首页> 外文期刊>International Journal of Public Information Systems >Corporate Board Governance & the Diversity-Participation Paradox: A Note on the Banking Sector
【24h】

Corporate Board Governance & the Diversity-Participation Paradox: A Note on the Banking Sector

机译:公司董事会治理与多元化参与悖论:银行业注记

获取原文
           

摘要

In June, 2009, James Surowiecki, wrote in his regular New Yorker column The Financial Page of the failure of bank boards of trustees to stop banks disastrous behavior. He cited decades of attention to improving bank boards by adding outside and independent members and [thereby] making them more diverse with respect to age, gender, and background. He went on to say that there is little evidence that these changes have made a difference in improving bank performance. This notion leads to the paradox that we want diverse groups to represent more stake-holders in making decisions, but because the members are diverse, it reduces their ability to communicate with each other. The purpose of this paper is to consider four related questions pertaining to Mr. Surowieckis observation of bank boards. First, why should banks trustee boards be diversified, and how should that make a difference in bank performance? Second, at what cost are bank trustee boards diversified? Third, did bank trustee board diversification actually happen, and what are the outcomes to which we can point?
机译:2009年6月,James Surowiecki在《纽约客》专栏的《金融版》上写道,受托银行的董事会未能制止银行的灾难性行为。他列举了数十年来对通过增加外部成员和独立成员来改善银行董事会的关注,从而使他们在年龄,性别和背景方面更加多样化。他接着说,几乎没有证据表明这些变化对改善银行绩效产生了影响。这种想法导致了一个悖论,即我们希望不同的群体在决策中代表更多的利益相关者,但是由于成员的多样性,降低了他们彼此沟通的能力。本文的目的是考虑与Surowieckis先生对银行董事会的观察有关的四个相关问题。首先,为什么银行托管委员会应多元化,这又如何改变银行的绩效?第二,银行托管委员会的多元化成本是多少?第三,银行托管董事会的多元化实际上是否在发生,我们可以指出的结果是什么?

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号