Corporate governance, groupthink and bullies in the boardroom

  • Rookmin Maharaj


This research study discusses corporate governance issues from a behavioural viewpoint. It makes a distinction between strict adherence to formal rules and regulations: CEO/Chair separation, independence of board members and board size and informal characteristics of board members: knowledge, values and groupthink.

There are three main conclusions:
  1. 1

    This research clearly proves that formal rules and regulations are inadequate; they have little effect upon decision making by board members. Informal characteristics must be considered in unison with the formal system when nominating board members in order to restore shareholder confidence and to rebuild trust in board governance.

  2. 2

    Similar values and groupthink can contribute positively to board members’ decision making. There is, however, a high possibility for groupthink and values to become redundant, masking board members’ knowledge.

  3. 3

    Skills matrices that include questions related to values, knowledge and groupthink and three behavioural characteristics should be considered by boards to ensure the nomination of well-rounded members.

Changes to board process, and board decision making, are seminal in preventing future Enron and WorldCom fiascos. It is only by changing the behaviours of the board of directors, through adopting skills matrices, that sweeping changes can occur. In the past, boards have asked: who are our board members? The most important question a board can ask today, however, is: how can the skills and knowledge of our board members be used in service of the strategic direction of the corporation? This can be achieved by recruiting new board members who fill the needs of an organisation, in contrast to nominating ‘friends’ and continuing the tradition of the old boys club. It should be noted that out of the 100 of the largest economies in the world, 57 of these are corporations and 49 are countries. Corporations are powerful entities in our society, operating in a manner similar to representative governments. Like heads of government, at the top echelon of each corporation is the board of directors; their decisions have enormous ramifications for everyone. Although most citizens have a limited or a passive interest in corporate governance, we each depend on these corporations for jobs, salaries and as investors. Governance of these gargantuan corporations, which wield considerable economic power in the world, concerns each and every citizen. This study draws novel conclusions about the state of governance today, and presents practical solutions for corporations to consider when selecting board members. The detailed discussion about what happens in the boardroom demystifies board process and provides the bases for three critical objectives when selecting new board members or evaluating current board members performance:
  1. 1)

    ascertain and embellish the knowledge base of directors;

  2. 2)

    motivate directors to share and gather information to ensure personal values are congruent with organisational values; and

  3. 3)

    ensure clear and fluent transmission channels exist to reduce the potential of having groupthink on board.



corporate governance board of directors behavioural characteristics formal system informal system decision-making process 



I thank Dr James Gillies, Professor Emeritus of Policy, and founding Dean of the Schulich School of Business York University for his invaluable comments, observations and remarks on this paper.


  1. Toronto Stock Exchange Committee on Corporate Governance in Canada (Dey Report) (1994). Where Were the Directors Guidelines for Improved Corporate Governance in Canada (The Toronto Report), The Toronto Stock Exchange, Toronto.Google Scholar
  2. Ontario Teacher's Pension Plan (OTPP) (2003). Good Governance is Good Business Corporate Governance Policies and Proxy Voting Guidelines, OTPP, Toronto.Google Scholar
  3. The Goizueta Directors Institute (2004)Paper presented at the Creating a New Culture: Balancing Director Oversight and Management Entrepreneurship, Atlanta, Georgia.Google Scholar
  4. Wayman, R. J. (2005). The Trickle Down of SOX. Retrieved March 2006, from
  5. Hansell, C. (2003). What Directors Need to Know: Corporate Governance, Thomson Carswell, Toronto.Google Scholar
  6. Gabrielsson, J. and Huse, M. (2004) ‘Context, behaviour, and evolution: Challenges in research on boards and governance’, International Studies of Management and Organization, 34 (2), 11–36.Google Scholar
  7. Van den Berghe, L. A. A. and Levrau, A. (2004) ‘Evaluating boards of directors: What constitutes a good corporate board?’ Corporate Governance: An International Review, 12, 461–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Westphal, J. D. (2002) ‘Second thoughts on board independence: Why do so many demand board independence when it does so little good’, The Corporate Board, 23 (136), 6–10.Google Scholar
  9. Thain, D. H. (1994) ‘The TSE corporate governance report: Disappointing’, The Business Quarterly, 59, 76.Google Scholar
  10. Dalton, D. R. and Dalton, C. M. (2005) ‘Boards of directors: Utilizing empirical evidence in developing practical prescriptions’, British Journal of Management, 16, S91–S97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Leblanc, R. and Gillies, J. (2003) ‘The coming revolution in corporate governance’, Ivey Business Journal Online, (September/October).Google Scholar
  12. Langley, A., Mintzberg, H., Pitcher, P., Posada, E. and Saint-Macray, J. (1995) ‘Opening up decision-making: The view from the black stool’, Organization Science, 6 (3), 260–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Langley, A. (1995) ‘Between ‘Paralysis by Analysis’ and ‘Extinction by Instinct’’, Sloan Management Review, 36 (3), 63–76.Google Scholar
  14. Forbes, D. P. and Milliken, F. J. (1999) ‘Cognition and corporate governance: Understanding boards of directors as strategic decision-making groups’, Academy of Management Review, 24 (3), 489–505.Google Scholar
  15. Cornforth, C. (2001) ‘What makes boards effective? An examination of the relationships between board inputs, structures, processes and effectiveness in non-profit organizations’, Corporate Governance, 9 (3), 217–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Scherrer, P. S. (2003) ‘Directors’ responsibilities and participation in the strategic decision-making process’, Corporate Governance, 3 (1), 86–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Finkelstein, S. and Mooney, A. C. (2003) ‘Not the usual suspects: How to use board process to make boards better’, Academy of Management Executive, 17, 101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lindsay, V., Chadee, D., Mattsson, J., Johnston, R. and Millett, B. (2003) ‘Relationships, the role of individuals and knowledge flows in the internationalisation of service firms’, International Journal of Service Industry Management, 14 (1), 7–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bart, C. (2004) ‘The governance role of the board in corporate strategy: An initial progress report’, International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, 1 (2/3), 111–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pye, A. and Pettigrew, A. (2005) ‘Studying board context, process and dynamics: Some challenges for the future’, British Journal of Management, 16, S27–S38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wan, D. and Ong, C. H. (2005) ‘Board structure, process and performance: Evidence from public-listed companies in Singapore’, Corporate Governance, 13 (2), 277–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kula, B. (2005) ‘The impact of the roles, structure and process of boards on firm performance: Evidence from Turkey’, Corporate Governance, 13 (2), 265–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Huse, M. (2005) ‘Accountability and creating accountability: A framework for exploring behavioural perspectives of corporate governance’, British Journal of Management, 16, S65–S79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnson, J. L., Daily, C. M. and Ellstrand, A. E. (1996) ‘Boards of directors: A review and research agenda’, Journal of Management, 22, 409–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gupta, A. K. and Govindarajan, V. (2000) ‘Knowledge flows within multinational corporations’, Strategic Management Journal, 21 (4), 473–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zahra, S. A. and Pearce, J. A. II. (1989) ‘Boards of directors and corporate financial performance: A review and integrative model’, Journal of Management, 15 (2), 291–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cohen, W. M. and Levinthal, D. A. (1990) ‘Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning an innovation’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35 (1), 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Monks, R. A. G. (2002) ‘Creating value through corporate governance’, Corporate Governance, 10 (3), 116–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Johnson, D. B. and Macy, G. (2001) ‘Using environmental paradigms to understand and change an organization's response to stakeholders’, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 14, 314–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Knight, D., Pearce, C. L., Smith, K. G., Olian, J. D., Sims, H. P., Smith, K. A. and Flood, P . (1999) ‘Top management team diversity, group process, and strategic consensus’, Strategic Management Journal, 20, 445–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Markoczy, L. (1997) ‘Measuring beliefs: Accept no substitutes’, Academy of Management Journal, 40, 1228–1242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Starbuck, W. H. (1982) ‘Congealing oil: Inventing ideologies to justify acting ideologies out’, Journal of Management Studies, 19 (1), 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Weaver, G. R., Trevino, L. K. and Cochran, P. L. (1999) ‘Corporate ethics programs as control systems: Influences of executive commitment and environmental factors’, The Academy of Management Journal, 42 (1), 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mackenzie, C. (2004) ‘Ethical norms as a solution to corporate governance problems’, The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, (15)49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Scott, W. G. and Mitchell, T. R. (1972). Organization Theory: A Structural and Behavioral Analysis, Irwin, Homewood, IL.Google Scholar
  36. Sikula, A. F. (1973) ‘The values and value systems of government executives’, Public Personnel Management, 25, 16–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Janis, I. L. (1983). Groupthink, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.Google Scholar
  38. There is a paradox here as boards do not want board members with a groupthink mentality. However, in nominating board members there seem to be bias toward homogeneity. This shift to either end of the continuum poses a problem. As noted later in the paper a critic may stimulate argument by criticising and complaining, which may reduce the potential for groupthink on the board. However, this behaviour has the potential to side track board members. The question remains, is it worth having a critic on board to avoid groupthink?Google Scholar
  39. Lorsch, J. W. and Donaldson, G. (1983). Decision-Making at the Top the Shaping of Strategic Direction, Basic Books Inc., New York.Google Scholar
  40. Hoffman, J. (2003) ‘Individual director evaluations’, The Corporate Governance Advisor, 11 (6), 26–29.Google Scholar
  41. Yermack, D. (1996) ‘Higher market valuation of companies with a small board of directors’, Journal of Financial Economics, 40, 185–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Chaganti, R. S., Mahajan, V. and Sharma, S. (1985) ‘Corporate board size, composition, and corporate failures in retailing industry’, Journal of Management Studies, 22, 400–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vance, S. C. (1964). Board of Directors: Structure and Performance, University of Oregon Press, Eugene, OR.Google Scholar
  44. Baysinger, B. D. and Butler, H. N. (1985) ‘Corporate governance and the board of directors: Performance effects of changes in board composition’, Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 1 (1), 101.Google Scholar
  45. Brown, L. and Caylor, M. (2004). The Correlation between Corporate Governance & Company Performance. Retrieved July 2004, from
  46. White, B. J. (1980). Internal Control Practices: Formality, Informality, and Effectiveness. Internal Control in US Corporations, Financial Executives Research Foundation, New York.Google Scholar
  47. Gillies, J. (1992). Boardroom Renaissance, McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited, Whitby, Ontario.Google Scholar
  48. Hambrick, D. C. and Mason, P. A. (1984) ‘Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers’, The Academy of Management Review, 9 (2), 193–206.Google Scholar
  49. Florida, R., Cushing, R. and Gates, G. (2002) ‘When social capital stifles innovation’, Harvard Business Review, 80 (8), 20–21.Google Scholar
  50. Leblanc, R. and Gillies, J. (2005). Inside the Boardroom: How Boards Really Work and the Coming Revolution in Corporate Governance, Wiley, Toronto.Google Scholar
  51. Sherwin, L. (2003) ‘Building an effective board’, Bank Accounting and Finance, 16 (5), 22–29.Google Scholar
  52. Westphal, J. (1999) ‘Collaboration in the boardroom: Behavioural and performance consequences of CEO-Board social ties’, Academy of Management Journal, 42 (1), 7–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Argyris, C. (1991) ‘Teaching smart people how to learn’, Harvard Business Review, 4 (2), 4–15.Google Scholar
  54. Argyris, C. and Schon, D. (1978). Organizational Learning, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  55. Antonelli, C. (2005) ‘Models of knowledge and systems of governance’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 1 (1), 51–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Adams, R. B. (n.d.) ‘The dual role of corporate boards as advisors and monitors of management: Theory and evidence’, Retrieved August 2005, from
  57. Vafeas, N. (2003) ‘Length of board tenure and outside director independence’, Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 30 (7), 1043–1063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pfeffer, J. (1972) ‘Size and composition of corporate boards of directors: The organization and its environment’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 218–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pfeffer, J. (1973) ‘Size, composition, and function of hospital boards of directors: A study of organization-environment linkage’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 18 (3), 349–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G. R. (1978). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource-dependence Perspective, Harper & Row, New York.Google Scholar
  61. Shell Canada (2004). TSX Guideline 2004, Shell Canada, Calgary.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan Ltd 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations