Thesis (Ed. D.)--Illinois State University, 1999. / Title from title page screen, viewed July 19, 2006. Dissertation Committee: Paul Baker (chair), Richard Berg, John Cassel, Elizabeth Lugg, George Padavil. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 118-123) and abstract. Also available in print.

Thesis (Ed.D.)--Texas Christian University, 2008. / Title from dissertation title page (viewed Feb. 26, 2009). Includes abstract. Includes bibliographical references.

School governance at South African schools is now almost twelve years old. In these twelve years some schools have made great strides whilst others are still facing various challenges. This research article is a qualitative, empirical and a descriptive case study, based on two farm schools in Kwa-Zulu Natal Province. It has investigated the governance capacity of both farm school governing bodies (SGB) in the execution of their roles and responsibilities together with the challenges that they faced using a documentary study and with structured interviews in a focus group. The structure for writing this article used the four principles as designed by Yin (1994) which are; Conceptualization, Contextual details, Data collection and Analytical strategies. Evidence from this Research indicate that the Farm School Governing Body face many contextual challenges and that a tailor-made Governance capacity building programme be made available to farm schools so that they (SGB) are able to carry out their roles and responsibilities effectively.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

published_or_final_version / Economics and Finance / Master / Master of Economics

After the financial crisis and several corporate scandals, efforts to improve the quality of corporate governance have been made but extended regulatory actions can be seen as insufficient as issues still arise. According to several scholars and practitioners one way for boards to become more efficient is by increasing their involvement in strategy. However, there are discrepancies in what the boards are expected to do and what they are capable of doing. By researching what the barriers are for boards’ active involvement in strategy, the purpose of this paper is to fill, or at least partly explain, this empirical gap. Palepu (2012) has identified four potential barriers for boards’ strategic involvement; the role of the board, external pressures, access to information and boardroom dynamics. Based on Palepu’s framework 17 board members were interviewed with the aim to explore underlying issues and problems preventing strategic work in the boardroom. The results of this study show that the potential barriers for strategic involvement have two different effects on strategy. The role of the board, as well as the external pressure affect the amount of time spent on strategy in the boardroom. The boardroom dynamics and the access to information on the other hand have an impact on the quality of the strategic discussions. These four factors may then limit boards’ involvement in strategic questions if not handled correctly. Two main areas that have shown to be of utmost importance in improving the strategy engagement and the board work in full are increasing the level of engagement of the individual director and having more diversified boards in large. Diversification and higher levels of engagement are thereby two key factors which should be prioritized in order to ensure a sustainable development of corporate governance with more efficient boards actively involved in strategy.

No description available.

In this research the impact of board governance orientation and board processes on board role performance and board effectiveness is examined. Building on existing literature, a model that relates board governance orientation (agency, stakeholder, stewardship and resource dependency) and board processes (cohesiveness, cognitive conflict, affective conflict, communication quality, effort norms, trust and the use of knowledge & skills) to board effectiveness via three mediating variables, board control role, board service role, and board strategy role is developed. The model was tested through a survey of listed companies in the UK. The results are based on 74 companies. The findings show (a) the board undertakes two distinct roles, control and service; (b) process variables, most notably cognitive conflict and the use of knowledge & skills, significantly influence board effectiveness mediated by the board’s control and/or service role; (c) structural variables, specifically the proportion of outsiders on the board, impacts on the board control role; (d) understanding board effectiveness requires a multitheoretic perspective.