I need a reply to the following discussion posts. Needs to have an in-text citation and should be approximately 2-3 paragraphs for each one with an open-ended question to my fellow students. This does not need a title page, and one reference is sufficient. Please make sure there is an open-ended question at the end.
After having read the two assigned articles, Evaluating Boards and Directors and The Principal Role of the Board of Directors: The Duty to Say “no”, compare and contrast the views presented. Which perspective do you believe would lead to more effective governance and why?
I need replies to these two posts:
According to Evaluating Boards and Directors, the best way for organizations to avoid collapse of corporate governance is to utilize performance evaluations. They outline a detailed framework to explore the options for conducting board evaluations and highlight the importance of the board to hold themselves responsible for aspects outside of solely organizational and management performance. The framework consists of seven questions for conducting a successful evaluation and stress the importance of proper execution to achieve successful results.
On the other hand, Bukhvalov and Bukhvalova focus on the importance of the Board of Directors to use “the option to abandon” (Bukhvalov & Bukhvalova, 2011). This approach encourages conducting risks assessments and declining certain options that will not be beneficial long term, regardless of the current environment. The article also identifies the benefits of conducting root cause analysis to see where problems originated and how they could have been avoided before it was too late. Heffes suggests board members analyze risk management by agreeing to cut expenses, reviewing the growth strategy and its outcome, examine methods and consequences of cut costs, and construct preventative measures that may result from opposing viewpoints and results. Corporate boards should continuously reassess corporate strategy and improve board director’s performance (Heffes, 2009). This is a direct correlation noted from Kiel and Nicholson.
Some aspects of the Kiel and Nicholson framework were more beneficial when used in combination with other methods, such as quantitative and qualitative techniques. I believe using both methods simultaneously would lead to the best corporate governance. Each method argues a different but necessary aspect of boards in respect to governance. While boards need to look beyond managing and organizing, those are still necessary items. Learning and understanding how the board thinks and operates as a group and individual beneficial when examining the root causes of issues and real options. The J.C. Penny incident is a prime example of how both of these theories could have been used and saved the company from failure. A proper risk management framework was not used causing the company to go a route that was not necessary for it to flourish. There was also a lack of uniformity with board directors and all members were not on the same page of what the vision for the company was (Guito, 2013). Employing both frameworks could have saved the company from disaster.
Bukhvalov, A., & Bukhvalova, B. (2011). The principal role of the board of directors: The duty to say “no”. Corporate Governance (11.5), 629-640
Guinto, J. (2013). Who wrecked j.c. penney? D Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-ceo/2013/november/who-wrecked-jc-penney (Links to an external site.)
(Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
Heffes, E. M. (2009). BOARDS OF DIRECTORS: Directors’ roles in assessing strategy. Financial Executive, 25(2), 10. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.prx-necb.lirn.net/docview/208896870?accountid=33575 (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
Bukhvalov and Bukhvalov (2011) present a normative approach, and cluster strategies into two separate categories “the firm-strategy interface” and “the corporate environment-strategy interface.” Understanding the goals of the organization provide a stronger sense of assigning the correct individuals to management teams. Bukhvalov and Bukhvalov (2011) suggest several approaches which aid a Board of Directors. It is important to develop a new connection technique to the board, this is accomplished by asking management challenging questions which ultimate leads to building a stronger team by whether their answers are appropriate. Bringing bad news to shareholders is essential in potentially replacing management that does not share interest in the company plan, nor incapable or handling difficult situations (Bukhvalov and Bukhvalov, 2011). The most important aspect that I found within the Bukhvalov and Bukhvalov (2011) article is the fact that it is ok to say “no” sometimes. Yes, some opinions could potentially be lost; however, the authors argue that “it is an unavoidable cost of sustainability” (Bukhvalov and Bukhvalov, 2011). Ultimately, changing the management team is suggested when a team is uncapable of developing real options to challenging questions. This perspective seems to focus more on the management team, and how to address situations and build more concrete strategies.
Kiel and Nicholson (2005) provide a different perspective to effective governance. Within the authors perspective the focus drives more towards detailing the performance of the board members through evaluations. These authors detailed different aspects directed towards avoid potential governance failures. The four governance failures described are strategic, control ethical and interpersonal relationship failure (Kiel and Nicholson, 2005). Performance evaluations are vital to all aspects of an organization, and aids businesses in developing strategic models. I believe that the perspective detailed with the Kiel and Nicholson (2005) article leads to a more effective governance. With evaluations individuals become area of areas that they are not performing as well as expecting and can strive to better themselves in these areas. Additionally, performance evaluations can assist in decisions on whether to keep certain individuals. I am a strong advocate for performance evaluations and feel that they are a great tool to utilize in all aspect of an organization, not just with just management and board members.
Bukhvalov, A., & Bukhvalov, B. (2011). The principal role of the board of directors: The duty to say “no”. Corporate Governance, 11(5), 629-640. doi:10.1108/14720701111177028
Kiel, G., Nicholson, G. (2005). Evaluating boards and directors. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 13(5), 613-631. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=791828