Advertisement

Ethos is Destiny: Organizational Values and Compliance in Corporate Governance

  • Maria FotakiEmail author
  • Spyros Lioukas
  • Irini Voudouris
Original Paper

Abstract

This paper investigates the effect of enacted ethical and instrumental values on corporate governance effectiveness. It further considers whether and how compliance with formal corporate governance codes influences the effect of these organizational values on governance effectiveness. Empirical evidence based on a sample of firms listed in the Athens Stock Exchange shows that strong ethical values are the key element for effective corporate governance, while instrumental values play a significant role only in the presence of compliance. Compliance, although not sufficient by itself, serves as a complementary mechanism strengthening the effects of ethical values and creating the conditions by which instrumental values can act in favor of corporate governance. The results highlight that governance benefits can emanate from maintaining high ethical standards as well as from synergies between compliance and a focus on organizational values. Overall, our findings provide important implications for managers regarding how to utilize behavioral along with structural governance mechanisms to enhance corporate governance. The findings add to the behavioral perspective of corporate governance bringing aspects of the social fabric into the corporate governance puzzle.

Keywords

Corporate governance Enacted organizational values Ethical values Instrumental values Compliance 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Aguilera, R. V., Desender, K., Bednar, M. K., & Lee, J. H. (2015a). Connecting the dots: Bringing external corporate governance into the corporate governance puzzle. Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 483–573.Google Scholar
  2. Aguilera, R. V., Desender, K., Bednar, M. K., & Lee, J. H. (2015b). Connecting the dots: Bringing external corporate governance into the corporate governance puzzle. The Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 483–573.Google Scholar
  3. Aguilera, R. V., Desender, K. A., & Kabbach de Castro, L. (2012a). A bundle perspective to comparative corporate. In The SAGE handbook of corporate governance (pp. 379–405). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  4. Aguilera, R. V., Desender, K. A., & Kabbach de Castro, L. (2012b). A bundle perspective to comparative corporate. The SAGE handbook of corporate governance, 379–405.Google Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2017). On corporate social responsibility, sensemaking, and the search for meaningfulness through work. Journal of Management, 0149206317691575.Google Scholar
  7. Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Allcock, D., & Filatotchev, I. (2010). Executive incentive schemes in initial public offerings: The effects of multiple-agency conflicts and corporate governance. Journal of Management, 36(3), 663–686.Google Scholar
  9. Argandoña, A. (2003). Fostering values in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 45(1–2), 15–28.Google Scholar
  10. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1978). Organization learning. Reading: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  11. Arjoon, S. (2006). Striking a balance between rules and principles-based approaches for effective governance: A risks-based approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 68(1), 53–82.Google Scholar
  12. Arora, P., & Dharwadkar, R. (2011). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility (CSR): The moderating roles of attainment discrepancy and organization slack. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 19(2), 136–152.Google Scholar
  13. Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 421–458.Google Scholar
  14. Baker, T. L., Hunt, T. G., & Andrews, M. C. (2006). Promoting ethical behavior and organizational citizenship behaviors: The influence of corporate ethical values. Journal of Business Research, 59(7), 849–857.Google Scholar
  15. Beatty. (1988). An exploratory study of organizational values with a focus. Journal of Retailing, 64(4), 405.Google Scholar
  16. Beatty, R. P., & Zajac, E. J. (1995). Managerial incentives, monitoring, and risk bearing in initial public offering firms. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 8(2), 87–96.Google Scholar
  17. Bednar, M. K. (2008). How symbolic action affects the media as a governance mechanism: ProQuest.Google Scholar
  18. Boivie, S., Bednar, M. K., Aguilera, R. V., & Andrus, J. L. (2016). Are boards designed to fail? The implausibility of effective board monitoring. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 319–407.Google Scholar
  19. Bourne, H., & Jenkins, M. (2013). Organizational values: A dynamic perspective. Organization Studies, 34(4), 495–514.Google Scholar
  20. Bourne, H., Jenkins, M., & Parry, E. (2017). Mapping espoused organizational values. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–16.Google Scholar
  21. Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 710–725.Google Scholar
  22. Carlo, G., Koller, S. H., Eisenberg, N., Silva, D., M. S., & Frohlich, C. B. (1996). A cross-national study on the relations among prosocial moral reasoning, gender role orientations, and prosocial behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 32(2), 231.Google Scholar
  23. Chan Kim, W., Hwang, P., & Burgers, W. P. (1989). Global diversification strategy and corporate profit performance. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 45–57.Google Scholar
  24. Coles, J. W., McWilliams, V. B., & Sen, N. (2001). An examination of the relationship of governance mechanisms to performance. Journal of Management, 27(1), 23–50.Google Scholar
  25. Craft, J. L. (2018). Common thread: The impact of mission on ethical business culture. A case study. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(1), 127–145.Google Scholar
  26. Cuevas-Rodríguez, G., Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Wiseman, R. M. (2012). Has agency theory run its course?: Making the theory more flexible to inform the management of reward systems. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 20(6), 526–546.Google Scholar
  27. Dahya, J., Dimitrov, O., & McConnell, J. J. (2008). Dominant shareholders, corporate boards, and corporate value: A cross-country analysis. Journal of Financial Economics, 87(1), 73–100.Google Scholar
  28. 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.Google Scholar
  29. Denison, D. R., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1991). Organizational culture and organizational development: A competing values approach. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 5(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
  30. Diacon, S. R., & Ennew, C. T. (1996). Can business ethics enhance corporate governance? Evidence from a survey of UK insurance executives. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(6), 623–634.Google Scholar
  31. Dunn, M. G., Norburn, D., & Birley, S. (1994). The impact of organizational values, goals, and climate on marketing effectiveness. Journal of Business Research, 30(2), 131–141.Google Scholar
  32. Durnev, A., & Kim, E. (2005). To steal or not to steal: Firm attributes, legal environment, and valuation. The Journal of Finance, 60(3), 1461–1493.Google Scholar
  33. Ferguson, J., & Milliman, J. (2008). Creating effective core organizational values: A spiritual leadership approach. Intl Journal of Public Administration, 31(4), 439–459.Google Scholar
  34. Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2015). The value of corporate culture. Journal of Financial Economics, 117(1), 60–76.Google Scholar
  35. Hair, F. J., Black, C. W., Babin, J. B., & Anderson, E. R. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  36. Hambrick, D. C., Finkelstein, S., & Mooney, A. C. (2005). Executive job demands: New insights for explaining strategic decisions and leader behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 30(3), 472–491.Google Scholar
  37. Hambrick, D. C., Misangyi, V. F., & Park, C. A. (2015). The quad model for identifying a corporate director’s potential for effective monitoring: Toward a new theory of board sufficiency. Academy of Management Review, 40(3), 323–344.Google Scholar
  38. Helex.com. (2018). Greek Corporate Governance Code. Retrieved December 6, 2018, from http://www.helex.gr/documents/10180/2227810/sev_corporate_governance_code_march_2011.pdf/b0afe55e-5d5e-4b63-b76b-ce20ccd3e7a9.
  39. Hericletus/ Ηράκλειτος (535BC-475 BC). Περὶ φύσεως.Google Scholar
  40. Hermalin, B. E., & Weisbach, M. S. (1988). The determinants of board composition. The RAND Journal of Economics, 589–606.Google Scholar
  41. Hunt, S. D., Wood, V. R., & Chonko, L. B. (1989). Corporate ethical values and organizational commitment in marketing. The Journal of Marketing, 79–90.Google Scholar
  42. Huse, M. (1993). Relational norms as a supplement to neo-classical understanding of directorates: An empirical study of boards of directors. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 22(3), 219–240.Google Scholar
  43. Huse, M. (1994). Relational norms as a supplement to neo-classical understanding of directorates: An empirical study of boards of directors. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 22(3), 219–240.Google Scholar
  44. Huse, M. (2005). Accountability and creating accountability: A framework for exploring behavioural perspectives of corporate governance. British Journal of Management, 16(s1), S65–S79.Google Scholar
  45. Huse, M., & Zattoni, A. (2008). Trust, firm life cycle, and actual board behavior: Evidence from” one of the lads” in the board of three small firms. International Studies of Management & Organization, 38(3), 71–97.Google Scholar
  46. Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1976). Coping with decisional conflict: An analysis of how stress affects decision-making suggests interventions to improve the process. American Scientist, 64(6), 657–667.Google Scholar
  47. Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 404–437.Google Scholar
  48. Lan, L. L., & Heracleous, L. (2010). Rethinking agency theory: The view from law. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 294–314.Google Scholar
  49. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.Google Scholar
  50. Li, J. J., Poppo, L., & Zhou, K. Z. (2010). Relational mechanisms, formal contracts, and local knowledge acquisition by international subsidiaries. Strategic Management Journal, 31(4), 349–370.Google Scholar
  51. Liedtka, J. M. (1989). Value congruence: The interplay of individual and organizational value systems. Journal of Business Ethics, 8(10), 805–815.Google Scholar
  52. Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114.Google Scholar
  53. Lindenberg, S., & Foss, N. J. (2011). Managing joint production motivation: The role of goal framing and governance mechanisms. Academy of Management Review, 36(3), 500–525.Google Scholar
  54. Lubatkin, M., Lane, P. J., Collin, S., & Very, P. (2007). An embeddedness framing of governance and opportunism: towards a cross-nationally accommodating theory of agency. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(1), 43–58.Google Scholar
  55. Malphurs, A. (1996). Values-driven leadership. Grand Rapids: Baker.Google Scholar
  56. McDonald, P., & Gandz, J. (1992). Getting value from shared values. Organizational Dynamics, 20(3), 64–77.Google Scholar
  57. Misangyi, V. F., & Acharya, A. G. (2014). Substitutes or complements? A configurational examination of corporate governance mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1681–1705.Google Scholar
  58. Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review, 80(4), 252.Google Scholar
  59. Mitnick, B. (1973). Fiduciary rationality and public policy: The theory of agency and some consequences. Available at SSRN 1020859.Google Scholar
  60. Mustakallio, M., Autio, E., & Zahra, S. A. (2002). Relational and contractual governance in family firms: Effects on strategic decision making. Family Business Review, 15(3), 205–222.Google Scholar
  61. Newbert, S. L. (2018). Achieving social and economic equality by unifying business and ethics: adam smith as the cause of and cure for the separation thesis. Journal of Management Studies, 55(3), 517–544.Google Scholar
  62. Noreen, E. (1988). The economics of ethics: A new perspective on agency theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 13(4), 359–369.Google Scholar
  63. Oh, W.-Y., Chang, Y. K., & Kim, T.-Y. (2016). Complementary or substitutive effects? Corporate governance mechanisms and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Management, 0149206316653804.Google Scholar
  64. Paine, L. S. (1994). Managing for organizational integrity. Harvard Business Review, 72(2), 106–117.Google Scholar
  65. Park, S. H., Westphal, J. D., & Stern, I. (2011). Set up for a fall: The insidious effects of flattery and opinion conformity toward corporate leaders. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(2), 257–302.Google Scholar
  66. Peng, H., & Wei, F. (2018). Trickle-down effects of perceived leader integrity on employee creativity: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(3), 837–851.Google Scholar
  67. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569.Google Scholar
  68. Poppo, L., & Zenger, T. (2002). Do formal contracts and relational governance function as substitutes or complements? Strategic Management Journal, 23(8), 707–725.Google Scholar
  69. Rediker, K. J., & Seth, A. (1995). Boards of directors and substitution effects of alternative governance mechanisms. Strategic Management Journal, 16(2), 85–99.Google Scholar
  70. Roberts, J. (2001). Trust and control in Anglo-American systems of corporate governance: The individualizing and socializing effects of processes of accountability. Human Relations, 54(12), 1547–1572.Google Scholar
  71. Rutkowski, K. A., & Steelman, L. A. (2005). Testing a path model for antecedents of accountability. Journal of Management Development, 24(5), 473–486.Google Scholar
  72. Sama, L. M., & Shoaf, V. (2005). Reconciling rules and principles: An ethics-based approach to corporate governance. Journal of Business Ethics, 58(1–3), 177–185.Google Scholar
  73. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65.Google Scholar
  74. Somers, M. J. (2001). Ethical codes of conduct and organizational context: A study of the relationship between codes of conduct, employee behavior and organizational values. Journal of Business Ethics, 30(2), 185–195.Google Scholar
  75. Sonnenfeld, J. (2004). Good governance and the misleading myths of bad metrics. The Academy of Management Executive, 18(1), 108–113.Google Scholar
  76. Spanos, Y. E., & Lioukas, S. (2001). An examination into the causal logic of rent generation: contrasting Porter’s competitive strategy framework and the resource-based perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 22(10), 907–934.Google Scholar
  77. Trevino, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 601–617.Google Scholar
  78. Trevino, L. K., Weaver, G. R., Gibson, D. G., & Toffler, B. L. (1999). Managing ethics and legal compliance: What works and what hurts. California Management Review, 41(2), 131–151.Google Scholar
  79. Uhlaner, L., Wright, M., & Huse, M. (2007). Private firms and corporate governance: An integrated economic and management perspective. Small Business Economics, 29(3), 225–241.Google Scholar
  80. Van der Wal, Z., De Graaf, G., & Lasthuizen, K. (2008). What’s valued most? Similarities and differences between the organizational values of the public and private sector. Public Administration, 86(2), 465–482.Google Scholar
  81. Van Ees, H., Gabrielsson, J., & Huse, M. (2009). Toward a behavioral theory of boards and corporate governance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(3), 307–319.Google Scholar
  82. Verardi, V., & Croux, C. (2008). Robust regression in Stata. FBE Research Report KBI_0823, 1–13.Google Scholar
  83. Verardi, V., & Dehon, C. (2010). Multivariate outlier detection in Stata. The Stata Journal, 10(2), 259–266.Google Scholar
  84. Verhezen, P. (2010). Giving voice in a culture of silence. From a culture of compliance to a culture of integrity. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(2), 187–206.Google Scholar
  85. Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance. Strategic Management Journal, 8(4), 303–319.Google Scholar
  86. Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421.Google Scholar
  87. Westphal, J. D. (1999). Collaboration in the boardroom: Behavioral and performance consequences of CEO-board social ties. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 7–24.Google Scholar
  88. Westphal, J. D., Boivie, S., Chng, M., & Han, D. (2006). The strategic impetus for social network ties: Reconstituting broken CEO friendship ties. Strategic Management Journal, 27(5), 425–445.Google Scholar
  89. Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. (2001). Decoupling policy from practice: The case of stock repurchase programs. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 202–228.Google Scholar
  90. Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. (2013). A behavioral theory of corporate governance: Explicating the mechanisms of socially situated and socially constituted agency. Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 607–661.Google Scholar
  91. Williams, C. C. (2005). Trust diffusion: The effect of interpersonal trust on structure, function, and organizational transparency. Business & Society, 44(3), 357–368.Google Scholar
  92. Wiseman, R. M., Cuevas-Rodríguez, G., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2012). Towards a social theory of agency. Journal of Management Studies, 49(1), 202–222.Google Scholar
  93. Zellner, A. (1962). An efficient method of estimating seemingly unrelated regressions and tests for aggregation bias. Journal of the American statistical Association, 57(298), 348–368.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Management Science and Technology, Athens University of Economics and BusinessAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations