No description available.

Thesis (PhD)--Macquarie University. Macquarie Graduate School of Management. / Bibliography: p. 286-324. / The contribution of this thesis is to present a framework to analyse firms controlled by more than one board. The literature survey of Chapter 2 revealed that there is little recognition of this phenomenon and no accepted way to investigate firms governed by multiple control centres described as a "compound board". The framework is developed in Chapter 3. The historical emergence of compound boards is outlined in Chapter 4 with examples of their architecture described in Chapters 5 and 6. Chapter 7 shows how the framework provides insights not available from other theories of the firm and how selfyes governance can be furthered by utilising contrary human attributes of competition/co-operation, trust/suspicion and self-interest/altruism. / The framework is described as transaction byte analysis (TBA) as it is based on the limited and inconsistent ability of humans to transact units of information described as "bytes". TBA identifies cybernetic principles and strategies that can mitigate human limitations in processing bytes. These provide organisational design criteria for firms to obtain operating advantages. As information is a common element in varies theories of the firm, TBA relates and subsumes them while allowing any type of organisation to be analysed. / Propositions are presented in Chapter 7 for illustrating how TBA provides insights into explaining: (i) why non-trivial employee owned industrial firms have more than one board; (ii) why self-regulation and self-governance of non-trivial firms cannot be assured without a compound board; (iii) how compound boards can simplify the role, knowledge, duties and liabilities of directors; (iv) the competitive advantages of appropriate compound boards in relation to unitary control systems; (v) how to compare and evaluate the relative advantages and disadvantages of firms with different ownership and control structures; (vi) how to compare the relative efficacy of hierarchical and non-hierarchical firms be they in the private or public sector. / Mode of access: World Wide Web. / x, 324 p. ill

African Union (AU) multilateral efforts in governance flounder at the level of implementation and their substantive intervention worth do not accord with the aspirations embodied in adopted normative frameworks and instruments. The research served to uncover the policy and delivery challenges within the overall AU institutional system as a means of providing a perspective on the future of AU governance mechanisms and related intervention modalities. Detailed empirical engagement, through an institutional lens, with norm formation and implementation in accountability, the rule of law and state capacity, and related delivery practices, enabled the extraction of crucial efficacy challenges in the AU institutional system. The exploration, using evidence embodied in documents from the AU governance implementation system, served to confirm that the AU continues to struggle between the imperatives of integration through established shared values and the exercise of state sovereignty. Within the policy-delivery nexus, the research points to the importance of agency by AU institutions and how practices and incentives serve to pervert the aspiration for a multilateral value-adding system in governance. In addition to providing a comprehensive historical macro-overview of AU governance intervention and related implementation modalities, the research served to uncover the implementation ‘black-box’ through a careful and comprehensive study of practices in each of the governance intervention terrains. The institutional focus serves to affirm that answerability for performance in the use of public resource and the structuring of organisations, matter for delivery and the production of substantive regional integration value. The core efficacy challenges at the level of AU multilateral engagements and implementation, such as norm proliferation, the exercise of power and sovereignty, staffing and capacity gaps, point to the need for a substantive and strategic reorientation of the AU governance normative framework and related intervention modalities. As an outcome of the analysis and reflection, a ‘norm graduating model’ is proposed to accommodate contextual realities in AU Member States on the back of historically hard-fought-for shared values in governance. At the level of implementation modalities, efficacy challenges point to the importance of a more tempered and realistic delivery approach. The primary focus in the immediate term should be on building governance through a diffused peer-engagement strategy culminating in norm compliance and full adherence to the provisions of established AU governance instruments over the long-term. / Public Administration and Management / Ph. D. (Public Administration)