Bryan Joseph B.

Manlapig

Corporate Governance and Paradoxical Tensions: Leadership Dynamics

Through Facet Theory a study by Esther Solomon and Morten Huse. This study
applied Dr. Guttman’s Facet Theory among a sample population of 841
respondents to propose and empirically test structural hypotheses about
perceptions of boardroom dynamics. Facet Theory is a formal approach to
theory construction and research developed initially by Guttman which has
been applied in a variety of contexts, including the behavioral sciences and
organizational studies.

This article has made 3 contributions. First, the application of the formal
methodology of Facet Theory in corporate governance offers unique insights
into the paradoxical tensions and tradeoffs as board members experience them
in the boardroom. The said methodology is considered as an approach of
different sets of principles regarding various research design that can be
beneficial in molding the framework of the corporate governance. It enables the
boardroom to amplify set of hypotheses that can be utilized in qualitative data
to different applications and fields such as orientations to innovations, well-
being, job characteristic and leadership, multiculturalism and many more.

The second contribution is to research on processes in corporate

governance, addressing the need to better understand boardroom dynamics
and director motivation with implications for the phenomenon of governance
inertia. The auxiliary investigation and observational trial of the aspect profile
arrangements help enlighten the transaction and mode of leadership, control,
and cooperation, through the viewpoint of intellectual and mental components
in meeting room forms. The incorporated investigation of the different chief
obligations regarding checking and furnishing exhortation alongside authority
and difficulties in sheets offers new bits of knowledge into their dynamic
relations, clarifying both those that are empowering agents and inhibitors of
chief association.

Lastly, this article helps spotlight that the domination by the powerful is
perceived as inhibiting and stifling the expression of director voice in the
boardroom. The outcome of the research has garnered numerous implications
regarding director motivation and ability to engage their roles better to
contribute for the betterment of the governance inertia.

In the article, it describes how leadership in boards as teams plays a

significant aspect in a discrete and collaborative decision-making. With shared
responsibility and different goals within the boards, team members can help
each other in achieving and accomplishing their respective team goals. With
this, the team will garner a strong sense of unity, trust, cohesion, and
commitment. However, in relation to having a positive outcome, there are cases
wherein some directors who encompasses a powerful and dominating
leadership that tends to be viewed as having a self-interest behavior,
unwillingness to mitigate with others, and can be a threat to cooperation.
Moreover, this type of behavior can negatively assert the organization as it
undermines the board’s moral legitimacy and positive outlook. Thus, it is
important, most especially to different organizations and board members, to
understand your team members in order to have a collaborative environment
and a positive outlook. It also shows how board members can experience
paradoxes in their boardroom critically impacts governance processes and
outcomes, yet it remains relatively unexamined. Scholars who theorize about
governance paradoxes identified a key tension between control and
collaboration.