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
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
This paper explores if there is a relation between governance boards in small and medium sized family firms and performance indicators of the firm. A governance board can be either a supervisory or an advisory board, this in line with the two tier governance structure that is used in the Netherlands. The resource based view is used to discuss the possible valuable resources of family SMEs and the way governance boards can influence these resources. Three functions of boards are distinguished: monitoring, resource and strategy. Especially the last two could be valuable for family SMEs. Hypotheses were tested on a sample of 370 Dutch family SMEs. Our results show that governance boards effects the existence of written strategic plans and the expected marketability of the firm. The data did not confirm a relation between a governance boards and expected short term sales growth.
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
In the wake of neo-liberal informed global trends to set performance standards and intensify accountability, the Dutch government aimed for ‘raising standards for basic skills’. While the implementation of literacy standards was hardly noticed, the introduction of numeracy standards caused a major backlash in secondary schools, which ended in a failed introduction of a high stakes test. How can these major differences be explained? Inspired by Foucault’s governmentality concept a theoretical framework is developed to allow for detailed empirical research on steering processes in complex systems in which many actors are involved in educational decision-making. A mixed-methods multiple embedded case-study was conducted comprising nine school boards and fifteen secondary schools. Analyses unveil processes of responsibilisation, normalisation and emerging dividing practices. Literacy standards reinforced responsibilities of Dutch language teachers; for numeracy, school leadership created entirely new roles and responsibilities for teachers. Literacy standards were incorporated in an already used instrument which made implementation both subtle and inevitable. For numeracy, schools distinguished students by risk of not passing the new test affirming the disciplinary nature of schools in the process. While little changed to address teachers main concerns about students’ literacy skills, the failed introduction of the numeracy test usurped most resources.
DOCUMENT
Anno 2012 voelt de RvC2 de invloed van internationalisering, meer wet- en regelgeving, de recessie, verscherpt extern toezicht en kritiek van onder meer media en stakeholders, aangemoedigd door de steeds vaker openlijk besproken schandalen (Peij, Bezemer, & Maassen, 2012). Daarnaast dient zich nadrukkelijk het one-tier board model als alternatief voor het in Nederland bekende two-tier model aan (Peij, 2010, p. 38). Deze ontwikkelingen maken de rol van de commissaris meer complex en uitdagend. Hoe kan de RvC in deze omstandigheden voldoende effectief worden of blijven? In de visie van de onderzoekers door inzicht te krijgen in de problemen die de RvC ervaart en in de oorzaken en mogelijke oplossingen die daarbij horen.
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
In the course of our supervisory work over the years, we have noticed that qualitative research tends to evoke a lot of questions and worries, so-called frequently asked questions (FAQs). This series of four articles intends to provide novice researchers with practical guidance for conducting high-quality qualitative research in primary care. By ‘novice’ we mean Master’s students and junior researchers, as well as experienced quantitative researchers who are engaging in qualitative research for the first time. This series addresses their questions and provides researchers, readers, reviewers and editors with references to criteria and tools for judging the quality of qualitative research papers. This second article addresses FAQs about context, research questions and designs. Qualitative research takes into account the natural contexts in which individuals or groups function to provide an in-depth understanding of real-world problems. The research questions are generally broad and open to unexpected findings. The choice of a qualitative design primarily depends on the nature of the research problem, the research question(s) and the scientific knowledge one seeks. Ethnography, phenomenology and grounded theory are considered to represent the ‘big three’ qualitative approaches. Theory guides the researcher through the research process by providing a ‘lens’ to look at the phenomenon under study. Since qualitative researchers and the participants of their studies interact in a social process, researchers influence the research process. The first article described the key features of qualitative research, the third article will focus on sampling, data collection and analysis, while the last article focuses on trustworthiness and publishing.
DOCUMENT
