Part I. Experimental Studies: 2. Experiment in psychology 3. Experiments on perceiving III Experiments on imaging 4-8. Experiments on remembering: (a) The method of description (b) The method of repeated reproduction (c) The method of picture writing (d) The method of serial reproduction (e) The method of serial reproduction picture material 9. Perceiving, recognizing, remembering 10. A theory of remembering 11. Images and their functions 12. Meaning Part II. Remembering as a Study in Social Psychology: 13. Social psychology 14. Social psychology and the matter of recall 15. Social psychology and the manner of recall 16. Conventionalism 17. The notion of a collective unconscious 18. The basis of social recall 19. A summary and some conclusions.

Remembering. A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology, Cambridge (University Press) 1964.

Boards of directors serve two important functions for organizations: monitoring management on behalf of shareholders and providing resources. Agency theorists assert that effective monitoring is a function of a board's incentives, whereas resource dependence theorists contend that the provision of resources is a function of board capital. We combine the two perspectives and argue that board capital affects both board monitoring and the provision of resources and that board incentives moderate these relationships.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/30040728.pdf

Boards of Directors and Firm Performance: Integrating Agency and Resource Dependence Perspectives

This paper surveys the economic literature on boards of directors. Although a legal requirement for many organizations, boards are also an endogenously determined governance mechanism for addressing agency problems inherent to many organizations. Formal theory on boards of directors has been quite limited to this point. Most empirical work on boards has been aimed at answering one of three questions: 1) How are board characteristics such as composition or size related to profitability? 2) How do board characteristics affect the observable actions of the board? 3) What factors affect the makeup of boards and how they evolve over time? The primary findings from the empirical literature on boards are: Board composition is not related to corporate performance, while board size has a negative relation to corporate performance. Both board composition and size are correlated with the board's decisions regarding CEO replacement, acquisitions, poison pills, and executive compensation. Finally, boards appear to evolve over time as a function of the bargaining power of the CEO relative to the existing directors. Firm performance, CEO turnover, and changes in ownership structure appear to be important factors affecting changes to boards.

Boards of Directors as an Endogenously Determined Institution: A Survey of the Economic Literature

1. INTRODUCTION Most organizations are governed by a board of directors. In fact, having a board is one of the legal requirements for incorporation. Many nonincorporated entities also have a governing board of some sort, such as a state university's board of regents. Given the myriad boards in place today, it is reasonable to ask, Why do they exist? What do they do? Can they be "improved"? These questions are at the heart of governance and, to a certain extent, management. As such, they have motivated much of the research on this topic. This paper surveys the research on boards of directors in the economics and finance literature. Boards of directors are an economic institution that, in theory, helps to solve the agency problems inherent in managing an organization. Although boards satisfy numerous regulatory requirements, their economic function is determined by the organizational problems they help to address. Yet formal economic theory on boards has been quite limited. For example, the characteristics of agency problems that could lead to boards being the equilibrium solution have not yet been specified. Similarly, the conditions under which regulation of boards will lead to improvements are unknown. Despite the absence of formal theory, we have a strong intuitive sense of the problems facing boards. A major conflict within the boardroom is between the CEO and the directors. The CEO has incentives to "capture" the board, so as to ensure that he can keep his job and increase the other benefits he derives from being CEO. Directors have incentives to maintain their independence, to monitor the CEO, and to replace the CEO if his performance is poor. To some extent, the vacuum in formal theory has been filled by empirical work on boards. The "cost" associated with this approach, however, is that little of the empirical work on boards has been motivated by formal theory. Rather, it has sought to answer one of three questions: 1. How do board characteristics such as composition or size affect profitability? 2. How do board characteristics affect the observable actions of the board? 3. What factors affect the makeup of boards and how do they evolve over time? A key issue in this empirical work is how to proxy for the board's degree of independence from the CEO. Much of this work starts from the sometimes implicit assumption that observable board characteristics such as size or composition are related to the level of board independence. (1) Research thus far has established a number of empirical regularities. First, board composition, as measured by the insider-outsider ratio, (2) is not correlated with firm performance. (3) However, the number of directors on a firm's board is negatively related to the firm's financial performance. Second, board actions do appear to be related to board characteristics. Firms with higher proportions of outside directors and smaller boards tend to make arguably better--or at least different--decisions concerning acquisitions, poison pills, executive compensation, and CEO replacement, ceteris paribus. Finally, boards appear to evolve over time depending on the bargaining position of the CEO relative to that of the existing directors. Firm performance, CEO turnover, and changes in ownership structure appear to be important factors affecting changes to boards. Two important issues complicate empirical work on boards of directors, as well as most other empirical work on governance. First, almost all the variables of interest are endogenous. The usual problems of joint endogeneity therefore plague these studies. For instance, firm performance is both a result of the actions of previous directors and itself a factor that potentially influences the choice of subsequent directors. Studies of boards often neglect this issue and thus obtain results that are hard to interpret. Second, many empirical results on governance can be interpreted as either equilibrium or out-of-equilibrium phenomena. …

/pdf/boards-of-directors-as-an-endogenously-determined-24v4ghvlo2.pdf

Does owner management necessarily eliminate the agency costs of ownership? Drawing on agency literature and on the economic theory of the household, we argue that private ownership and owner management expose privately held, owner-managed firms to agency threats ignored by Jensen's and Meckling's (1976) agency model. Private ownership and owner management not only reduce the effectiveness of external control mechanisms, they also expose firms to a "self-control" problem created by incentives that cause owners to take actions which "harm themselves as well as those around them" (Jensen 1994, p. 43). Thus, shareholders have incentive to invest resources in curbing both managerialand owner opportunism. We extend this thesis to the domain of the family firm. After developing hypotheses which describe how family dynamics and, specifically, altruism, exacerbate agency problems experienced by these privately held, owner-managed firms, we use data obtained from a large-scale survey of family businesses to field test our hypotheses and find evidence which suggests support for our proposed theory. Finally, we discuss the implications of our theory for research on family and other types of privately held, owner-managed firms.

Agency Relationships in Family Firms: Theory and Evidence

Research on the determinants and effects of various governance mechanisms typically assumes that these mechanisms operate independently. However, since a variety of mechanisms are used to achieve alignment of the interests of shareholders and managers, we propose that the level of a particular mechanism should be influenced by the levels of other mechanisms which simultaneously operate in the firm. We examine the substitution effects between alternative internal governance mechanisms for a sample of 81 bank holding companies in the postderegulation period. Specifically, we consider the relationship between monitoring by outside directors and the following mechanisms: monitoring by large outside shareholders, mutual monitoring by inside directors, and incentive effects of shareholdings by managers. Our results provide evidence consistent with the substitution hypothesis. We examine the implications of our findings for future research in the area of corporate governance.

Boards of directors and substitution effects of alternative governance mechanisms

This study examined the influence of the strength of belief structures on selected aspects of the decision-making process. To examine these issues, a business-acquisition decision scenario was studied in an experiment. Subjects played the role of a CEO of an electronics firm and were asked to evaluate the attractiveness of six potential acquisition candidates and to rate various aspects of the associated decision process. We presented half the subjects with information that the belief structure of their organization was extreme, agreed upon, and clear. The other half was presented with information that there was disagreement about the belief structure and that it was more ambiguous and less extreme. The results clearly showed that the decision process is different for people who were presented with an agreed-upon, extreme, and tightly constructed belief structure when compared to those who received information reflecting a weak and loosely constructed belief structure. A strong belief structure resulted in less positive evaluations, information requested, and money allocated to explore incompatible acquisition candidates (and vice versa for a highly compatible candidate) when compared to subjects using a weak belief structure. In addition, subjects in the strong-belief condition reported that their decision process would be characterized by less doubt, less time, less difficulty, and less conflict compared to subjects in the weak-belief structure condition. Implications for both decision theory and practical decision processes are discussed.

Kenneth J. Rediker

Papers

Boards of directors and substitution effects of alternative governance mechanisms

The effects of strong belief structures on information-processing evaluations and choice

Distributive Justice Norms and Attributions for Performance Outcomes as a Function of Power