The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Making Boards Effective: An Empirical Examination of Board Task Performance
Open accessAbstract
Despite the increasing attention of management scholars to boards of directors, there is still scant evidence on the antecedents of board task performance. The lack of significant results seems to be due to some theoretical and methodological choices followed by scholars, i.e. the almost exclusive reliance on agency theory and the use of demographic data. Following the call for dismantling the fortresses dominating past studies, this paper contributes to opening the ‘black box’ of boards of directors, developing a conceptual model that considers the impact of board members' diversity, commitment and critical debate on board task effectiveness in performing its service and control tasks. We collected primary data through a questionnaire survey, and we tested the model controlling for board, firm and industry characteristics. Our findings suggest that (i) the predictors we identified, and particularly the board members' commitment, are far more important than board demographics to predict board task performance; (ii) firm and industry contexts exert a significant influence on board task performance; (iii) predictors have a different impact on specific sets of tasks. Thus, our findings support the idea that several board characteristics and contingencies at both industry and firm level must be acknowledged in board design.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194
A Survey of Corporate Governance
Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1997) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1997.tb04820.x · Cited by 16,243
The Psychology of Survey Response
Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511819322 · Cited by 4,734
A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict
Jehn, K. A. (1995) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393638 · Cited by 4,050
Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1996.9605060217 · Cited by 3,413
Exploring the Black Box: An Analysis of Work Group Diversity, Conflict and Performance
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2667029 · Cited by 2,971
CONDUCTING INTERORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH USING KEY INFORMANTS.
KUMAR, N., STERN, L. W., & ANDERSON, J. C. (1993) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256824 · Cited by 2,467
Schweiger, D. M., Sandberg, W. R., & Ragan, J. W. (1986) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/255859 · Cited by 682
Cited by
Arzubiaga, U., Kotlar, J., De Massis, A., Maseda, A., & Iturralde, T. (2018) · Journal of Business Venturing · doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.03.002 · Cited by 292
Metadata
- Authors
- Minichilli, A., Zattoni, A., & Zona, F.
- Venue
- British Journal of Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-01-30
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 55-74
- ISSN
- 1045-3172 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-8551
- OpenAlex
- W1964018606
- Cited by
- 352
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 42.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Making Boards Effective: An Empirical Examination of Board Task Performance. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2008.00591.x
- The paper
- Minichilli, A., Zattoni, A., & Zona, F. (2009). Making Boards Effective: An Empirical Examination of Board Task Performance. British Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2008.00591.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.