Triggered by highly publicised corporate scandals, changing societal expectations and the collapse of financial markets, the roles of boards of directors have changed significantly in safeguarding the interest of shareholders and other stakeholders. Yet, relatively little is known about contemporary challenges non–executive directors face and whether their boards are well–equipped for their new tasks. Based on self–assessment reports by supervisory boards, a survey and interviews with supervisory board members, this paper investigates the challenges non–executive directors face in the Netherlands, particularly after a decade of corporate governance reform. Non–executive directors' inadequate role in scrutinising executive directors' performance, information asymmetries and dysfunctional working relationships between executive and non–executive directors are among the greatest challenges indicated by non–executive directors on Dutch supervisory boards. The paper discusses several implications for scholars and practitioners and provides a unique insight in boardroom dynamics.
LINK
This study explores how non-executive directors are challenged by management while they seek to improve the effectiveness of supervisory boards in the Netherlands. A combination of semi-structured interviews and a questionnaire among non-executive directors indicates that supervisory board members mainly experience boardroom challenges in three core areas: the ability of non-executive directors to ask management critical questions, information asymmetries between the management and supervisory boards and the management of the relationship between individual executive and non-executive directors. The qualitative in-depth analysis reveals the complexity of the main contributing factors to problems in the boardroom as well as the range of process and social interventions non-executive directors use to address boardroom issues. The findings highlight the need to better understand boardroom processes and the need of non-executive directors to carefully manage relationships in and around the boardroom.
LINK
Op 1 januari 2013 wordt de Wet Bestuur en Toezicht naar verwachting van kracht1. Na invoering van deze wet kunnen bedrijven gemakkelijker kiezen uit de one-tier board en de two-tier board als bestuursmodel. Shell heeft in 2005 het one-tier model ingevoerd en kan dus al de eerste balans opmaken. Ervaringen bij Shell en lessen voor bedrijven die volgen.
DOCUMENT
Purpose – This study seeks to explore how non-executive directors address governance problems on Dutch two-tier boards. Within this board model, challenges might be particularly difficult to address due to the formal separation of management boards' decision-management from supervisory boards' decision-control roles. Design/methodology/approach – Semi-structured interviews and a questionnaire among non-executive directors provide unique insights into three major challenges in the boardrooms of two-tier boards in The Netherlands. Findings – The study indicates that non-executive directors mainly experience challenges in three areas: the ability to ask management critical questions, information asymmetries between the management and supervisory boards and the management of the relationship between individual executive and non-executive directors. The qualitative in-depth analysis reveals the complexity of the contributing factors to problems in the boardroom and the range of process and social interventions non-executive directors use to address boardroom issues with management and the organization of the board. Practical implications – While policy makers have been largely occupied with the “right” board composition, the results highlight the importance of adequately addressing operational challenges in the boardroom. The results emphasize the importance of a better understanding of board processes and the need of non-executive directors to carefully manage relationships in and around the boardroom. Originality/value – Whereas most studies have focussed on regulatory initiatives to improve the functioning of boards (e.g. the independence of the board), this study explores how non-executive directors attempt to enhance the effectiveness of boards on which they serve.
DOCUMENT
In the Netherlands, there is an increasing need for collective forms of housing for older people. Such housing bridges the gap between the extremes of living in an institutionalised setting and remaining in their own house. The demand is related to the closure of many residential care homes and the need for social engagement with other residents. This study focuses on housing initiatives that offer innovative and alternative forms of independent living, which deviate from mainstream housing arrangements. It draws on recent literature on healthcare ‘rebels’ and further develops the concept of ‘rebellion’ in the context of housing. The main research question is how founders dealt with challenges of establishing and governing ‘rebellious’ innovative living arrangements for older people in the highly regulated context of housing and care in the Netherlands. Qualitative in-depth interviews with 17 founders (social entrepreneurs, directors and supervisory board members) were conducted. Founders encountered various obstacles that are often related to governmental and sectoral rules and regulations. Their stories demonstrate the opportunities and constraints of innovative entrepreneurship at the intersection of housing and care. The study concludes with the notion of ‘responsible rebellion’ and practical lessons about dealing with rules and regulations and creating supportive contexts. Original article at MDPI; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17176235 And atachment "Supplementary Materials" (This article belongs to the Special Issue Feature Papers "Age-Friendly Cities & Communities: State of the Art and Future Perspectives")
MULTIFILE
The literature on how organizations respond to institutional pressure has shown that the individual decision-makers’ interpretation of institutional pressure played an important role in developing organizational responses. However, it has paid less attention to how this interpretation ultimately contributes to their range of organizational decisions when responding to the same institutional pressure. We address this gap by interviewing board members of U.S. and Dutch hospitals involved in adopting best practices regarding board evaluation. We found four qualitatively different cognitive frames that board members relied on to interpret institutional pressure, and which shaped their organizational response. We contribute to the literature on organizational response to institutional pressure by empirically investigating how decision-makers interpret institutional pressure, by suggesting prior experience and role definition as moderating factors of multidimensional cognitive frames, and by showing how these cognitive frames influence board members’ response to the same institutional pressure.
DOCUMENT
The decision-making process in boardrooms has a significant impact on organizational performance. In the last two decades, scientific research on the decision-making process in boardrooms has increased. This resulted in a substantial body of knowledge about boardroom factors and their relation to organizational performance. However, the effectiveness of the decision-making process in boardrooms is still mainly a black box. Amongst other things, scientific findings seem to contradict each other, which could mean additional insights are still missing. This research aims to contribute to a better understanding of this black box.
DOCUMENT
In Nederlandse scholen zijn jaarlijks vele tienduizenden praktijkbegeleiders (mentoren) van leraren in opleiding actief. De meeste mentoren doen dit begeleidingswerk naast hun hoofdtaak als leraar van leerlingen. Een ervaren leraar is niet per definitie ook een goede mentor. Om mentoren te ondersteunen in hun belangrijke werk verzorgen veel scholen, vaak in samenwerking met lerarenopleidingen, trainingen in begeleidingsvaardigheden. Voor Frank Crasborn en Paul Hennissen vormde hun ervaring als lerarenopleider en trainer van honderden mentoren de inspiratiebron voor het opzetten van onderzoek. Dit leidde tot een onderzoeksproject van acht deelstudies, waarin zowel naar gedragsaspecten als naar gerelateerde cognitieve aspecten van begeleidingsgedrag van mentoren werd gekeken. De resultaten van het onderzoek leidden tot een bijdrage aan de ordening van begrippen en concepten die gebruikt worden om begeleidingsgedrag van begeleiders in gesprekken met leraren in opleiding in kaart te brengen en te analyseren; een gedetailleerd beeld van begeleidingsgedrag in authentieke begeleidingsgesprekken en de manier waarop leraren in opleiding dit gedrag percipiëren; het blootleggen van cognities van mentoren, gekoppeld aan begeleidingsgedrag in gesprekken met leraren in opleiding; meer inzicht in de reikwijdte van training op de ontwikkeling van het doen en denken van begeleiders in begeleidingsgesprekken; een instrument voor reflectie op begeleidingsgedrag van mentoren; aanwijzingen voor verbetering van trainingen voor mentoren.
MULTIFILE
Background: To be accountable to laws and regulations, healthcare professionals spend more than 40% of their time on administrative tasks. The Compulsory Mental Healthcare Act (CMHA) was introduced in Dutch mental healthcare in 2020. It was hypothesized that this legislative amendment would raise the administrative burden for some care professionals. Pilot studies in 2020 and 2021 visualized the exponentially rise of the administrative burden for care professionals, especially psychiatrists due to the transition. However the total response was too small and not generalizable. Aim: gain more nationwide insight in the hypothesized raise of administrative burden of psychiatrists due to the implementation of the CMHA. Method: Under the leadership of an advisory board of three medical director psychiatrists, a Likert scale questionnaire was further developed to investigate the administrative burden of psychiatrists in the Netherlands before and after transition. Open-ended questions provided the opportunity for feedback from the psychiatrists. The study was supported by the Department of Medical Directors (DMD) of The Netherlands Psychiatric Association (NPA). Results: all mental health institutions members of the DMD of the NPA received an invitation to participate. 14 institutions (total N=158) responded. The data show a significant change in the time spent on administrative tasks, the usefulness of the administrative actions, the fit for use and ease of use of supporting systems. The forementioned all decreased significantly after the implementation. Conclusion and discussion: Psychiatrists spend more time on administration than before the legislative amendment instead of helping vulnerable patients. None of the institutions has been able to use the transition to its advantage given the time spent on administrative tasks and the usefulness of these tasks. This is an unacceptable development in the field of mental health in the Netherlands and should be addressed to those who are responsible for the decision making, especially policy makers. These results show that the introduction of the CMHA have made the field of Dutch mental health an impossible area to work for. , Administrative burden, Legislative amendment, Public governance, Information Management
MULTIFILE
Commissarissen en toezichthouders zoeken naar de juiste balans en afstemming met het bestuur bij invulling van hun rol, zo blijkt uit in het najaar van 2010 gepresenteerde onderzoek ‘Iedere Raad van Commissarissen heeft zo zijn problemen’ van de Governance University.
DOCUMENT
