Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 118, Issue 1, pp 155–169 | Cite as

The Effects of CEO Trustworthiness on Directors’ Monitoring and Resource Provision

  • Esther B. Del Brio
  • Toru Yoshikawa
  • Catherine E. Connelly
  • Wee Liang Tan
Article

Abstract

Because of the importance of board members’ resource provision and monitoring, a substantial body of research has been devoted to ascertaining how directors can be incented to perform their responsibilities. We use social exchange theory to empirically examine how board members’ resource provision and monitoring are affected by their perceptions of the CEOs’ trustworthiness. Our findings suggest that board members’ perceptions of the CEO’s ability, benevolence, and integrity have different effects on the board members’ resource provision and monitoring. Our results further suggest that board members’ governance behaviors are moderated by the board’s performance evaluation practices.

Keywords

Directors of the board Trustworthiness Monitoring Resource provision Board evaluation 

References

  1. Acero, I., & Alcalde, I. (2012). The effect of monitoring function and advisory function on board structure. Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting, 153, 9–38.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, R., & Ferreira, D. (2007). A theory of friendly boards. Journal of Finance, 62, 217–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Aubert, B. A., & Kelsey, B. L. (2003). Further understanding of trust and performance in virtual teams. Small Group Research, 34, 575–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blau, G. J. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Boyd, B. K. (1995). CEO duality and firm performance: A contingency model. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 301–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brockner, J., & Siegel, P. (1996). Understanding the interaction between procedural and distributive justice. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 390–413). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bromiley, P., & Cummings, L. L. (1995). Transaction costs in organizations with trust. In R. Bies, B. Sheppard, & R. Lewicki (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (Vol. 5, pp. 219–247). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  9. Carpenter, M., & Westphal, J. (2001). The strategic context of external network ties: Examining the impact of director appointments on board involvement in strategic decision-making. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 639–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Casciaro, T., & Lobo, M. S. (2008). When competence is irrelevant: The role of interpersonal affect in task-related ties. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 655–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chiaburu, D. S., & Lim, A. S. (2008). Manager trustworthiness or interactional justice? Predicting organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 83, 453–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chou, L. -F., Wang, A. -C., Wang, T. -Y., Huang, M. -H., & Cheng, B. -S. (2008). Shared work values and team member effectiveness: The mediation of trustfulness and trustworthiness. Human Relations, 61, 1713–1742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cialdini, R. B. (1996). Social influence and the triple tumor structure of organizational dishonesty. In D. M. Messick & A. E. Tenbrunsel (Eds.), Codes of conduct: Behavioral research into business ethics (pp. 44–58). New York: Russel Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 909–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Creed, W. E., & Miles, R. E. (1996). Trust in organizations: A conceptual framework linking organizational forms, managerial philosophies, and the opportunity costs of control. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 16–39). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cruz, C. C., Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Becerra, M. (2010). Perceptions of benevolence and the design of agency contracts: CEO–TMT relationships in family firms. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 69–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Daily, C. M., & Dalton, D. R. (1995). CEO and director turnover in failing firms: An illusion of change? Strategic Management Journal, 16, 393–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Daily, C. M., Dalton, D. R., & Cannella, A. A. (2003). Corporate governance: Decades of dialogue and data. Academy of Management Review, 28, 371–382.Google Scholar
  19. Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Donaldson, L. (1997). Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22, 20–47.Google Scholar
  20. Dirks, K. T. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 445–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Science, 12, 450–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Donaldson, L. (1990). The ethereal hand: Organizational economics and management theory. Academy of Management Review, 15, 369–381.Google Scholar
  23. Fama, E. (1980). Agency problems and the theory of the firm. Journal of Political Economy, 88, 288–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fama, E., & Jensen, M. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26, 301–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ferrin, D. L., Bligh, M. C., & Kohles, J. C. (2007). Can I trust you to trust me? A theory of trust, monitoring, and cooperation in interpersonal and intergroup relationships. Group & Organization Management, 32, 465–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ferrin, D. L., Bligh, M. C., & Kohles, J. C. (2008). It takes two to tango: An interdependence analysis of the spiring of perceived trustworthiness and cooperation in interpersonal and intergroup relationships. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107, 161–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Golden, B. R., & Zajac, E. J. (2001). When will boards influence strategy? Inclination x power = strategic change. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 1087–1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gulati, R., & Westphal, J. D. (1999). Cooperative or controlling? The effects of CEO–board relations and the content of interlocks on the formation of joint ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 473–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hambrick, D. C., Von Werder, A., & Zajac, E. J. (2008). New directions in corporate governance research. Organization Science, 19, 381–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hillman, A. J., & Dalziel, T. (2003). Boards of directors and firm performance: Integrating agency and resource dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 28, 383–396.Google Scholar
  33. Hillman, A. J., Nicholson, G., & Shropshire, C. (2008). Directors’ multiple identities, identification, and board monitoring and resource provision. Organization Science, 19, 441–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Holmes, J. G. (1981). The exchange process in close relationships: Microbehavior and macromotives. In M. J. Learner & S. C. Lerner (Eds.), The justice motive in social behavior (pp. 261–284). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63, 597–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10, 791–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jensen, M., & Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory—A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20, 404–437.Google Scholar
  39. Kim, P. H., Ferrin, D. L., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. (2004). Removing the shadow of suspicion: The effects of apology versus denial for repairing competence- versus integrity-based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 104–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 3–90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.Google Scholar
  41. Langfred, C. W. (2004). Too much of a good thing? Negative effects of high trust and individual autonomy in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 385–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lorsch, J. W., & Macliver, E. (1989). Pawns or potentates—The reality of America’s corporate boards. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  43. Lui, S. S. (2009). The roles of competence trust, formal contract, and time horizon in interorganizational learning. Organization Studies, 30, 333–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Intergrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mayer, R. J., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 123–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734.Google Scholar
  47. Mayer, R. C., & Gavin, M. B. (2005). Trust in management and performance: Who minds the shop while the employees watch the boss? Academy of Management Journal, 48, 874–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McEvily, B., Perrone, V., & Zaheer, A. (2003). Trust as an organizing principle. Organization Science, 14, 91–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Molm, L. M. (1994). Dependence and risk: Transforming the structure of social exchange. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 163–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nahapiet, J., & Goshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23, 242–266.Google Scholar
  52. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  53. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. -Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Randall, D. M., & Fernandes, M. F. (1991). The social desirability response bias in ethics research. Journal of Business Ethics, 10, 805–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rogelberg, S. G., & Stanton, J. M. (2007). Understanding and dealing with organizational survey nonresponse. Organizational Research Methods, 10, 195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rousseau, D., Sitkin, S., Burt, R., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schoorman, F., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review, 32, 344–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Serva, M. A., & Fuller, M. A. (2004). The effects of trustworthiness perceptions on the formation of initial trust: Implications for MIS student teams. Journal of Information Systems Education, 15, 383–395.Google Scholar
  59. Shen, W. (2003). The dynamics of the CEO-board relationship: An evolutionary perspective. Academy of Management Review, 28, 466–476.Google Scholar
  60. Sitkin, S. B., & Roth, N. L. (1993). Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic “remedies” for trust/distrust. Organization Science, 4, 367–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Snyder, M., & Stukas, A. A. (1999). Interpersonal processes: The interplay of cognitive, motivational, and behavioral activities in social interaction. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 273–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Quah, M. (2006). Singapore companies starting to back away from stock options: Survey. The Business Times. 1.Google Scholar
  63. Spencer Stuart Board Index Canada. (2008). Toronto: Spencer Stuart.Google Scholar
  64. Spencer Stuart Board Index Spain. (2010). Madrid: Spencer Stuart [in Spanish].Google Scholar
  65. Sundaramurthy, C., & Lewis, M. (2003). Control and collaboration: Paradox of governance. Academy of Management Review, 28, 397–415.Google Scholar
  66. Westphal, J. D. (1999). Collaboration in the boardroom: Behavioral performance consequences of CEO–board social ties. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 7–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Westphal, J. D., & Stern, I. (2006). The other pathway to the boardroom: Interpersonal influence behavior as a substitute for elite credential and majority status in obtaining board appointments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 169–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. (1997). Defections from the inner circle: Social exchange, reciprocity, and the diffusion of board independence in US corporations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 161–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Yakovleva, M., Reilly, R. R., & Werko, R. (2010). Why do we trust? Moving beyond individual to dyadic perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 79–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zona, F., & Zattoni, A. (2007). Beyond the black box of demography: Board processes and task effectiveness within Italian firms. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15, 852–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Esther B. Del Brio
    • 1
  • Toru Yoshikawa
    • 2
  • Catherine E. Connelly
    • 3
  • Wee Liang Tan
    • 2
  1. 1.Departamento de Administracion y Economia de la Empresa Universidad de SalamancaSalamancaSpain
  2. 2.Lee Kong Chian School of BusinessSingapore Management UniversitySingaporeSingapore
  3. 3.DeGroote School of BusinessMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations