Habitual accountability routines in the boardroom: How boards balance control and collaboration

open3siCorporate accountability is a complex chain of reporting that reaches from external stakeholders into the organization’s management structure. The transition from external to internal accountability mechanisms primarily occurs at the board of directors. Yet outside of incentive mechanisms, we know surprisingly little about how internal actors (management) are held to account by the representatives of external shareholders (the board). This paper explores the process of accountability at this transition point by documenting the routines used by boards to hold the firm’s management to account. In so doing we develop our understanding of the important transition between internal and external firm accountability.embargoed_20190401Nicholson, Gavin; Pugliese, Amedeo; Bezemer, Pieter JanNicholson, Gavin; Pugliese, Amedeo; Bezemer, Pieter Ja

Reconstruction of the Primordial Power Spectrum by Direct Inversion

We introduce a new method for reconstructing the primordial power spectrum, $P(k)$, directly from observations of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). We employ Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) to invert the radiation perturbation transfer function. The degeneracy of the multipole $\ell$ to wavenumber $k$ linear mapping is thus reduced. This enables the inversion to be carried out at each point along a Monte Carlo Markov Chain (MCMC) exploration of the combined $P(k)$ and cosmological parameter space. We present best--fit $P(k)$ obtained with this method along with other cosmological parameters.Comment: 23 pages, 9 figure

KitKats and Boiling Kettles: Understanding Reciprocal Relationships in the Workplace

Often referred to as a law, principle, norm or rule, reciprocity can be defined as a state or condition of free interchange or mutual responsiveness. This paper considers the importance of reciprocity in organisational settings, whilst identifying three reciprocal exchange behaviours of which leaders should be aware. A Socratic dialogue using the Nelson/Heckmann approach is adopted as a research method, with the primary methodological concern being that of the axiological field of philosophy. Axiology deals with the nature of value and asks what is intrinsically worthwhile. This can lead to multiple questions about what we value in an organisational context. The central value being explored in this research activity is reciprocal exchange and its importance to organisational success. The dialogue involves three middle management leaders reflecting on why they work reciprocally. Adopting an inductive content analysis approach, three key themes emerge from the dialogue transcript: the importance of ‘small gestures’, ‘safety and threat’ and ‘not keeping count’. One of the conclusions of this paper is that from an organisational leadership perspective, ‘generalised’ reciprocal exchange behaviours can create the \u27durable ties’ needed in balanced and thriving organisations

The unknown micro-foundations of corporate boards:Going inside the black box and beyond

The corporate board of directors has been likened to a “black box” (Huse, 2005), drawing a parallel to the black box installed in airplanes, which captures what happens in the airplane’s cockpit. This is arguably a very apt comparison, since after airplane accidents and crashes; investigators seek to recover the black box, in order to understand what caused the accident. Yet, following numerous corporate crashes widely attributed to corporate board failures, we as scholars have, in the main, not opened the proverbial black box of the board. There are a number of reasons for our comparatively limited knowledge of what goes on inside the board. Firstly, the commercially sensitive nature of what corporate boards do means they are reluctant to invite outsiders in (Goldman and Swayze, 2012). Secondly, corporate board directors represent the upper most echelon of corporate elites, and the challenges of accessing them are well documented, including time pressure, making contacts and overcoming power imbalances (Kadushin, 1995), thus accessing corporate boards takes time, ingenuity and diligence. Despite these challenges, there is a germinating body of research, which has begun to lift the lid on the black box of the corporate board, and to unpick the micro-foundations of corporate boards through methods such as observational studies (E.g. Currall, Hammer, Baggett, Doniger, 1999), visual methods research (Bezemer, Nicholson, and Pugliese, 2018), and survey-based studies that assess group dynamics (Brown, Buchholtz, Butts, Ward, 2019). In order to push the boundaries of corporate board research in the business and society field, we propose to explore the research question, what are the micro foundations of corporate board research and how do they shape (business and society) performance? This is a deliberately broad question, to encourage a deep conversation about the unknown of corporate board research. We seek to present studies that draw on a wide range of methods, theories and approaches, and which seem to bring a new perspective to what we already know

The unknown micro-foundations of corporate boards:Going inside the black box and beyond

The corporate board of directors has been likened to a “black box” (Huse, 2005), drawing a parallel to the black box installed in airplanes, which captures what happens in the airplane’s cockpit. This is arguably a very apt comparison, since after airplane accidents and crashes; investigators seek to recover the black box, in order to understand what caused the accident. Yet, following numerous corporate crashes widely attributed to corporate board failures, we as scholars have, in the main, not opened the proverbial black box of the board. There are a number of reasons for our comparatively limited knowledge of what goes on inside the board. Firstly, the commercially sensitive nature of what corporate boards do means they are reluctant to invite outsiders in (Goldman and Swayze, 2012). Secondly, corporate board directors represent the upper most echelon of corporate elites, and the challenges of accessing them are well documented, including time pressure, making contacts and overcoming power imbalances (Kadushin, 1995), thus accessing corporate boards takes time, ingenuity and diligence. Despite these challenges, there is a germinating body of research, which has begun to lift the lid on the black box of the corporate board, and to unpick the micro-foundations of corporate boards through methods such as observational studies (E.g. Currall, Hammer, Baggett, Doniger, 1999), visual methods research (Bezemer, Nicholson, and Pugliese, 2018), and survey-based studies that assess group dynamics (Brown, Buchholtz, Butts, Ward, 2019). In order to push the boundaries of corporate board research in the business and society field, we propose to explore the research question, what are the micro foundations of corporate board research and how do they shape (business and society) performance? This is a deliberately broad question, to encourage a deep conversation about the unknown of corporate board research. We seek to present studies that draw on a wide range of methods, theories and approaches, and which seem to bring a new perspective to what we already know

THE INFLUENCE OF BOARD CHAIRS ON DIRECTOR ENGAGEMENT: A CASE BASED EXPLORATION OF BOARDROOM DECISION-MAKING

Research question/issue: This study seeks to better understand how board chairs, as leaders and equals, shape the context for other directors to engage in their governance roles. Research findings/insights: Using a combination of video\u2010taped board meetings and semi\u2010structured interviews with directors at three corporations, we found a generalized and negative association between chair involvement and directors' engagement during board meetings. Theoretical/academic implications: Our empirical results suggest that the chair's role can be viewed as a paradox, requiring both (i) strong leadership to counter managerial power, and (ii) a more subtle orientation as peer to fellow directors that enables other board members to contribute to boardroom decision\u2010making. Moreover, our study revealed the transitory nature of both chair contributions and directors' engagement during meetings, highlighting the potential and need for further unpacking of the temporal dimensions of boardroom decision\u2010making processes. Practitioner/policy implications: Our analysis suggests a revision of the implicit prescription in the literature for board chairs to be active leaders who lead from the front. Given that chair involvement appears to reduce director engagement during meetings, our research hints at the need for a more supportive role of the chair during boardroom decision\u2010making that is in line with non\u2010traditional leadership model

The current provision of community-based teaching in UK medical schools: an online survey and systematic review

Objective: To evaluate the current provision and outcome of community-based education (CBE) in UK medical schools. Design and data sources: An online survey of UK medical school websites and course prospectuses and a systematic review of articles from PubMed and Web of Science were conducted. Articles in the systematic review were assessed using Rossi, Lipsey and Freeman’s approach to programme evaluation. Study selection: Publications from November 1998 to 2013 containing information related to community teaching in undergraduate medical courses were included. Results: Out of the 32 undergraduate UK medical schools, one was excluded due to the lack of course specifications available online. Analysis of the remaining 31 medical schools showed that a variety of CBE models are utilised in medical schools across the UK. Twenty-eight medical schools (90.3%) provide CBE in some form by the end of the first year of undergraduate training, and 29 medical schools (93.5%) by the end of the second year. From the 1378 references identified, 29 papers met the inclusion criteria for assessment. It was found that CBE mostly provided advantages to students as well as other participants, including GP tutors and patients. However, there were a few concerns regarding the lack of GP tutors’ knowledge in specialty areas, the negative impact that CBE may have on the delivery of health service in education settings and the cost of CBE. Conclusions: Despite the wide variations in implementation, community teaching was found to be mostly beneficial. To ensure the relevance of CBE for ‘Tomorrow’s Doctors’, a national framework should be established, and solutions sought to reduce the impact of the challenges within CBE. Strengths and limitations of this study: This is the first study to review how community-based education is currently provided throughout Medical Schools in the UK. The use of Rossi, Lipsey and Freeman’s method of programme evaluation means that the literature was analysed in a consistent and comprehensive way. However, a weakness is that data from the online survey was obtained from online medical school prospectuses. This means the data may be incomplete or out of date. Data in the literature review may also be skewed by publication bias