Integration of Micro and Macro Studies in Governance Research: CEO Duality, Board Composition, and Financial Performance

By D. Dalton, Catherine M. Dalton. 2011

315 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6979dc1c5c78a8065820662ada7e52a392deb771

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Accounting

Citations in the corpus

Toward a Configurational Perspective on the CEO (2016, background): “In addition, CEO social influence of the board may be on the increase, and CEOs may be able to maneuver around the board constraints that remain (Dalton & Dalton, 2011; Geletkanycz & Boyd, 2011; Schepker & Oh, 2013; Westphal, 1999; Zhu & Westphal, 2014).”
A Tale of Two Factions: Why and When Factional Demographic Faultlines Hurt Board Performance (2015, methodology): “…of this view, several meta-analyses and review studies demonstrate that there is no clear relationship between board demographic composition and ﬁrm performance (Certo, Lester, Dalton, & Dalton, 2006; Daily, Dalton, & Cannella, 2003; Dalton & Dalton, 2011; Johnson, Schnatterly, & Hill, 2013).”
How boards’ internal and external social capital interact to affect firm performance (2016, background): “, 2006) and, more specifically, their influence on performance (Dalton and Dalton, 2011).”
Corporate Governance in China: A Meta‐Analysis (2018, background): “We must therefore interpret our findings with caution (Dalton and Dalton, 2011).”
Women on the Board and Managers’ Pay: Evidence from Spain (2015, background): “Fama (1980) argues that while the board is the most important internal control mechanism for promoting and protecting shareholder’s interest, its monitoring is effective only when it provides high-quality, impartial advice, which is usually considered when the board members are independent.”
CEO Duality, Agency Costs, and Internal Capital Allocation Efficiency (2019, unknown): “…considerable attention from both practitioners and academics (see, for example, Rechner and Dalton, 1989, 1991; Donaldson and Davis, 1991; Daily and Dalton, 1992, 1993; Dalton et al. , 2007; Kim et al. , 2009; Dalton and Dalton, 2011; Krause and Semadeni, 2013; Yang and Zhao, 2014; Krause, 2017).”
Entrepreneurial orientation and innovation in family SMEs: Unveiling the (actual) impact of the Board of Directors (2018, background): “Indeed, resource dependence theory suggests that BoDs are information-processing structures whose success is based on the knowledge and expertise that directors share with other directors (Dalton and Dalton, 2011).”
Too Unsafe to Monitor? How Board–CEO Cognitive Conflict and Chair Leadership Shape Outside Director Monitoring (2020, background): “This case-based, inductive approach allowed us to recognize boards as “dynamic social systems” (Lorsch, 2017: 2) with activities spanningmultiple levels of analysis (Dalton & Dalton, 2011).”
Corporate governance and financial performance: The role of ownership and board structure (2018, background): “Board members and financial performance Scholars have confirmed that the board structure is a relevant aspect of agency theory (Jensen & Meckling, 1976; Eisenberg, 1976; Fama, 1980; Fama & Jensen, 1983; Dalton & Dalton, 2011; Dey, 2008; Bhagat & Bolton, 2008).”
Integrating agency and resource dependence theory: Firm profitability, industry regulation, and board task performance (2013, background): “Studies on boards of directors downplay the role of firm or context specific conditions on board behaviour (Bamberger, 2008), and the numerous calls for additional research overcoming these limitations have only received partial fulfilment (Dalton & Dalton, 2011).”