The conducted literature review highlighted several findings but also, more importantly, the need for improvement. Chapter 5 of this study follows up on these leads. It specifically describes the identified research gaps, the resulting primary research questions, and the research strategy of the present thesis. All this together will lead to a thorough empirical analysis and discussion of the results at a later stage of the dissertation.

5.1 Research Gap (Summary)

This doctoral thesis examines how listed Swiss organisations perceive the board chair election process. The previous chapters were designed to introduce the Swiss regulatory environment (Chapter 2), to find theoretical foundations (Chapter 3), and to present first findings of current academic literature (Chapter 4). Based on the above insights, the following specific research gaps in chairperson succession for (1) competences, (2) moderators, and (3) disclosure can be identified (summarised in the following):

  1. (1)

    • There is a lack of knowledge about which competences are required for the specific roles and tasks of the chairperson. In research, competences have been treated cursorily, as a ‘consequence of something’ or as an ‘add-on’, yet not entirely (e.g. Lorenz Koller, 2010).

    • Beyond theory, there is no clarity as to whether personal, social, and leadership competences are favoured over business and technical competences in chairperson selection, or whether it is the other way around.

  2. (2)

    • Succession is not at a low research level, yet there is a lack of knowledge about how succession planning/processing works in relation to teamwork and timing.Footnote 1

    • Not all succession process stages are equally developed, leaving the evaluation process the least researched one among all the others.

    • Even tough there is a succession framework present, the key stakeholders involved and the extent to which key contingencies influence the process are poorly understood.

  3. (3)

    • Shareholders and stakeholders generally expect organisations to voluntarily disclose more than just financial information, but it is not clear which specific topics these are with regards to succession.

    • Organisations do not provide shareholders with enough background information to enable them to vote on AGM proposals, especially information on why the candidate is the best fit in view of the organisation’s strategy and the current composition of the board.

    • With respect to motive, scope and content, channel, and time/timing, there is a clear lack of a framework for disclosing confidential succession information to outsiders.

Chapter 6, Chapter 7, and Chapter 8 of this study explore these leads. The three chapters specifically tackle the identified research gaps and conduct a thorough empirical analysis and discussion of the findings.

5.2 Research Questions

In board governance succession, research is gaining importance since there is no one ultimate process, but a general agreement that it should be done professionally. Focusing on the chairperson, who is subsequently the key determinant for the board’s future composition, will provide deeper insights. To better understand the main research objective, the doctoral study’s focus is divided into three research questions. The three questions are intentionally neither kept open-ended nor broad but reflect, to the best of the author’s ability, the current research state of the topics addressed (Section 5.3.2). To focus on systematics, the research questions follow the input-process-output scheme (Section 4.1).

5.2.1 RQ1 Synthesis

RQ1: :

What are the competences of a chairperson?

First, relevant board theories (Section 3.1) agree that the chairperson fulfils multiple roles (Section 4.2.1). Second, previous research has shown how board attributes are interrelated with organisational performance (e.g. Brown, 2007; Khanna et al., 2014). Identifying and evaluating the competences that drive the assessment and profiling of the candidate therefore provides further insights and linkages to research on board effectiveness (Forbes & Milliken, 1999, p. 492). A step-by-step approach, focusing first on the input rather than on the process, facilitates a focus on the key competences so that the process moderators then can be managed more consciously.

What competence patterns are most required in board chair selection? As highlighted in Section 4.1.1, using the iceberg analogy (Spencer & Spencer, 1993, p. 11) and the hierarchical Competence Model (Viitala, 2005, p. 440) allows for a more systematic mapping of competences. Following that relationship, person-related competences (personal, social, and leadership) at the bottom of the pyramid are the foundation for the continuum of work-related competences at the top of the pyramid (business and technical).

Although competence modelling is a holistic concept with “technical, management, people, attitude, value, and mental skill components” (Garavan & McGuire, 2001, p. 152), scholars argued that the more competences can be learned and associated to work experience (business, technical), the less they shape the behaviour and performance of a board member. Previous studies examined this dyadic relationship in terms of assessment centres (Henderson et al., 1995), governance attributes (Kakabadse et al., 2001), group social integration (Harrison et al., 1998), and senior management (Thompson et al., 1996).

However, there are exceptions to the dyadic relationships that arise from the attributes of the chairperson’s role. In stewardship theory, a solid personality (integrity), leadership skills (stewardship), and industry/transactional knowledge (board literacy) are critical to the work of the board chair (Section 4.2.2). This occurrence refers in particular to the interplay between the senior management and the board in which the chair is positioned. Given this unique interplay, it is important to examine the importance of the three dimensions of integrity, stewardship, and board literacy in supervising, challenging, and guiding the senior management when it comes to strategic issues (Forbes & Milliken, 1999; Lorsch & MacIver, 1989; Shen & Cannella, 2002). Following the theoretic rationale, this doctoral study thus strives to answer the following sub-questions in RQ1:

RQ1–1: :

What are the priorities for person- and work-related competences?

RQ1–2: :

What are the priorities for integrity-, stewardship-, and board literacy- related competences?

5.2.2 RQ2 Synthesis

RQ2: :

What are influential moderators in chairperson succession?

In general, Swiss law permits a great deal of discretion and flexibility with regard to succession. In a corporate setting, the nomination committee is responsible for planning and handling succession (Section 2.1.3). In theory, as outlined in Section 4.3.1, chairperson succession follows a four-stage framework. In practice, however, succession is influenced by personal (Section 4.3.2) and organisational (Section 4.3.3) moderators that affect its execution.

What key contingencies and key stakeholders impact board chair election? As demonstrated in Section 4.1.2, board succession is a circumstance-dependent view (Olson & Adams, 2004, p. 433). On the one hand, the institutional context may affect the planning of succession and make the process unique and organisation-specific (van Ees & Postma, 2004, pp. 91–92). On the other hand, the person steering the process may also (mis)use procedural incidents to align the personal strategy to climbing up career ladder (Molitor, 2010, p. 147; Zajac & Westphal, 1996a, p. 511). According to agency theory, it is therefore necessary to be aware of the influence of contingencies or to establish certain control mechanisms. For the latter, the premise of greater independence of the chair to improve information dissemination (Coles & Hesterly, 2000) and to discipline senior management (Mackay et al., 2015) are two examples that illustrate what is meant by this.

However, according to foregoing literature referring to the nomination committee (Clune et al., 2014), chairperson (McNulty et al., 2011; McNulty & Pettigrew, 1996), CEO (Horner & Valenti, 2012; Westphal & Zajac, 1995), social network (Allemand et al., 2022; O'Higgins, 2002), political affiliation (Lester et al., 2008), and reputation (Certo, 2003; Ferris et al., 2003), succession is not a rigid construct but rather a consequence of socio-political dynamics (Withers et al., 2012, p. 244). Stakeholder theory and resource dependency theory presume the legitimacy of the board’s actions and that the board includes the society in its actions. Thus, it is assumed that boards who actively integrate stakeholder views into succession planning reduce information asymmetry between agents and principals and enhance overall candidate acceptance (Westphal & Zajac, 2013, p. 636).Footnote 2 Fredrickson (1984, pp. 446–447) hereby referred to decision comprehensiveness, i.e. the extent to which decision-making is exhaustive or inclusive − in other words, whether the process owner integrates multiple or uniform criteria/opinions (Forbes, 2007, pp. 370–371).

To combine both perspectives and obtain a unified view in relation to a successful appointment, it is crucial to recognise the influence of individuals (key stakeholders) and the organisational context (key contingencies) in chairperson succession. Identifying and evaluating these enabling and constraining moderators thus will, first, allow to get more insights into the literature on board dynamics (Pugliese et al., 2015) and, second, to handle (potential) corporate despotism (McNulty & Pettigrew, 1996).

Prior studies applied the influence of moderators to German board member selection (Barth, 2013), external board network ties (Carpenter & Westphal, 2001), balanced and effective board composition (Olson & Adams, 2004), board chair engagement (Bezemer et al., 2018), and information-processing mechanisms among the board of directors, nomination committee, and senior management (Walther, Morner, & Calabrò, 2017). To extend the research to the board chair and best ensure that the dynamics of the moderators in chairperson succession are understood, following the theory (Section 4.3), RQ2 therefore examines the following dimensions:

RQ2–1: :

What is the influence of business contingencies?

RQ2–2: :

What is the influence of environmental contingencies?

RQ2–3: :

What is the influence of governance contingencies?

RQ2–4: :

What is the influence of political contingencies?

RQ2–5: :

What are the expectations of internal and external key stakeholders?

5.2.3 RQ3 Synthesis

RQ3: :

What are the principles of voluntary disclosure in chairperson succession?

Like the process, the output of chairperson succession is also subject to legal requirements. By Swiss law, especially the DCG (Section 2.2), listed entities are obliged to provide information on the organisational structure (board and senior management) and related transactions (remuneration, related party transactions). The information provided should allow shareholders to make adequate decisions (Deegan et al., 2002, p. 334).

What are the principles of voluntary disclosure in chairperson succession? There is empirical evidence that voluntary disclosure on succession increased due to the stronger presence of the nomination committee (Cerbioni & Parbonetti, 2007, pp. 318–319; O’Sullivan et al., 2008, p. 7). In order to identify the added value of the board chair beyond a curriculum vitae (CV), however, disclosure principally lacks in-depth explanations. Little is said about why the candidate proposed to the AGM is now the person best suited (Garman & Glawe, 2004, p. 124).

Explanations for/against greater disclosure are related to the control mechanisms of agency theory or the national, legal, and cultural norms of resource dependency theory that limit private control benefits.Footnote 3 From the perspective of economic governance (agency theory), organisations usually see no need to expand the level of the voluntary information disclosed, as this allows competitors to gain profound insights (Darrough & Stoughton, 1990, p. 221).Footnote 4 However, withholding information reduces the decision-making ability of investors and leaves room for interpretation. For the investor, it is thus “uncertain whether the nondisclosure is due to nonexistence of information or due to its adverse content” (Jung & Kwon, 1988, p. 146). To do justice to the stakeholder-competitor dichotomy, organisations therefore develop specific disclosure strategies (Beyer et al., 2010, p. 304).

From a social governance perspective (resource dependency theory), there are good examples in sensitive industries, such as chemicals, mining, and oil, which put more emphasis on non-financial disclosure to counter past poor practices (Deegan et al., 2002, p. 318; Gray et al., 2001, pp. 341–342). Sound disclosure on human capital in sensitive industries thereby led to long-term rather than short-term changes in market value (Gamerschlag, 2013, p. 339). Consequently, organisations are meeting the demands of industry benchmarks and shareholders/stakeholders. As organisations attract public attention, they are cautious about what information they publish in detail (Gallego Alvarez et al., 2008, p. 606).

With the greater interest in accountability (Roberts et al., 2005, p. 6), it is likely that certain economic and social governance motives are driving organisations to rethink their disclosure scheme, which will be the focus of the doctoral study. Therefore, also taking into account best practice standards and market demands, it is of interest to analyse why (motives), how much and what (scope and content), and where and through which means (channel), and when (time/timing) additional transparency in voluntary succession disclosure would bring advantages (Miller & Skinner, 2015, p. 223). Following the theory in Section 4.4, RQ3 addresses the following dimensions to capture voluntary succession disclosure more comprehensively:

RQ3–1: :

What are economic and social motives?

RQ3–2: :

What are the priorities for scope and content?

RQ3–3: :

What are the priorities for channel and time/timing?

5.3 Research Strategy

This section discusses this thesis’ overall research strategy. An appropriate research methodology and research design will enable the research questions posed in Section 5.2 to be addressed.

5.3.1 Research Methodology

To verify the validity of the analysis, the primary decision to be made is whether to follow a natural science or a human science perspective. In natural science, observations are measured precisely, well-founded theories are used, and clear rules are followed to derive hypotheses (Benton & Craib, 2001, pp. 121–122). Human sciences, on the contrary, are less precise because they assume that human interaction is complex and cannot be measured accurately (Risjord, 2014, p. 9). In principle, there is no one single research strategy. It depends on the research objectives and research questions: confirmatory vs. exploratory and quantitative vs. qualitative research methodology.

First, confirmatory research (also deductive research) uses existing theories to derive the hypothesis (Hurley et al., 1997, p. 672). Based on a natural science perspective, confirmatory research starts with the general and progresses to the specific. Exploratory research (also inductive research) follows a reverse rationale to confirmatory research (Jaeger & Halliday, 1998, p. 64). It is based on the human science view and starts from the observation of specific patterns in order to conclude analogous research findings.

Second, a quantitative approach has traditionally been the predominant approach in research. This approach is used to validate existing theories through statistical measures (confirmatory research). Its key strength is the statistical objectivity of the results. One of its weaknesses is the simplistic and often abstract nature of the applied theory, such as the lack of context and of individual and local situations (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004, p. 19). In contrast, a qualitative approach allows for deeper insights to “make the world visible” (Gephart, 2004, p. 455). Data is obtained through interviews, surveys, or observations. One of its advantages is that participants can provide context that is useful for interpreting the findings. Disadvantages are the time-consuming preparation and the potential bias of the results (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004, p. 20).

Nonetheless, confirmatory research/quantitative analysis and exploratory research/qualitative analysis are not “polar opposites” (McNeill & Chapman, 2005, p. 21). Rather, they are complementary (Thomas, 2003, p. 8). Consequently, combining them leads to mixed-methods research, which in turn allows to merge “quantitative and qualitative research techniques, methods, approaches, concepts or language into a single study” (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004, p. 17). This combination enables to leverage the advantages and disadvantages of a more holistic view. Triangulation, the use of a variety of methods, is a viable option to achieve valid results − especially in the case of complexity and dynamics (Gibbert & Ruigrok, 2010, p. 713).

5.3.2 Research Design

Edmondson and McManus (2007, p. 1160) consider three archetypes of theory states that determine the methodological fit of a particular research approach. First, nascent research covers new phenomena by seeking to identify certain patterns. In doing so, the researcher usually uses qualitative data from interviews and asks open-ended questions to develop a suggestive theory. Second, intermediate research attempts to find specific relationships between already established propositions or constructs. Here, the scholar integrates explorative and confirmative research with the purpose of constructing a provisional theory, “often one that integrates previously separate bodies of work” (Edmondson & McManus, 2007, p. 1160). Third, mature research examines formal hypotheses through standard testing procedures. It typically relies on existing constructs and attempts to contribute to greater support for the theory. In view of the prior research in this thesis (theory, literature review, and research gaps), the intermediate research paradigm applies.

To choose an appropriate research design, the methodology has to fit the nature of the questions to be asked, the requirement to control for behavioural events, and the focus on contemporary or past events (Punch, 2014, p. 24; Yin, 2018, p. 9). The following arguments suggest that for this thesis, mixed-methods research is most appropriate: (1) The literature review has revealed the knowledge gap in chairperson succession practices, leading to the need to close the gap to subsequently provide more statistical evidence; (2) all three research questions posed are in the ‘what’ form, do not require behavioural control, and focus on temporary events (Section 5.2); (3) the archetype of theory is defined as intermediate research, whereby, according to Edmondson and McManus (2007, p. 1160), an intermediate approach allows for a hybrid type of data collected to incorporate separate bodies of work; and (4) following the research of other scholars, the approach is also in line with other qualitative research calls in succession (e.g. Clune et al., 2014; Huse, 2009a; Pye, 2002; Yar Hamidi & Gabrielsson, 2014b).

Applying a mixed-methods design requires the fundamental choice of paradigm emphasis (quantitative vs. qualitative) and temporal sequence (concurrent vs. sequential) (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004, pp. 21–22). This thesis favours an exploratory sequential design with prior collection of qualitative data (qual → QUAN) (Creswell, 2015, p. 58). With this, the proposed research design acknowledges to “follow up qualitative findings with quantitative research which allows the scope and generalizability of the qualitative findings to be assessed” (Bell et al., 2019, p. 574). The approach is also in line with the majority of business research studies that prioritised analysis with quantitative and sequential over qualitative and concurrent procedures (Bell et al., 2019, p. 572). Considering mixed-methods research and sequential timing, the data will be collected in a cross-sectional design, i.e. the researcher collects multiple observations at a single point in time (Bell et al., 2019, p. 58).Footnote 5 The benefit of a cross-sectional design is the relatively short time for data collection and the ease of conducting the analysis.

In order to address the research gaps, the primary focus of the data collection is on SPI chairpersons and heads of nomination committees (Section 1.4.2). In best governance manner, the head of the nomination committee assumes the responsibility to address succession planning. However, not all SPI organisations have a nomination committee (or an equivalent committee) in place (Section 2.1.3). In that case, the chairperson usually leads the succession process together with other senior board members. For reasons of methodological consistency and because the chair is personally liable for board actions until the day the successor is appointed by the AGM (Section 2.5.2), the board chair has therefore also been included. In order to improve the understanding as well as the reliability and validity of the exploratory results, the opinions of key stakeholders were also sought (Section 4.3.2).Footnote 6

Succession involves sensitive insider information that could irreparably damage the organisation and the board’s reputation (Section 4.3.3.3). A potential impediment to the proposed research strategy is access to the boardroom. To overcome the boardroom access barrier, Leblanc and Schwarz’s (2007, pp. 847–848) four means were applied, which have proven to be successful: (1) an initial direct mailing request asking for participation (letter, email); (2) initiating contact through university guest lectures (guest speaker); (3) using gatekeepers who work closely with the primary target group (board members, company secretary); and (4) leveraging access through prior contacts (personal network relations).

Summing up, this thesis follows a mixed-methods research design (qual → QUAN) by applying expert interviews (Chapter 6) and a web-based survey (Chapter 7).

5.4 Review

Chapter 5 summarised the research gaps derived from the law and the literature review, addressed the relevant research questions pursued with it and, last but not least, showed which research methodology and research design will be used to address the underlying findings. The following conclusions were drawn from this:

  • There are clear research gaps as to what competences a chairperson needs, how a succession processs should be established and with whom it is pursued, and what level of information is necessary to vote appropriately in favour/against the AGM nominee.

  • The study pursues three research question, whereby each question relates to one phase of the conceptual succession planning model. RQ1 relates to competences (input), RQ2 to moderators (process), and RQ3 to voluntary sucecssion disclosure (output).

  • To address the respective research gaps in intermediate research, the thesis applies a mixed-methods design. The two-pronged approach, following Edmondson and McManus (2007), allows the best of both worlds to be combined in order to adequately tackle the research topics under study. By focusing on the respective research question, the doctoral study follows a qual → QUAN research design to present its findings.