Getting Back to Basics: Challenging Complexity and Accountability in the Boardroom

Yves  Gendron; Bertrand  Malsch; Marie-Soleil  Tremblay

doi:10.15446/innovar.v31n82.98419

Publicado

2021-10-01

Getting Back to Basics: Challenging Complexity and Accountability in the Boardroom

De vuelta a lo básico: desafiando la complejidad y la responsabilidad en la sala de junta

Voltando ao básico: desafiando a complexidade e a responsabilidade na sala de reuniões

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15446/innovar.v31n82.98419

Palabras clave:

Boards of directors, complexity , consulting firms, corporate governance, executive compensation , expertise (en)
conselhos diretores, complexidade , empresas de consultoria, expertise , governança corporativa, remuneração dos executivos (pt)
junta directiva, complejidad, firmas consultoras, gobierno corporativo, compensación de los ejecutivos, experiencia (es)

Descargas

Autores/as

Yves Gendron Université Laval https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7414-7764
Bertrand Malsch Queen’s University https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6732-3742
Marie-Soleil Tremblay École Nationale d’Administration Publique https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9507-3349

This paper investigates the dynamics of complexity and expertise in the context of compensation committees (ccs). Drawing on semi-structured interviews, mostly with cc members and consultants, we bring to light two axes of subordination that impact the mindset of corporate governance participants, and may ultimately undermine directors’ degree of accountability to shareholders. The first axis involves cc members’ subordination to consultant expertise, which tends to be considered as an indispensable ally in dealing appropriately with the webs of complexity that allegedly characterize executive compensation. Nourished partially by the first axis, the second implies subservience to these webs of complexity, which are widely presumed and naturalized by cc members and the consulting experts they employ. One of our main contributory statements is to question the ascendancy of complexity in the boardroom, casting doubt on one of the key assumptions upon which practices and expertise in contemporary corporate governance institutions are built and promoted. We also question the extent of epistemic dependency in many compensation committees, where much of the knowledge necessary to properly operate the repertoire of practices (deemed necessary to address the problem of executive compensation determination) is not primarily in the hands of cc members, but rather in those of consultants.

este artículo estudia la dinámica de la complejidad y la experiencia en el contexto de los comités de compensación (cc). A partir de entrevistas semiestructuradas, principalmente con miembros y consultores de cc, se revela la existencia de dos ejes de subordinación que impactan la mentalidad de los participantes en instancias de gobierno corporativo y que, en última instancia, podrían llegar a afectar el grado de responsabilidad de los directores ante los accionistas. El primer eje involucra la subordinación de los miembros de un cc ante la experiencia de consultores externos, quienes tienden a ser considerados aliados imprescindibles en el manejo de las redes de complejidad que aparentemente caracterizan la compensación de los ejecutivos. Alimentado en parte por el primer eje, el segundo da cuenta del sometimiento a dichas redes de complejidad, que son ampliamente asumidas y naturalizadas por los miembros de un cc y los consultores que estos contratan. Una de las principales contribuciones de esta investigación tiene que ver con el cuestionamiento al predominio de la complejidad dentro de las juntas directivas, con lo cual se pone en tela de juicio uno de los supuestos clave sobre los que se construyen y promueven las prácticas y la experiencia de las instituciones contemporáneas de gobierno corporativo. También cuestionamos el alcance de la dependencia epistémica en muchos cc, donde gran parte del conocimiento necesario para operar adecuadamente el repertorio de prácticas existentes (consideradas indispensables para establecer la compensación ejecutiva) no está en manos de los miembros del cc de una organización, sino en poder de su equipo de asesores.

o presente trabalho investiga a dinâmica da complexidade e da expertise no contexto dos comitês de remuneração (ccs, na sigla em inglês). A partir de entrevistas semiestruturadas, principalmente com membros e consultores do cc, trazemos à luz dois eixos de subordinação que impactam a mentalidade dos participantes da governança corporativa e podem, em última instância, comprometer o grau de responsabilização dos diretores com os acionistas. O primeiro eixo envolve a subordinação dos membros do cc à expertise de consultores, que tende a ser considerada como uma aliada indispensável para lidar adequadamente com as teias de complexidade que supostamente caracterizam a remuneração executiva. Parcialmente nutrido pelo primeiro eixo, o segundo implica uma subserviência a essas teias de complexidade, que são amplamente presumidas e naturalizadas pelos membros do cc e pelos especialistas em consultoria empregados por eles. Uma de nossas principais contribuições é questionar a ascensão da complexidade na sala de reuniões, levantando dúvidas sobre um dos principais pressupostos sobre o qual as práticas e a expertise em instituições contemporâneas de governança corporativa são construídas e promovidas. Questionamos também a extensão da dependência epistêmica em muitos comitês de remuneração, em que grande parte do conhecimento necessário para operar adequadamente o repertório de práticas (consideradas necessárias para enfrentar o problema da determinação da remuneração executiva) não está principalmente nas mãos dos membros do cc, mas sim nas mãos dos consultores.

Referencias

Abrahamson, E., & Fairchild, G. (2001). Knowledge industries and idea entrepreneurs. In C. B. Schoonhoven & E. Romanelli (Eds.), The entrepreneurship dynamic. Origins of entrepreneurship and the evolution of industries (pp. 147-177). Stanford University Press.

Allen, P., Maguire, S., & McKelvey, B. (2011). The Sage handbook of complexity and management. Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446201084 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446201084

Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. (2012). A stupidity-based theory of organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 49(7), 1194-1220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01072.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01072.x

Baudot, L., Demek, K. C., & Huang, Z. (2018). The accounting profession’s engagement with accounting standards: Conceptualizing accounting complexity through Big 4 comment letters. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 37(2), 175-196. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-51898 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-51898

Bay, C., Catasús, B., & Johed, G. (2014). Situating financial literacy. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 25(1), 36-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2012.11.011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2012.11.011

Bebchuk, L., & Fried, J. (2004). Pay without performance: The unfulfilled promise of executive compensation. Harvard University Press.

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Anchor Books.

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Homo academicus. Les Éditions de Minuit.

Bryant, M., & Sapp, S. (2007). ICD blue ribbon commission on the governance of executive compensation in Canada: Final report. Institute of Corporate Directors.

Cairney, P., & Wellstead, A. (2021). Covid-19: Effective policymaking depends on trust in experts, politicians, and the public. Policy Design and Practice, 4(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2020.1837466 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2020.1837466

Campbell-Hunt, C. (2007). Complexity in practice. Human Relations, 60(5), 793-823. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726707079202 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726707079202

Chahed, Y., & Goh, L. (2013). Disclosure as collective work: Inside the black box of remuneration reporting. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2316972 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2316972

Clegg, S. R., & Pitsis, T. S. (2012). Phronesis, projects and power research. In B. Flyvbjerg, T. Landman, & S. Schram (Eds.), Real social science: Applied phronesis (pp. 66-92). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511719912.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511719912.006

Cooper, C. (2015). Accounting for the fictitious: A Marxist contribution to understanding accounting’s roles in the financial crisis. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 30, 63-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2014.08.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2014.08.002

Dermarkar, S., & Hazgui, M. (2020). How auditors legitimize commercialism: A micro-discursive analysis. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 102228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2020.102228 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2020.102228

Dezalay, Y. (1995). “Turf battles” or “class struggles”: The internationalization of the market for expertise in the “professional society”. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20(5), 331-344. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(94)00025-q DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(94)00025-Q

Dillard, J., & Vinnari, E. (2017). A case study of critique: Critical perspectives on critical accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 43, 88-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2016.09.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2016.09.004

Filatotchev, I., & Wright, M. (2017). Methodological issues in governance research: An editor’s perspective. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 25(6), 454-460. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12211 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12211

Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter. Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810503 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810503

Gendron, Y. (2018a). Beyond conventional boundaries: Corporate governance as inspiration for critical accounting research. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 55, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2017.11.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2017.11.004

Gendron, Y. (2018b). On the elusive nature of critical (accounting) research. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 50, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2017.11.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2017.11.001

Gephart, R. P. (2004). Qualitative research and the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 454- 462. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2004.14438580 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2004.14438580

Gephart, R. P., Van-Maanen, J., & Oberlechner, T. (2009). Organizations and risk in late modernity. Organization Studies, 30(2-3), 141-155. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840608101474 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840608101474

Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Polity Press. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Stanford University Press.

Golden-Biddle, K., & Locke, K. D. (2007). Composing qualitative research (2nd edition). Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412983709 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412983709

Guénin-Paracini, H., Malsch, B., & Paillé, A. M. (2014). Fear and risk in the audit process. Accounting, Organizations & Society, 39(4), 264-288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2014.02.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2014.02.001

Hanseth, O., Jacucci, E., Grisot, M., & Aanestad, M. (2006). Reflexive standardization: Side effects and complexity in standard making. MIS Quarterly, 30(Special Issue), 563-581. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148773 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/25148773

Harvey, C., Maclean, M., & Price, M. (2020). Executive remuneration and the limits of disclosure as an instrument of corporate governance. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 69, 102089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2019.06.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2019.06.003

Humphrey, C., & Miller, P. (2012). Rethinking impact and redefining responsibility: The parameters and coordinates of accounting and public management reforms. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 25(2), 295-327. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513571211198773 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/09513571211198773

Jackson, N., & Carter, P. (1995). Organizational chiaroscuro: Throwing light on the concept of corporate governance. Human Relations, 48(8), 875-889. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679504800803 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679504800803

Jaggia, S., & Thosar, S. (2017). Pay-for-performance incentives in the finance sector and the financial crisis. Managerial Finance, 43(6), 646-662. https://doi.org/10.1108/mf-05-2016-0160 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/MF-05-2016-0160

Jensen, M. C. (1998). Foundations of organizational strategy. Harvard University Press.

Jenter, D., & Lewellen, K. (2021). Performance-induced CEO turn-over. Review of Financial Studies, 34(2), 569-617. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhaa069 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhaa069

Jupe, R., & Funnell, W. (2015). Neoliberalism, consultants and the privatisation of public policy formulation: The case of Britain’s rail industry. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 29, 65-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2015.02.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2015.02.001

Knights, D., Noble, F., Vurdubakis, T., & Willmott, H. (2001). Chasing shadows: Control, virtuality and the production of trust. Organization Studies, 22(2), 311-336. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840601222006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840601222006

Kolev, K. D., Wangrow, D. B., Barker iii, V. L., & Schepker, D. J. (2019). Board committees in corporate governance: A cross-disciplinary review and agenda for the future. Journal of Management Studies, 56(6), 1138-1193. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12444 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12444

Lam, J. (2017). Implementing enterprise risk management: From methods to applications. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118922415 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118922415

Leblanc, R. (Ed.). (2016). The handbook of board governance: A comprehensive guide for public, private, and not-for-profit board members. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119245445 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119245445

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8

Lupu, I. (2012). Approved routes and alternative paths: The construction of women’s careers in large accounting firms. Evidence from the French Big Four. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 23(4-5), 351-369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2012.01.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2012.01.003

MacKenzie, D. (2006). An engine, not a camera: How financial models shape markets. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262134606.001.0001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262134606.001.0001

Malsch, B. (2013). Politicizing the expertise of the accounting industry in the realm of corporate social responsibility. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 38(2), 149-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2012.09.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2012.09.003

Malsch, B., Tremblay, M. S., & Gendron, Y. (2012). Sense-making in compensation committees: A cultural theory perspective. Organization Studies, 33(3), 389-421. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840611433993 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840611433993

McDonald, D. (2014). The firm: The story of McKinsey and its secret influence on American business. Simon & Schuster.

McNulty, T., Pettigrew, A., Jobome, G., & Morris, C. (2011). The role, power and influence of company chairs. Journal of Management and Governance, 15(1), 91-121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-009-9119-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-009-9119-4

Meriläinen, S., Tienari, J., & Valtonen, A. (2015). Headhunters and the “ideal” executive body. Organization, 22(1), 3-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508413496578 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508413496578

Mickhail, G., & Ostrovsky, A. (2007). MetaCapitalism: The dialectics of impoverishment. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 18(6), 671- 705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2006.02.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2006.02.005

Mosonyi, S., Empson, L., & Gond, J. P. (2020). Management consulting: Towards an integrative framework of knowledge, identity, and power. International Journal of Management Reviews, 22(2), 120- 149. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12218 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12218

Parker, M., & Thomas, R. (2011). What is a critical journal? Organization, 18(4), 419-427. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508411403535 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508411403535

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Integrating theory and practice (2nd edition). Sage Publications.

Peirano-Vejo, M. E., & Stablein, R. E. (2010). Do consultants in corporate governance share a community? An empirical study on their practice. Journal of Management & Organization, 16(2), 299-313. https://doi.org/10.5172/jmo.16.2.299 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1833367200002194

Power, M., & Gendron, Y. (2015). Qualitative research in auditing: A methodological roadmap. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 34(2), 147-165. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-10423 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-10423

Reed, M. (2005). The agency/structure dilemma in organization theory. Open doors and brick walls. In H. Tsoukas, & C. Knudsen (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organization theory (pp. 289- 389). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199275250.003.0011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199275250.003.0011

Sonnenfeld, J. (2004). Good governance and the misleading myths of bad metrics. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1), 108-113. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2004.12689497 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2004.12689497

Stacey, R. D. (2009). Complexity and organization reality. Uncertainty and the need to rethink management after the collapse of investment capitalism. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203863657 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203863657

The Guardian (2018, August 16). US bosses now earn 312 times the average worker’s wage, figures show. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018

Thurbon, E., & Weiss, L. (2020). The state of development in a globalized world: Perspectives on advanced and industrializing countries. In E. Vivares (Ed.), The Routledge handbook to global political economy: Conversations and inquiries. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351064545-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351064545-6

Tsoukas, H., & Hatch, M. J. (2001). Complex thinking, complex practice: The case for a narrative approach to organizational complexity. Human Relations, 54(8), 979-1013. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726701548001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726701548001

Turner, S. P. (Ed.) (2013). The politics of expertise. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315884974 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315884974

Van-Maanen, J. (1979). The fact of fiction in organizational ethnography. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 539-550. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392360 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2392360

Willman, P., & Pepper, A. (2020). The role played by large firms in generating income inequality: UK FTSE 100 pay practices in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Economy and So- ciety, 49(4), 516-539. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2020.1774259 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2020.1774259

Ylönen, M., & Kuusela, H. (2019). Consultocracy and its discontents: A critical typology and a call for a research agenda. Governance, 32(2), 241-258. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12369 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12369

Cómo citar

APA

Gendron, Y. ., Malsch, B. . y Tremblay, M.-S. . (2021). Getting Back to Basics: Challenging Complexity and Accountability in the Boardroom. Innovar, 31(82), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.15446/innovar.v31n82.98419

ACM

[1]

Gendron, Y. , Malsch, B. y Tremblay, M.-S. 2021. Getting Back to Basics: Challenging Complexity and Accountability in the Boardroom. Innovar. 31, 82 (oct. 2021), 161–178. DOI:https://doi.org/10.15446/innovar.v31n82.98419.

ACS

(1)

Gendron, Y. .; Malsch, B. .; Tremblay, M.-S. . Getting Back to Basics: Challenging Complexity and Accountability in the Boardroom. Innovar 2021, 31, 161-178.

ABNT

GENDRON, Y. .; MALSCH, B. .; TREMBLAY, M.-S. . Getting Back to Basics: Challenging Complexity and Accountability in the Boardroom. Innovar, [S. l.], v. 31, n. 82, p. 161–178, 2021. DOI: 10.15446/innovar.v31n82.98419. Disponível em: https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/innovar/article/view/98419. Acesso em: 22 ene. 2025.

Chicago

Gendron, Yves, Bertrand Malsch, y Marie-Soleil Tremblay. 2021. «Getting Back to Basics: Challenging Complexity and Accountability in the Boardroom». Innovar 31 (82):161-78. https://doi.org/10.15446/innovar.v31n82.98419.

Harvard

Gendron, Y. ., Malsch, B. . y Tremblay, M.-S. . (2021) «Getting Back to Basics: Challenging Complexity and Accountability in the Boardroom», Innovar, 31(82), pp. 161–178. doi: 10.15446/innovar.v31n82.98419.

IEEE

[1]

Y. . Gendron, B. . Malsch, y M.-S. . Tremblay, «Getting Back to Basics: Challenging Complexity and Accountability in the Boardroom», Innovar, vol. 31, n.º 82, pp. 161–178, oct. 2021.

MLA

Gendron, Y. ., B. . Malsch, y M.-S. . Tremblay. «Getting Back to Basics: Challenging Complexity and Accountability in the Boardroom». Innovar, vol. 31, n.º 82, octubre de 2021, pp. 161-78, doi:10.15446/innovar.v31n82.98419.

Turabian

Gendron, Yves, Bertrand Malsch, y Marie-Soleil Tremblay. «Getting Back to Basics: Challenging Complexity and Accountability in the Boardroom». Innovar 31, no. 82 (octubre 15, 2021): 161–178. Accedido enero 22, 2025. https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/innovar/article/view/98419.

Vancouver

1.

Gendron Y, Malsch B, Tremblay M-S. Getting Back to Basics: Challenging Complexity and Accountability in the Boardroom. Innovar [Internet]. 15 de octubre de 2021 [citado 22 de enero de 2025];31(82):161-78. Disponible en: https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/innovar/article/view/98419

Descargar cita

CrossRef Cited-by

1

1. Oriane Couchoux. (2024). Navigating knowledge and ignorance in the boardroom: A study of audit committee members' oversight styles. Contemporary Accounting Research, 41(1), p.459. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12890.

Dimensions

PlumX

Visitas a la página del resumen del artículo

320

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Licencia

Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0.

Todos los artículos publicados por Innovar se encuentran disponibles globalmente con acceso abierto y licenciados bajo los términos de Creative Commons Atribución-No_Comercial-Sin_Derivadas 4.0 Internacional (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).

Una vez seleccionados los artículos para un número, y antes de iniciar la etapa de cuidado y producción editorial, los autores deben firmar una cesión de derechos patrimoniales de su obra. Innovar se ciñe a las normas colombianas en materia de derechos de autor.

El material de esta revista puede ser reproducido o citado con carácter académico, citando la fuente.

Esta obra está bajo una Licencia Creative Commons: