Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Artículo Open Access |
| Published: |
Wiley
2024
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/corg.12607 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Table of Contents:
- Boardroom Dissent: An Integrative Review and Future Research Agenda Aira Eirola Pieter‐Jan Bezemer Stephan Reinhold Corporate Governance: An International Review ABSTRACTResearch Question/IssueScholars and practitioners view boardroom dissent as central to the functioning of boards of directors. However, there is a lack of consensus on what dissent is, who is involved, when and where it happens, and whether it is a behavioral or cognitive phenomenon. This conceptual unclarity and related fragmentation of empirical results call for an integrative literature review to build a coherent agenda for future research.Research Findings/ResultsA content‐analysis of 73 articles published between 1997 and 2023 reveals three distinct research clusters that explore the empirical phenomenon: (1) dissent as expressed through voting, (2) dissent as diverging views, and (3) dissent as behavior in and around the boardroom. Three overarching challenges hamper the advancement of the field: (1) conceptual inconsistencies, (2) several methodological challenges, and (3) a need for further theorizing connected to boardroom dissent.Theoretical ImplicationsWe propose a novel working definition for boardroom dissent to inspire new work related to its constituent parts and to facilitate advancing its measurement. In combination with alternative methods, it stands to advance the boardroom dissent literature. Furthermore, there is a need for future research to integrate competing explanations theorizing how boardroom dissent relates to outcomes at different levels and to examine how boundary conditions constrain these relationships.Practitioner/Policy ImplicationsThe article provides new nuances to reflect on boardroom dissent and related behaviors. The review highlights that there is no one‐size‐fits‐all approach automatically resulting in positive outcomes. 10.1111/corg.12607 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/