Board Composition and Stakeholder Performance: Do Stakeholder Directors Make a Difference?

Business & Society

Volumn 40, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 295-314

  Hillman, Amy J ^a   Keim, Gerald D ^b   Luce, Rebecca A ^c  

^a TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84997880669     PISSN: 00076503     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/000765030104000304     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Atkinson, A., Waterhouse, J., & Wells, R. (1997, Spring). A stakeholder approach to strategic performance measurement. Sloan Management Review, pp. 25-37.
2. Baysinger, B., & Butler, H. (1985). Corporate governance and the board of directors: Perfomance effects of changes in board composition. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 1, 101-124.
3. Berle, A., & Means, G. (1932). The modern corporation and private property. New York: Macmillan.
4. The best and worst corporate boards. (1997, December 8). Business Week, pp. 90-104.
5. Boyd, B. (1990). Corporate linkages and organizational environment: A test of the resource dependence model. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 419-430.
6. Browder, D. (1995). Shareholders are valuing diversity. Directors and Boards, 19, 12-17.
7. Bryan, J. (1995). Allegiance to a diverse board. Directors & Boards, 19, 6-10.
8. Chakravarthy, B. (1986). Measuring strategic performance. Strategic Management Journal, 7, 437-458.
9. Clarkson, M. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20, 92-117.
10. Cyert, R., & March, J. (1963). The behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
11. Daily, C., & Schwenk, C. (1996). Chief executive officers, top management teams, and boards of directors: Congruent or countervailing forces? Journal of Management, 22, 185-208.
12. Dalton, D., Daily, C., Ellstrand, A., & Johnson, J. (1998). Meta-analytic reviews of board composition, leadership structure, and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 269-290.
13. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20, 65-91.
14. Freeman, E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.
15. Freeman, E. (1999). Divergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24, 233-236.
16. Gales, L., & Kesner, I. (1994). An analysis of board of director size and composition in bankrupt organizations. Journal of Business Research, 30, 271-282.
17. Goodstein, J., & Boeker, W. (1991). Turbulence at the top: A new perspective on governance structure changes and strategic change. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 306-330.
18. Graves, S., & Waddock, S. (1994). Institutional investors and corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1035-1046.
19. Harrison, J., & St. John, C. (1996). Managing and partnering with external stakeholders. Academy of Management Executive, 10, 46-60.
20. Hill, C., & Snell, S. (1988). External control, corporate strategy, and firm performance in research-intensive industries. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 577-590.
21. Hillman, A., Cannella, A., & Paetzold, R. (2000). The resource dependence role of corporate directors: Strategic adaptation of board composition in response to environmental change. Journal of Management Studies, 37, 235-256.
22. Hillman, A., & Keim, G. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What's the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22, 125-139.
23. Jensen, M., & Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305-360.
24. Johnson, J., Daily, C., & Ellstrand, A. (1996). Boards of directors: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 22, 409-438.
25. Johnson, R., & Greening, D. (1999). The effects of corporate governance and institutional ownership types on corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 564-580.
26. Jones, T. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20, 404-437.
27. Jones, T. M., & Wicks, A. C. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24, 206-221.
28. Judge, W., & Zeithaml, C. (1992). Institutional and strategic choice perspectives on board involvement in the strategic decision process. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 766-794.
29. Kesner, I. (1988). Director's characteristics and committee membership: An investigation of type, occupation, tenure, and gender. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 499-508.
30. Kosnik, R. (1990). The effects of board demography and directors’ incentives on corporate greenmail decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 129-150.
31. Lorsch, J., & MacIver, E. (1989). Pawns or potentates: The reality of America's corporate boards. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
32. Lublin, J. (1997, February 18). Competition for minority directors heats up. Wall Street Journal, pp. B1-B1, B10-B10.
33. Luoma, P., & Goodstein, J. (1999). Stakeholders and corporate boards: Institutional influences on board composition and structure. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 553-563.
34. Mace, M. (1971). Directors: Myth and reality. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
35. Mitchell, R., Agle, B., & Wood, D. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22, 853-886.
36. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
37. Schendel, D., & Hofer, C. (1979). Strategic management: A new view of business policy and planning. Boston: Little, Brown.
38. Sharfman, M. (1996). The construct validity of the Kinder, Lydenberg, & Domini social performance ratings data. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 287-296.
39. Treviño, L., & Weaver, G. (1999). The stakeholder research tradition: Converging theorists—not convergent theory. Academy of Management Review, 24, 222-227.
40. Ullman, A. (1985). Data in search of a theory: A critical examination of the relationships among social performance, social disclosure, and economic performance of US firms. Academy of Management Review, 10, 540-557.
41. Venkatraman, N., & Ramanujam, V. (1986). Measurement of business performance in strategy research: A comparison of approaches. Academy of Management Review, 11, 801-814.
42. Waddock, S., & Graves, S. (1997a). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 303-319.
43. Waddock, S., & Graves, S. (1997b). Quality of management and quality of stakeholder relations. Business & Society, 36, 250-279.
44. Westphal, J., & Zajac, E. (1997). Defections from the inner circle: Social exchange, reciprocity, and the diffusion of board independence on U.S. corporations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 161-183.
45. Williamson, O. (1984). Corporate governance. Yale Law Journal, 93, 1197-1229.
46. Wood, D. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16, 691-718.
47. Wiley, F. (1995). A source of vital relationships. Directors & Boards, 19, 28-30.
48. Zahra, S., & Pearce, J. (1989). Boards of directors and corporate financial performance: A review and integrative model. Journal of Management, 15, 291-344.
49. Zahra, S., & Stanton, W. (1988). The implications of board of directors’ composition for corporate strategy and performance. International Journal of Management, 5, 229-237.
50. Zald, M. (1969). The power and functions of boards of directors: A theoretical synthesis. American Journal of Sociology, 75, 97-111.