Size Really Matters: Further Evidence on the Negative Relationship Between Board Size and Firm Value

By Y. T. Mak, Yuanto Kusnadi. 2005

815 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Accounting, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/eb78446fb7b16543a2f3d52c27e9590e5507a76d

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 Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Board Diversity and Firm Performance: The Indonesian Evidence (2010, neutral): “While a number of studies on the relationship between board diversity and firm performance use longitudinal data (e.g. Adams”
Board Characteristics and Firm Performance: Case of Saudi Arabia (2012, background): “Similar to Mak and Kusnadi (2005) and AbdurRouf (2011), this study finds that there is no association between AC size and firm performance. In addition, the study investigates the relationship between AC composition and firm performance, and it could not provide a significant relationship between th”
The Too-Much-of-a-Good-Thing Effect in Management (2013, background): “…suggests that expanding the composition of boards of directors beyond five to seven members may inhibit corporate governance and performance (Conyon & Peck, 1998; Eisenberg, Sundgren, & Wells, 1998; Golden & Zajac, 2001; Huther, 1997; Mak & Kusnadi, 2005; Westphal, 1998; Yermack, 1996).”
The impact of board size on firm performance: evidence from the UK (2009, background): “For Malaysian firms, both Mak and Kusnadi (2005) and Haniffa and Hudaib (2006) find a significantly negative impact of board size on Tobin’s Q. Bozec (2005) finds that board size has a significantly negative effect on sales margin but not profitability for 25 large Canadian firms.”
Corporate governance and alternative performance measures: evidence from Australian firms (2011, positive): “The monitoring role of the board has been extensively studied and the general consensus is that smaller boards are more effective at monitoring and are positively related to high firm value (Eisenberg et al., 1998; Jensen, 1993; Mak and Kusnadi, 2005; Yermack, 1996).”
Analysis of Board Size and Firm Performance: Evidence from NSE Companies Using Panel Data Approach (2016, background): “The negative relationship between the board size and firm performance was documented by a number of researchers (Boone, Field, Karpoff, & Raheja, 2007; Eisenberg, Sundgren, & Wells, 1998; Garg, 2007; Ghosh, 2006; Guo & Kga, 2012; Kota & Tomar, 2010; Mak & Kusnadi, 2005; Rashid, 2010; Yermack, 1996).”
Corporate Governance Mechanisms and Performance of Public-Listed Family-Ownership in Malaysia (2011, background): “This result is consistent with Haniffa and Hudaib (2006) and Mak and Yuanto (2002) who conducted a similar research on Malaysian listed companies and is also supported by other studies (Singh and Davidson III, 2003; Hermalin and Weisbach, 2003; Mishra et al., 2001).”