D. (1984). Organization strategy and structural differences for radical versus incremental innovation. Management Science, 30(6), 682–695.Google Scholar
  36. Fama, E., & Jensen, M. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), 301–325.Google Scholar
  37. Forbes, D. P., & Milliken, F. J. (1999). Cognition and corporate governance: Understanding boards of directors as strategic decision-making groups. The Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 489–506.Google Scholar
  38. Gabrielsson, J., & Winlund, H. (2000). Boards of directors in small and medium sized industrial firms: Examining the effects of the board’s working style on board task performance. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 12(4), 311–330.Google Scholar
  39. Graves, S. B. (1988). Institutional ownership and corporate R&D in the computer industry. Academy of Management Journal, 31(1), 417–428.Google Scholar
  40. Hamel, G., & Getz, G. (2004). Funding growth in an age of austerity. Harvard Business Review, 82(7/8), 76–97.Google Scholar
  41. Hartley, J. (2005). Innovation in governance and public services: Past and present. Public Money and Management, 25(1), 27–34.Google Scholar
  42. Hartley, J., Donaldson, C., Skelcher, C., & Wallace, M. (2008). Managing to improve public services. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Hermalin, B., & Weisbach, M. (2003). Boards of directors as an endogenously-determined institution: A survey of the economic literature. Economic Policy Review, 9(1), 9–26.Google Scholar
  44. Hillman, A. J., Cannella, A. A., & Harris, I. C. (2002). Women and racial minorities in boardroom: How do directors differ? Journal of Management, 28(6), 747–763.Google Scholar
  45. Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., Johnson, R. A., & Moesel, D. D. (1996). The market for corporate control and firm innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1084–1119.Google Scholar
  46. Hodgkinson, G. P. (2003). The interface of cognitive and industrial, work and organizational psychology. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
  47. Hosking, D. M., & Anderson, N. R. (1992). Organizational change and innovation: Psychological perspectives and practices in Europe. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Hosking, D. M., & Morley, I. (1991). A social psychology of organizing. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  49. Hoskisson, R., Hitt, M. A., Johnson, R. A., & Grossman, W. (2002). Conflicting voices: The effects of institutional ownership heterogeneity and internal governance on corporate innovation strategies. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 697–716.Google Scholar
  50. Houston, D. J., & Delevan, S. M. (1990). Public Administration research: An assessment of journal publications. Public Administration Review, 50(6), 674–681.Google Scholar
  51. Huse, M. (2005). Accountability and creating accountability: A framework for exploring behavioural perspectives of corporate governance. British Journal of Management, 16(1), 65–79.Google Scholar
  52. Huse, M. (2007). Boards, governance and value creation: The human side of corporate governance. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Huse, M. (2009). The value creating board: Corporate governance and organizational behaviour. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Jackling, B., & Johl, S. (2009). Board structure and firm performance: Evidence from India’s top companies. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(49), 492–509.Google Scholar
  55. Janis, I. L. (1972). Groupthink. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  56. Jansen, J. J. P., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 1661–1174.Google Scholar
  57. Jensen, M. C. (1993). The modern industrial revolution, exit, and the failure of internal control systems. Journal of Finance, 48(3), 831–880.Google Scholar
  58. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behaviour, agency costs, and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–350.Google Scholar
  59. Kimberly, J. R., & Evanisko, M. (1981). Organizational innovation: The influence of individual, organizational, and contextual factors on hospital adoption of technological and administrative innovations. Academy of Management Journal, 24(4), 679–713.Google Scholar
  60. King, N. (1992). Modeling the innovation process: An empirical comparison of approaches. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65(1), 89–100.Google Scholar
  61. Koch, P., Cunningham, P., Schwabsky, N., & Hauknes, J. (2006). Innovation in the public sector, summary and policy recommendations. Oslo: NIFU STEP.Google Scholar
  62. Koch, P., & Hauknes, J. (2005). On innovation in the public sector. Oslo: NIFU STEP.Google Scholar
  63. La Porta, R., López-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (2002). Investor protection and corporate valuation. Journal of Finance, 57(3), 1147–1170.Google Scholar
  64. Light, P. C. (1998). Sustaining innovation: Creating nonprofit and government organizations that innovate naturally. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  65. Lipton, M., & Lorsh, J. (1992). A modest proposal for improved corporate governance. Business Lawyer, 48(2), 59–77.Google Scholar
  66. MacPherson, A. (1997). The role of producer services outsourcing in the innovation performance of New York State manufacturing firms. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 87(1), 52–71.Google Scholar
  67. McNulty, T., & Pettigrew, A. (1999). Strategists on the board. Studies, 20(1), 47–74.Google Scholar
  68. Miller, T., & Triana, M. C. (2009). Demographic diversity in the boardroom: Mediators of the board diversity-firm performance relationship. Journal of Management Studies, 46(5), 755–786.Google Scholar
  69. Milliken, F., & Vollrath, D. (1991). Strategic decision making tasks and group effectiveness: Insights from theory and research on small group performance. Human Relations, 44(12), 1–25.Google Scholar
  70. Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., & Theoret, A. (1976). The structure of “unstructured” decision processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(2), 246–275.Google Scholar
  71. Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Moore, M. H. (2005). Break-through innovations and continuous improvement: Two different models of innovative processes in the public sector. Public Money and Management, 25(1), 43–50.Google Scholar
  73. Moore, M., & Hartley, J. (2008). Innovations in governance. Public Management Review, 10(1), 3–20.Google Scholar
  74. Moran, M. (2003). The British regulatory State: High modernism and hyper-innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Mulgan, G., & Albury, D. (2003). Innovation in the public sector. London: Cabinet Office, Strategic Unit, Working Paper.Google Scholar
  76. Musacchio, A., & Flores-Macias, F. (2009). The return of State-owned enterprises: Should we be afraid? Online Edition. Harvard International Review. Google Scholar
  77. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Nordqvist, M., & Minichilli, A. (2009). What makes boards in small firms active? In M. Huse (Ed.), The value creating board. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  79. OECD. (2003). Regulatory reform in Norway. OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  80. OECD. (2005). Guidelines on corporate governance of State-owned enterprises. OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  81. OECD. (2010). Corporate governance, accountability and transparency: A guide for State ownership. OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  82. Osborne, S. P. (1998). The innovative capacity of voluntary organisations: Managerial challenges for Local government. Local Government Studies, 24(1), 19–40.Google Scholar
  83. Osborne, S. P., & Brown, K. (2005). Managing change and innovation in public service organizations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  84. Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79–91.Google Scholar
  85. Rasmussen, J., & Huse, M. (2011). Corporate governance in Norway: Women and employee-elected board member. In C. Mallin (Ed.), Handbook on international corporate governance: Country analysis. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  86. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  87. Roland, K., Norman, V., & Reve, T. (2001). Rikdommens problem. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  88. Salomon, R., & Shaver, J. M. (2005). Learning by exporting: New insights from examining firm innovation. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 14(2), 431–460.Google Scholar
  89. Schilling, M. A. (2005). Gestione dell'innovazione. Milano: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  90. Selby, C. C. (2000). From male locker room to co-ed board room: A twenty-five year perspective. In R. J. Burke & M. C. Mattis (Eds.), Women on corporate boards of directors: International challenges and opportunities. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  91. Shyu, J. Z., Chiu, Y. C., & Yuo, C. C. (2001). A cross-national comparative analysis of innovation policy in the integrated circuit industry. Technology in Society, 23(2), 227–240.Google Scholar
  92. Singh, V., Terjesen, S., & Vinnicombe, S. (2008). Newly appointed directors in the boardroom: How do women and men differ? European Management Journal, 26(1), 48–58.Google Scholar
  93. Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. (2007). Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: Looking inside the black box. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 273–292.Google Scholar
  94. Stiles, P., & Taylor, B. (2001). Boards at work: How directors view their roles and responsibilities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  95. Teece, D., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.Google Scholar
  96. Torchia, M., Calabrò, A., & Huse, M., (2011). Women directors on corporate boards: From tokenism to critical mass. Journal of Business Ethics. Published online 25 February.Google Scholar
  97. Walker, R. M. (2003). Evidence on the management of public services innovation. Public Money and Management, 23(2), 93–102.Google Scholar
  98. Walker, R. M. (2006). Innovation type and diffusion: An empirical analysis of local government. Public Administration, 84(2), 311–335.Google Scholar
  99. Walker, R. M. (2008). An empirical evaluation of innovation types and organizational and environmental characteristics: Towards a configuration framework. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 591–615.Google Scholar
  100. Walker, R. M., Jeanes, E., & Rowlands, R. (2002). Measuring innovation: Applying the literature-based innovation output indicator to public services. Public Administration, 80(1), 201–214.Google Scholar
  101. Watson, W. E., Kumar, K., & Michaelson, L. K. (1993). Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 590–602.Google Scholar
  102. Yapp, C. (2005). Innovation, futures thinking and leadership. Public Money & Management, 25(1), 57–60.Google Scholar
  103. Yermack, D. (1996). Higher market valuation of companies with a smaller board of directors. Journal of Financial Economics, 40(2), 185–211.Google Scholar
  104. Zahra, S. A. (1996). Governance, ownership, and corporate entrepreneurship: The moderating impact of industry. Academy of Management Journal, 39(17), 13–35.Google Scholar
  105. Zahra, S. A., & Garvis, D. M. (2000). International corporate entrepreneurship and firm performance: The moderating effect of international environmental hostility. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5–6), 469–492.Google Scholar
  106. Zahra, S. A., & Pearce, J. A. (1989). Board of directors and corporate financial performance. Journal of Management, 15(2), 291–334.Google Scholar
  107. Zona, F., Minichilli, A., & Zattoni, A. (2009). Board of directors and firm innovation: An empirical study of small technology-based firms. In M. Huse (Ed.), The value creating board. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business StudiesUniversity of Rome “Tor Vergata”RomeItaly

Personalised recommendations