ARTICLES

 

Core corporate governance dilemmas facing boards: A South African perspective

 

 

Hyram Serretta^I; Mike Bendixen^II; Margie Sutherland^III

^IWits Business School, University of the Witwatersrand
^IIH Wayne Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneurship, Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale
^IIIGordon Institute of Business Science, University of Pretoria

 

 

---

ABSTRACT

Directors and boards face many challenges in terms of managing complexity. A key factor of success in practising good corporate governance is the board's ability to cope with paradox. The purpose of this research has been to explore the core corporate governance dilemmas facing boards. The investigation was qualitative in nature using the Delphi technique. Six core corporate governance dilemmas facing board members were identified one of which is not mentioned in the international literature. The findings should provide directors with an ability to identify the nature of the paradoxes to which they need to respond.

JEL L20; M10

---

 

 

“Full text available only in PDF format”

 

 

References

AFRICAN INSTITUTE OF CORPORATE CITIZENSHIP, 2002. Socially responsible investment in South Africa, Johannesburg: The AICC.         [ Links ]

BERRY, A. & HÜLSMANN, M., 2004. Strategic management dilemma: its necessity in a world of diversity and change, SAM/IFSAM VII World Congress, Göteborg, 5-7 July, Proceedings of the SAM/IFSAM VIIth World Congress on Management in a World of Diversity and Change: 1-43.         [ Links ]

CARDNO, C., 1998. Making a difference by managing dilemmas, Set Research Information for Teachers, 13(1): 1-4.         [ Links ]

CARTER, C.B. & LORSCH, J.W., 2003. Back to the drawing board, (1st ed). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.         [ Links ]

CESCON, F., 2002. Short-term perceptions, corporate governance and the management of R & D in Italian companies, Journal of Management and Governance, 6(3): 255-270.         [ Links ]

CLAYTON, M.J., 1997. Delphi: a technique to harness expert opinion for critical decision-making tasks in education, Educational Psychology, 17(4): 373-386.         [ Links ]

CORNELL, B., 2003. The information that boards really need, MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(3): 71-76.         [ Links ]

COX, J.D., 2003. Reforming the culture of financial reporting: The PCAOB and the metrics for accounting measurements, Washington University Law Quarterly, 81(301), 301-327.         [ Links ]

COYLE, B., 2003. Corporate Governance, (1st ed). London: ICSA Publishing Ltd.         [ Links ]

DIMMA, W.A., 1995. The Changing Role of the Board of Directors, Conference sponsored by The Institute of Corporate Directors and The Planning Forum, Toronto, 11 October, 217-220.         [ Links ]

ERFFMEYER, R.C., ERFFMEYER, S.E. & LANE, I.M., 1986. The Delphi technique: an empirical evaluation of the optimal number of rounds, Group & Organisation Studies, 11(1-2): 120-128.         [ Links ]

FREEMAN, R.E. & HARRISON, J.S., 1999. Stakeholders, social responsibility, and performance: empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives, Academy of Management Journal, 42(5): 479-485.         [ Links ]

GARRATT, B., 1996. The fish rots from the head,, (1st ed). Hammersmith: HarperCollins Publishers.         [ Links ]

GARRATT, B., 2003. Thin on top, (1st ed). London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.         [ Links ]

GEORGE, B., 2003. Managing stakeholders vs. responding to stakeholders, Strategy and Leadership, 31(6): 36-40.         [ Links ]

GRAHAM, J.R., HARVEY, C.R. & RAJGOPAL, S., 2004. The economic implications of corporate financial reporting, NBER Working Paper, w10550, 1-42.         [ Links ]

HAMPDEN-TURNER, C., 2003. Strategic dilemmas occasioned by using alternative scenarios of the future, in Developing strategic thought, a collection of the best thinking on business strategy, B Garratt (Ed). (2^nd ed). London: Profile Books Ltd: 119-168.         [ Links ]

HANDY, C., 1995. The empty raincoat, (1st ed). London: Random House Business Books.         [ Links ]

HARTSLIEF, M.A., 2003. The structure and function of the board of directors, Unpublished MBA Project Report, Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand.         [ Links ]

HEMPHILL, T.A., 1996. Enterprise strategy and corporate environmental alliance, Business Forum, 21(1-2): 8-12.         [ Links ]

HESS, D., 2001. Regulating corporate social performance: a new look at social accounting, auditing, and reporting, Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(2): 307-330.         [ Links ]

HIGGS, D., 2003. Review of the role and effectiveness of non-executive directors, London: The Department of Trade and Industry.         [ Links ]

INSTITUTE OF DIRECTORS, 1995. Standards for the board, (rev ed). London: Institute of Directors.         [ Links ]

KEAY, M., 2002. Towards global corporate social responsibility, The Royal Institute of International Affairs Sustainable Development Programme, Chatham House, April, Briefing Paper No. 3: 1-8.         [ Links ]

KING, A.M., 1992. Financial statements: revealing profits GAAP may conceal, Business Credit, 94(9): 10-11.         [ Links ]

KING COMMITTEE ON CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, 1994. The King Report on Corporate Governance, South Africa: The Institute of Directors in Southern Africa.         [ Links ]

KING COMMITTEE ON CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, 2002. The King Report on Corporate Governance for South Africa 2002: The Institute of Directors in Southern Africa.         [ Links ]

KPMG, 2001. Research and survey report on environmental accounting in South Africa, Research Report, Cape Town: KPMG Inc. South Africa.         [ Links ]

LIVNE, G. & McNICHOLS, M., 2004. An empirical investigation of the true and fair override, Journal of Accounting Research Conference on Financial Reporting and Capital Markets, Chicago, 7-8 May: 1-52.         [ Links ]

LOO, R., 2002. The Delphi method: A powerful tool for strategic management, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 25(4): 762-769.         [ Links ]

MARKS, S.G., 1999. The separation of ownership and control, Encyclopedia of law and economics, 5630: 692-724.         [ Links ]

MILES, M.B. & HUBERMAN, A.M., 1994. Qualitative data analysis, (2^nd ed). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.         [ Links ]

MINKES, A.L., SMALL, M.W. & CHATTERJEE, S.R., 1999. Leadership and business ethics: does it matter? Implications for management, Journal of Business Ethics, 20(4): 327-335.         [ Links ]

MYBURGH, J.F., 2003. The Myburgh Report on the standard of corporate governance in the five largest banks, Johannesburg: South African Reserve Bank.         [ Links ]

PERCY, J.P., 1995. The Cadbury report and corporate governance in the UK, The CPA Journal, 65(5): 24-28.         [ Links ]

RHINESMITH, S.H., 2001. How can you manage global paradox?, The Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance, 12(6): 3-9.         [ Links ]

RICHARDSON, B., 1995. Paradox management for crisis avoidance, Management Decision, 33(1): 5-18.         [ Links ]

SCHERRER, P.S., 2003. Directors' responsibilities and participation in the strategic decision making process, Corporate Governance, 3(1): 86-90.         [ Links ]

SENGE, P., 1990. The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organisation, New York: Doubleday Currency.         [ Links ]

SHARMAN, R. & COPNELL, T., 2003. Performance from conformance: the practical application of corporate governance and risk management, Akauntan Nasional, 16(4): 20-23.         [ Links ]

SHENG, A., 2003. Opening address by the chairman of the securities and futures commission Hong Kong, The enterprise governance forum 2003, Hong Kong, 26 November: 1-4.         [ Links ]

SILLANPÄÄ, M., 1998. The body shop values report - Towards integrated stakeholder auditing, Journal of Business Ethics, 17(13): 1443-1456.         [ Links ]

SMITH, NC, 2003. Corporate social responsibility: whether or how?, California Management Review, 45(4): 52-76.         [ Links ]

SPIRA, L.F., 2001. Enterprise and accountability: striking a balance, Management Decision, 39(9): 739-748.         [ Links ]

STORY, V., HURDLEY, L., SMITH, G. & SAKER, J., 2001. Methodological and practical implications of the Delphi technique in marketing decision-making: a re-assessment, The Marketing Review, 1(4): 487-504.         [ Links ]

SUNDARAMURTHY, C. & LEWIS, M., 2003. Control and collaboration: paradoxes of governance, Academy of Management Review, 28(3): 397-415.         [ Links ]

TAYLOR, B., 2003. Board leadership: balancing entrepreneurship and strategy with accountability and control, Corporate Governance, 3(2): 3-5.         [ Links ]

TRICKER, R.I., 1984. Corporate governance, (1st ed). Vermont: Gower Publishing Company Limited.         [ Links ]

UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE, 2002. Sustainability and profitability: conflict or convergence? The 6^th Senior Executives' Seminar, Salzburg, 23-27 September, 1-16.         [ Links ]

WIXLEY, T & EVERINGHAM G., 2002. What you must know about corporate governance, (1st ed). Claremont: Siber Ink CC.         [ Links ]

ZAHRA, S.A., 1996. Governance, ownership, and corporate entrepreneurship: the moderating impact of industry technological opportunities, Academy of Management Journal, 39(6): 1713-1735.         [ Links ]

ZAHRA, S.A., NEUBAUM, D.O. & HUSE, M., 2000. Entrepreneurship in medium-size companies: exploring the effects of ownership and governance systems, Journal of Management, 26(5): 947-976.         [ Links ]

ZIKMUND, W.G., 2003. Business research methods. Thomson: South Western Ohio.         [ Links ]