Research Reveals Weaknesses in Board Evaluations & Composition

In this Episode

  • David Larcker
  • TK Kerstetter

Episode Summary

David Larcker likes arguments… but he doesn’t like to take sides. Instead, he prefers to use research to differentiate fact from rumor and to determine what effective governance looks like.

As a senior faculty member at Stanford University’s well-known Arthur & Toni Rembe Rock Center for Corporate Governance, Larcker has tackled many often-debated corporate governance questions over the past 10 years. In this episode, he zeros in on board evaluations and composition.

Most board members today view board evaluations as a check-the-box requirement, which largely fails to open the floor for improvement, says Larcker.

I think it’s a lost opportunity. Here we’ve got a case where you’re asking questions about the process of the board. Do we have the right people? I think it’s where introspection ought to take place.
— David Larcker, Senior Faculty at Stanford University’s Rock Center for Corporate Governance

Host TK Kerstetter and Larcker discuss the effectiveness of peer reviews and the importance of having a strong non-executive chair or lead director in order to drive change in a board’s composition or behavior. When Kerstetter asks Larcker about the next governance issue on his research agenda, the two dive into a familiar discussion: How can we actually measure corporate governance? Larcker goes on to explain how the Rock Center approaches this age-old question to continually bridge the gap between academic research and the real-world happenings of today’s boardrooms.

Click here to view the Rock Center’s 2016 Survey: Board of Director Evaluation and Effectiveness.

Annual Corporate Directors Survey: The Good, The Bad & The Ugly

PwC's Annual Corporate Directors Survey

We take a deep dive into the results of PwC’s Annual Corporate Directors Survey. Emerging from the survey were four critical trends, which reinforce positive board behavior (“The Good”), identify long-standing inefficiencies (“The Bad”), or represent an obstinate way of thinking that must be changed (“The Ugly”). Let’s have a look… (5 Minute Read)

Read Here