The effect of board capital and CEO power on strategic change

By Katalin Takacs Haynes, Amy J. Hillman. 2010

769 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Accounting, Management of Technology and Innovation, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/87d4a5e35c1d8181d887e375e8fd712e00cd6cc9

How researchers see this paper

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

In Accounting

In Management of Technology and Innovation

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

Citations in the corpus

Toward a Configurational Perspective on the CEO (2016, background): “Clearly, the CEO is granted power by owners who allow the CEO to make decisions and by a board that allows for managerial latitude in decision making (Haynes & Hillman, 2010; Jensen & Meckling, 1976).”
The Effect of Board Capital and CEO Power on Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosures (2016, background): “A relationship between the two concepts is predicted, as empirical evidence shows that boards with high human and social capital provide useful advice to management on strategically important matters (Haynes and Hillman 2010).”
Industry expertise on corporate boards (2017, positive): “Prior research (Haynes and Hillman 2010) also suggests that such CEOs are more likely to seek and accept board inputs in strategy formation and execution.”
Human Capital and CEO Compensation during Institutional Transitions (2015, positive): “…Institutional Transitions 119 of a CEO's particular human capital consists of his/her 'expertise, experience, knowledge , reputation, and skills' (Haynes and Hillman, 2010, p. 1146), from which a CEO can draw to enhance firm performance and manage external resource dependencies (Combs and Skill,…”
Board Interlocks and Firm Performance: Toward a Combined Agency–Resource Dependence Perspective (2018, background): “This theoretical integration has led to a preponderance of studies considering the role of board capital, or the aggregate board-level human and social capital, on several organizational outcomes (e.g., Haynes & Hillman, 2010; Kor & Sundaramurthy, 2009; Tian, Haleblian, & Rajagopalan, 2011).”
Substitutes or Complements? A Configurational Examination of Corporate Governance Mechanisms (2014, result): “First, it is consistent with previous governance research (e.g., Haynes & Hillman, 2010; Anderson & Reeb, 2004).”
How boards’ internal and external social capital interact to affect firm performance (2016, methodology): “We decided to measure the extent of boards’ external and internal social capital using the variables most often used in the literature (Haynes and Hillman, 2010; Kor and Sundaramurthy, 2009; Stevenson and Radin, 2009; Tian et al., 2011), but it would also be appropriate to consider other indicators…”
Corporate Governance Deviance (2016, positive): “In addition, the firm must also possess the necessary human and social capital to act differently from others in its environment, particularly within the boardroom (Haynes & Hillman, 2010).”