Explaining Corporate Governance Using Contingency Theory: A Direction for Future Research

Document Type : Review Paper

Authors

1 accounting, Literature and Humanities, ilam university, ilam, iran

2 Faculty member of TMU

3 Department of Accounting, Modares University, Iran, Tehran

Abstract

Over the years, corporate governance research has been working to develop a model that is compatible for all companies and for various purposes. The focus of these research was minimizing agency conflict between owners and managers. One important characteristic of the traditional agency literature is to search for universal relationships between corporate governance and outcomes based on a “closed systems” logic centered on agency costs. In recent decades, many researchers have focused on the need to provide a view of corporate governance by arguing that agency theory less addresses the context of an organizational environment. The present paper, with descriptive and analytic approach, has explained corporate governance through contingency theory. In this regard, in first step, it explains agency theory and its criticisms and then presents the theoretical foundations of contingency theory and corporate governance literature using this theory. In the end, it will also provide suggestions on the direction of future research in this area.

Keywords

References

Aguilera, R. V. , & Jackson, G. (2003). The cross-national diversity of corporate governance: Dimensions and determinants. Academy of management Review, 28 (3) , 447-465.
Aguilera, R. V. , Filatotchev, I. , Gospel, H. , & Jackson, G. (2008). An organizational approach to comparative corporate governance: Costs, contingencies, and complementarities. Organization science, 19 (3) , 475-492.
Ahmadjian, C. L. , & Robbins, G. E. (2005). A clash of capitalisms: Foreign shareholders and corporate restructuring in 1990s Japan. American Sociological Review, 70 (3) , 451-471.
Aoki, M. , OAKI, M. A. , Greif, A. , & Milgrom, P. (2001). Toward a comparative institutional analysis. MIT press.
Baysinger, B. , & Hoskisson, R. E. (1990). The composition of boards of directors and strategic control: Effects on corporate strategy. Academy of Management review, 15 (1) , 72-87.
Baysinger, B. D. , & Butler, H. N. (1985). Corporate governance and the board of directors: Performance effects of changes in board composition. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 1 (1) , 101-124.
Berle, A. A. , & Means, G. G. C. (1991). The modern corporation and private property. Transaction publishers.
Berson, Y. , Shamir, B. , Avolio, B. J. , & Popper, M. (2001). The relationship between vision strength, leadership style, and context. The Leadership Quarterly, 12 (1) , 53-73.
Boyd, B. K. (1995). CEO duality and firm performance: A contingency model. Strategic management journal, 16 (4) , 301-312.
Brown, W. A. (2000). Organizational effectiveness in nonprofit human service organizations: The influence of the board of directors (Doctoral dissertation, Claremont Graduate University).
Brudney, J. L. , & Murray, V. (1998). Do intentional efforts to improve boards really work? The views of nonprofit CEOs. Nonprofit management and leadership, 8 (4) , 333-348.
Chelliah, J. , Boersma, M. , & Klettner, A. (2016). Governance challenges for not-for-profit organisations: empirical evidence in support of a contingency approach. Contemporary Management Research: an international journal.
Chenhall, R. H. (2006). The contingent design of performance measures. Contemporary issues in management accounting, 1 (9) , 92-117.
Cornforth, C. (2003). Introduction: the changing context of governance-emerging issues and paradoxes.
Crouch, C. (2005). Capitalist diversity and change: Recombinant governance and institutional entrepreneurs. OUP Oxford.
Daily, C. M. , & Schwenk, C. (1996). Chief executive officers, top management teams, and boards of directors: Congruent or countervailing forces?. Journal of Management, 22 (2) , 185-208.
Daily, C. M. , Dalton, D. R. , & Rajagopalan, N. (2003). Governance through ownership: Centuries of practice, decades of research. Academy of Management Journal, 46 (2) , 151-158.
Davila, T. (2005). An exploratory study on the emergence of management control systems: formalizing human resources in small growing firms. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30 (3) , 223-248.
Davis, G. F. , & Marquis, C. (2005). Prospects for organization theory in the early twenty-first century: Institutional fields and mechanisms. Organization science, 16 (4) , 332-343.
Demsetz, H. , & Lehn, K. (1985). The structure of corporate ownership: Causes and consequences. Journal of political economy, 93 (6) , 1155-1177.
Donaldson, L. (2001). The contingency theory of organizations. Sage.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of management review, 14 (1) , 57-74.
Fama, E. F. (1980). Agency problems and the theory of the firm. Journal of political economy, 88 (2) , 288-307.
Fama, E. F. , & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. The journal of law and Economics, 26 (2) , 301-325.
Filatotchev, I. , & Toms, S. (2003). Corporate governance, strategy and survival in a declining industry: A study of UK cotton textile companies. Journal of Management Studies, 40 (4) , 895-920.
Filatotchev, I. , Toms, S. , & Wright, M. (2006). The firm's strategic dynamics and corporate governance life‐cycle. International Journal of Managerial Finance.
Fiss, P. C. , & Zajac, E. J. (2004). The diffusion of ideas over contested terrain: The (non) adoption of a shareholder value orientation among German firms. Administrative science quarterly, 49 (4) , 501-534.
Ghofar, A. , & Islam, S. (2015). Corporate governance and contingency theory. Suiza: Springer International Publishing.
Gospel, H. F. , & Pendleton, A. (Eds.). (2005). Corporate governance and labour management: An international comparison. Oxford University Press on Demand.
Heracleous, L. (2001). What is the impact of corporate governance on organisational performance?. Corporate governance: an international review, 9 (3) , 165-173.
Hermalin, B. E. , & Weisbach, M. S. (2001). Boards of directors as an endogenously determined institution: A survey of the economic literature (No. w8161). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Hoque, Z. , & James, W. (2000). Linking balanced scorecard measures to size and market factors: impact on organizational performance. Journal of management accounting research, 12 (1) , 1-17.
Jensen, M. C. (1993). The modern industrial revolution, exit, and the failure of internal control systems. the Journal of Finance, 48 (3) , 831-880.
Jensen, M. C. , & Meckling, W. H. (1979). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure. In Economics social institutions (pp. 163-231). Springer, Dordrecht.
Jensen, M. C. , & Murphy, K. J. (1990). Performance pay and top-management incentives. Journal of political economy, 98 (2) , 225-264.
Johnson, R. B. (1997). The board of directors over time: Composition and the organizational life cycle. International Journal of Management, 14, 339-344.
Kogut, B. , & Ragin, C. (2006). Exploring complexity when diversity is limited: Institutional complementarity in theories of rule of law and national systems revisited. European Management Review, 3 (1) , 44-59.
Kosnik, R. D. (1987). Greenmail: A study of board performance in corporate governance. Administrative science quarterly, 163-185.
Melanzeri, M. and Zarabi, A. (2013). Accounting Information System Coordination, Journal of Accounting Research, 3 (2) , 107-124. (In Persian).
Middleton, M. (1987). Nonprofit boards of directors: Beyond the governance function. The nonprofit sector: A research handbook, 141-153.
Mintzberg, H. (1973). Strategy-making in three modes. California management review, 16 (2) , 44-53.
Ostrower, F. , & Stone, M. M. (2001, November). Governance research: Trends, gaps and prospects for the future. In ARNOVA Annual Conference, November.
Paglis, L. L. , & Green, S. G. (2002). Leadership self‐efficacy and managers' motivation for leading change. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 23 (2) , 215-235.
Parkinson, J. E. (1995). Corporate power and responsibility: Issues in the theory of company law. OUP Catalogue.
Prasad, B. , & Junni, P. (2017). A contingency model of CEO characteristics and firm innovativeness. Management Decision.
Scott, W. (2003). Richard1987 Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren-tice-Hall. ScottOrganizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems.
Shleifer, A. , & Vishny, R. W. (1997). A survey of corporate governance. The journal of finance, 52 (2) , 737-783.
Strebel, P. (2004). The case for contingent governance. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45 (2) , 59.
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action: social science bases of administrative theory. McGraw-Hill.
Thompson, J. D. (2003). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. Transaction publishers.
Tosi, H. L. (2008). Quo Vadis? Suggestions for future corporate governance research. Journal of Management & Governance, 12 (2) , 153-169.
Van den Berghe, L. , Berghe, L. , Elst, C. , Carchon, S. , & Levrau, A. (2002). Corporate governance in a globalising world: Convergence or divergence?: A European perspective. Springer Science & Business Media.
Whitley, R. (1999). Divergent capitalisms: The social structuring and change of business systems. OUP Oxford.
Williamson, O. E. (1983). Organization form, residual claimants, and corporate control. the Journal of Law and Economics, 26 (2) , 351-366.
Zahra, S. A. , & Pearce, J. A. (1989). Boards of directors and corporate financial performance: A review and integrative model. Journal of management, 15 (2) , 291-334.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 20 August 2018
  • Revise Date: 02 July 2019
  • Accept Date: 03 December 2018

Share

How to cite

Statistics