What I Like About You: A Multilevel Study of Shareholder Discontent with Director Monitoring

References

• Anders G. Private time. Wall Street Journal (2006) October 9):R5Google Scholar
• Beatty R. P., Zajac E. J. Managerial incentives, monitoring and risk-bearing: A study of executive compensation, ownership, and board structure in initial public offerings. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1994) 39(2):313–335Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bebchuk L. A. The case for increasing shareholder power. Harvard Law Rev. (2005) 118(3):833–913Google Scholar
• Bebchuk L. A. The myth of the shareholder franchise. Virginia Law Rev. (2007) 93(3):675–732Google Scholar
• Bebchuk L. A., Fried J. M. Executive compensation as an agency problem. J. Econom. Perspectives (2003) 17(3):71–92Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berman D. K. Boardroom defenestration: As proxy season heats up, companies consider rules to boot unwanted directors. Wall Street Journal (2006) March 16):B1Google Scholar
• Bhagat S., Black B. S. The uncertain relationship between board composition and firm performance. Bus. Lawyer (1999) 54:921–963Google Scholar
• Bliese P. D., Ployhart R. E. Growth modeling using random coefficient models: Model building, testing, and illustrations. Organ. Res. Methods (2002) 5(4):362–387Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boyd B. K. Board control and CEO compensation. Strategic Management J. (1994) 15(5):335–344Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brickley J. A., Lease R. C., Smith C. W. Ownership structure and voting on antitakeover amendments. J. Financial Econom. (1988) 20(January–February):267–291Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brownstein A. R., Panner M. J. Who should set CEO pay? The press? Congress? Shareholders? Harvard Bus. Rev. (1992) 70(3):28–38Google Scholar
• Bushee B. J. The influence of institutional investors on myopic R&D investment behavior. Accounting Rev. (1998) 73(3):305–333Crossref, Google Scholar
• Byrd J. W., Hickman K. A. Do outside directors monitor managers? Evidence from tender offer bids. J. Financial Econom. (1992) 32(2):195–221Crossref, Google Scholar
• Certo S. T. Influencing initial public offering investors with prestige: Signaling with board structures. Acad. Management Rev. (2003) 28(3):432–446Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chatterjee S., Price B.Regression Analysis by Example (1991) 2nd ed.(John Wiley & Sons, New York) Google Scholar
• Conyon M. J., Peck S. I. Board control, remuneration committees, and top management compensation. Acad. Management J. (1998) 41(2):146–157Crossref, Google Scholar
• Core J. E., Guay W., Larcker D. F. The power of the pen and executive compensation. J. Financial Econom. (2008) 88(1):1–25Crossref, Google Scholar
• Corkery M. Three Pulte directors rejected in vote. Wall Street Journal (2009) May 18):B6Google Scholar
• Corporate LibraryBoard AnalystRetrieved December 10, 2007, http://www.thecorporatelibrary.com/info.php?id=46Google Scholar
• Daily C. M. The relationship between board composition and leadership structure and bankruptcy reorganization outcomes. J. Management (1995) 21(6):1041–1056Crossref, Google Scholar
• Daily C. M., Dalton D. R. Taking a measure of the “overboarded” director. Directors Boards (2002) 26(3):42–44Google Scholar
• Daily C. M., Dalton D. R., Cannella A. A. Corporate governance: Decades of dialogue and data. Acad. Management Rev. (2003) 28(3):371–382Crossref, Google Scholar
• Daily C. M., Johnson J. L., Dalton D. R. On the measurements of board composition: If you have seen one, you certainly have not seen them all. Decision Sci. (1999) 30(1):83–106Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dalton D. R., Daily C. M. Director stock compensation: An invitation to a conspicuous conflict of interest? Bus. Ethics Quart. (2001) 11(1):89–108Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dalton D. R., Daily C. M., Ellstrand A. E., Johnson J. L. Meta-analytic review of board composition, leadership structure, and financial performance. Strategic Management J. (1998) 19(3):269–290Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dalton D. R., Daily C. M., Johnson J., Ellstrand A. Number of directors and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Acad. Management J. (1999) 42(6):674–686Crossref, Google Scholar
• David P., Bloom M., Hillman A. J. Investor activism, managerial responsiveness, and corporate social performance. Strategic Management J. (2007) 28(1):91–100Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis G. F. A new financial capitalism? Mutual funds and ownership re-concentration in the United States. Eur. Management Rev. (2008) 5(Spring):11–21Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis G. F., Thompson T. A. A social movement perspective on corporate governance. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1994) 39(1):141–173Crossref, Google Scholar
• Drucker P. F.Toward the Next Economics and Other Essays (1981) (Harper & Row, New York) Google Scholar
• Durfee D. Pay dirt. CFO Magazine (2006) October 1). Retrieved April 14, 2009, http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/7987653?f=singlepageGoogle Scholar
• Economist, The Hail, shareholder! American corporate governance. Economist (2007) 383:73Google Scholar
• Enders C. K., Tofighi D. Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psych. Methods (2007) 12(2):121–138Crossref, Google Scholar
• Faleye O. Classified boards, firm value, and managerial entrenchment. J. Financial Econom. (2007) 83(2):501–529Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fama E. F., Jensen M. C. Separation of ownership and control. J. Law Econom. (1983) 26(2):301–325Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ferris S. P., Jagannathan M., Pritchard A. C. Too busy to mind the business? Monitoring by directors with multiple board appointments. J. Finance (2003) 58(3):1087–1111Crossref, Google Scholar
• Finkelstein S., Hambrick D. C., Cannella A. A.Strategic Leadership: Theory and Research on Executives, Top Management Teams, and Boards (2008) (Oxford University Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Ghoshal S. Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Acad. Management Learn. Ed. (2005) 4(1):74–91Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gillan S. L., Starks L. T. A survey of shareholder activism: Motivation and empirical evidence. Contemporary Finance Digest (1998) 2(3):10–34Google Scholar
• Grinstein Y., Michaely R. Institutional holdings and payout policy. J. Finance (2005) 60(3):1389–1426Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hambrick D. C., Jackson E. M. Outside directors with a stake: The linchpin in improving governance. Calif. Management Rev. (2000) 42(4):108–127Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hermalin B. E., Weisbach M. S. Endogenously chosen boards of directors and their monitoring of the CEO. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1998) 88(1):96–118Google Scholar
• Hillman A. J., Dalziel T. Boards of directors and firm performance: Integrating agency and resource-dependence perspectives. Acad. Management Rev. (2003) 28(3):383–396Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hillman A. J., Nicholson G., Shropshire C. Directors' multiple identities, identification, and board monitoring and resource provision. Organ. Sci. (2008) 19(3):441–456Link, Google Scholar
• Hirschman A. O.Exit, Voice and Loyalty. Responses to Declines in Firms, Organizations and States (1970) (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Hitt M. A., Beamish P. W., Jackson S. E., Mathieu J. E. Building theoretical and empirical bridges across levels: Multilevel research in management. Acad. Management J. (2007) 50(6):1385–1399Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hofmann D. A. An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models. J. Management (1997) 23(6):723–744Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hoskisson R. E., Hitt M. A., Johnson R. A., Grossman W. Conflicting voices: The effects of institutional ownership heterogeneity and internal governance on corporate innovation strategies. Acad. Management J. (2002) 45(4):697–716Crossref, Google Scholar
• House R. J., Rousseau D. M., Thomas-Hunt M., Staw B. M., Cummings L. L. The meso paradigm: A framework for the integration of micro and macro organizational behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior (1995) 17(JAI Press, Greenwich, CT) 71–114Google Scholar
• Jensen M. C. Eclipse of the public corporation. Harvard Bus. Rev. (1989) 67(September–October):61–74Google Scholar
• Jensen M. C., Meckling W. H. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. J. Financial Econom. (1976) 3(4):305–360Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kosnik R. D. Greenmail: A study of board performance in corporate governance. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1987) 32(2):163–185Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lublin J. S. Multiple seats of power—Companies are cracking down on number of directorships board members can hold. Wall Street Journal (2001) January 23):B1Google Scholar
• Miller D. Stale in the saddle: CEO tenure and the match between organization and environment. Management Sci. (1991) 37(1):34–52Link, Google Scholar
• Misangyi V. F., Elms H., Greckhamer T., Lepine J. A. A new perspective on a fundamental debate: A multilevel approach to industry, corporate, and business unit effects. Strategic Management J. (2006) 27(6):571–590Crossref, Google Scholar
• Morgeson F. P., Hoffman D. A. The structure and function of collective constructs: Implications for multilevel research and theory development. Acad. Management Rev. (1999) 24(2):249–265Crossref, Google Scholar
• Myers S. C., Majluf N. S. Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have information that investors do not have. J. Financial Econom. (1984) 13(2):187–221Crossref, Google Scholar
• New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) Final NYSE corporate governance rules, 1–18. (2003) . http://www.nyse.com/pdfs/finalcorpgovrules.pdfGoogle Scholar
• Rediker K. J., Seth A. Boards of directors and substitution effects of alternative governance mechanisms. Strategic Management J. (1995) 16(2):85–99Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ryan H. E., Wiggins R. A. Who is in whose pocket? Director compensation, board independence, and barriers to effective monitoring. J. Financial Econom. (2004) 73(3):497–524Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shen W. Improve board effectiveness: The need for incentives. British J. Management (2005) 16(S1):581–589Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shleifer A., Vishny R. W. A survey of corporate governance. J. Finance (1997) 52(2):737–783Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sidel R. Shareholders say: Not my vote!; More investors check “withhold” on their proxies, but the push lacks teeth—At least for now. Wall Street Journal (2004) March 31):C1Google Scholar
• Singer J. Using SAS PROC MIXED to fit multilevel models, hierarchical models, and individual growth models. J. Ed. Behav. Statist. (1998) 23(4):323–355Crossref, Google Scholar
• Singer J. D., Willett J. B.Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis (2003) (Oxford University Press, New York) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Terhune C., Lublin J. S. At Home Depot, CEO “pay rage” boils over in vote. Wall Street Journal (2006) June 2):A2Google Scholar
• Thomas R. S., Cotter J. F. Shareholder proposals in the new millennium: Shareholder support, board response, and market reaction. J. Corporate Finance (2007) 13(2–3):368–391Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tihanyi L., Johnson R. A., Hoskisson R. E., Hitt M. A. Institutional ownership differences and international diversification: The effects of boards of directors and technological opportunity. Acad. Management J. (2003) 46(2):195–211Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weisbach M. S. Outside directors and CEO turnover. J. Financial Econom. (1988) 20(1–2):431–460Crossref, Google Scholar
• White E. Corporate governance—Talk therapy: As shareholders become more vocal, directors are looking for ways to make sure they feel heard. Wall Street Journal (2008) January 14):R5Google Scholar
• Whitehouse K. Stiffed board. Wall Street Journal (2007) April 9):R4Google Scholar
• Yan X., Zhang Z. Institutional investors and equity returns: Are short-term institutions better informed? Rev. Financial Stud. (2009) 22(2):893–924Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yermack D. Remuneration, retention, and reputation incentives for outside directors. J. Finance (2004) 59(5):2281–2308Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zajac E. J., Westphal J. D. Director reputation, CEO-board power, and the dynamics of board interlocks. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1996) 41(3):507–529Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zajac E. J., Westphal J. D. The social construction of market value: Institutionalization and learning perspectives on stock market reactions. Amer. Sociol. Rev. (2004) 69(3):433–457Crossref, Google Scholar