Advertisement

Boards’ contribution to organizational growth: Effectiveness as a critical success factor

  • Michèle F. Rüdisser
Chapter
Part of the Management for Professionals book series (MANAGPROF)

Abstract

As a guardian of corporate values, boards are not only ultimately responsible for organizations’ strategic direction, but also play a decisive role concerning balanced growth. However, not all boards place equal emphasis on identifying and populating strategic growth opportunities. Instead of leaving everything to management, board members could make a difference by becoming more actively involved in a company’s affairs.

Keywords

Corporate Governance Board Member Organizational Growth Balance Growth Critical Success Factor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Böckli P. (2004). Schweizer Aktienrecht. Mit Fusionsgesetz, Internationalen Rechnungslegungsgrundsätzen IFRS, Börsengesellschaftsrecht, Konzernrecht und Corporate Governance. Zürich: Schulthess.Google Scholar
  2. Botschaft. 1983. Botschaft des Bundesrates über die Revision des Aktienrechts vom 23. Februar 1983. Bundesblatt 1983 II.Google Scholar
  3. Chapuis C. (2002). Art. 716a. In J. Kren Kostkiewicz, U. Bertschinger, I. Schwander, P. Breitschmid (Eds.), OR Handkommentar zum Schweizerischen Obligationenrecht (pp. 870–875). Zürich: Orell Füssli.Google Scholar
  4. Drucker P. F. (1993). The Five Most Important Questions You Will Ever Ask About Your Nonprofit Organization: Participant’s Workbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  5. European Commission (2011). Green Paper on the EU Corporate Governance Framework as of April 5, 2011. Brussels: European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/company/docs/modern/com2011-164_en.pdf.
  6. European Commission (2005). Commission Recommendation 2005/162/EC of 15 February 2005 on the role of non-executive or supervisory directors of listed companies and on the committees of the (supervisory) board. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2005:052:0051:0063:EN:PD.
  7. Forstmoser P. (2011). Organisation und Organisationsreglement der Aktiengesellschaft. Rechtliche Ordnung und Umsetzung in der Praxis. Zürich: Schulthess.Google Scholar
  8. Forstmoser P., Meier-Hayoz A., Nobel P. (1996). Schweizerisches Aktienrecht. Bern: Stämpfli.Google Scholar
  9. FRC (2011). Guidance on Board Effectiveness 2011. London: Financial Reporting Council. http://www.frc.org.uk/images/uploaded/documents/Guidance%20on%20board%20effectiveness%20FINAL5.pdf.
  10. Hofstetter K. (2002). Corporate Governance in Switzerland. Final Report of the Panel of Experts on Corporate Governance. Zürich: Economiesuisse.Google Scholar
  11. Hohn H. G. (1997). Board Governance: Balance is the Key. NACD Directorship, 23(4), 1–3.Google Scholar
  12. Kammerer A. (1997). Die unübertragbaren und unentziehbaren Kompetenzen des Verwaltungsrates. Zürich: Dissertation, Rechtswissenschaftliche Fakultät der Universität Zürich.Google Scholar
  13. Krneta G. (2005). Praxiskommentar Verwaltungsrat. Art. 707726, 754 OR und Spezialgesetze. Ein Handbuch für Verwaltungsräte. Bern: Stämpfli Verlag.Google Scholar
  14. Nicholson, G. J., Kiel, G. (2004). A Framework for Diagnosing Board Effectiveness. Corporate Governance, 12(4), 442–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nobel P. (2005). Podiumsdiskussion. Ist Art. 716a OR “lettre morte?” In C. M. Baer (Ed.). Verwaltungsrat und Geschäftsleitung. Ihre Tätigkeit und ihr Verhältnis zueinander. Tagungsband zum 10. Aktienrechts-Forum 2005 (pp. 101–108). St. Gallen: Haupt.Google Scholar
  16. Rüdisser M. F. (2010). Rethinking Board Communication: How to Enhance Critical Reflection within the Boardroom. In Haunreiter, D. (Ed.), Kommunikation in Wirtschaft, Recht und Gesellschaft (pp. 3–23). Bern: Stämpfli.Google Scholar
  17. Rüdisser M. F. (2009). Boards of Directors at Work: An Integral Analysis of Nontransferable Duties under Swiss Company Law from an Economic Perspective. Bamberg: Dissertation 3657, University of St. Gallen.Google Scholar
  18. Sonnenfeld J. A. (2002). What Makes Great Boards Great. It’s not Rules and Regulations. It’s the Way People Work Together. Harvard Business Review, 80(9), 106–113.Google Scholar
  19. Stiles P., Taylor B. (2001). Boards at Work. How Directors View their Roles and Responsibilities. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Tuggle C. S., Schnatterly K. Johnson R. A. (2010). Attention patterns in the boardroom: How board composition and processes affect discussion of entrepreneurial issues. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 550–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Von der Crone H. K., Carbonara A., Hunziker S. (2006). Aktienrechtliche Verantwortlichkeit und Geschäftsführung. Ein funktionaler und systematischer Überblick. Basel: Helbling & Lichtenhahn.Google Scholar
  22. Watter R. (2002). 26. Titel: Die Aktiengesellschaft. In H. Honsell, N. P. Vogt, R. Watter (Eds.). Basler Kommentar zum Schweizerischen Privatrecht, Obligationenrecht II (pp. 915–957). Basel: Helbling & Lichtenhahn.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michèle F. Rüdisser
    • 1
  1. 1.University of St.GallenSt.GallenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations