Brian K. Boyd, Northern Arizona University, USA
Corinne Post, Villanova University, USA
Angelo M. Solarino, University of Durham, UK
Meta-analyses that advance theory via the synthesis and integration of previously discordant findings have the potential to be highly influential. For example, Post and Byron (2015) advanced our understanding of the effects of board gender diversity on organizational performance via meta-analysis. Similarly, a recent meta-analysis challenged assumptions about the effects of ownership type on the frequency of tunnelling activity and advanced our understanding of the role of ownership in firms (Solarino & Boyd, 2020). Meta-analytic tools also permit the development of more nuanced and novel hypotheses, including both moderation (e.g., Gonzalez-Mulé & Aguinis, 2018) and mediation effects (e.g., Bergh et al., 2016). Consequently, meta-analyses do far more than summarize work to date: they extend and advance theory (Post, Sarala, Gatrell, & Prescott, 2020). Furthermore, meta-analyses are beneficial for both emerging and mature bodies of work, making this methodology relevant to a wide range of corporate governance topics.
The Special Issue on Meta-analyses on Contemporary Corporate Governance aims to publish cutting-edge research on the phenomena of corporate governance, that help resolve controversy surrounding the level of empirical support for important theories, and that build and test new theoretical insights surrounding important corporate governance phenomena. We are open to papers that address theoretical questions involving a wide range of corporate governance phenomena at macro, micro, and meso levels. While we are not looking for purely methodological contributions, we invite contributions that use different techniques to accumulate scientific evidence – e.g., how might MASEM versus meta-regression provide unique insights on a specific governance topic?.
In terms of methodology, proposed papers should use an accepted form of quantitative meta-analysis (see Steel et al., 2021), meta regressions (see Gonzalez-Mulé & Aguinis, 2018) or MASEM (see Bergh et al., 2016; Solarino & Boyd, 2020) or qualitative meta-analytic aggregation technique (see Habersang et al., 2019) to assess scientific evidence surrounding important and potentially controversial relationships and theories central to corporate governance research. Please note that neither vote counts nor narrative reviews fall under the scope of the Special Issue. A key consideration will be meta-analyses that test, build, and extend theory. Proposals that integrate multiple perspectives or help resolve controversy from competing perspectives are also encouraged.
TYPES OF SUBMISSIONS SOLICITED
We define corporate governance broadly as the exercise of power over corporate entities aiming to increase the value provided to the organization's various stakeholders, as well as making those stakeholders accountable for acting responsibly with regard to the protection, generation, and distribution of wealth invested in the firm. Illustrative topics include:
Boards and owners shape the strategic directions of firms, including internationalization & de-internationalization strategies, M&A, strategic renewal, or CSR policies. How do different strategic outcomes vary depending on board/ ownership dimensions? How well are theories placed to capture these governance-strategic outcome relationships?
There is a debate that performance measures are too distant from the board of directors to have a direct impact on these. How about tactical or strategic outcomes? To what extent and under what conditions does corporate governance impact R&D and innovation, marketing, operational efficiency, etc.?
Meta-analyses and meta regressions are well suited to capture the heterogeneity of contextual factors. Samples from different countries can be used to explore to what degree contextual factors and the heterogeneity of contexts act as boundary conditions to governance theories. Similarly, how do different contextual factors shape corporate governance (e.g., board composition, ownership structure, public vs. privately held organizations)?
Most of the studies in corporate governance assess the outcomes of corporate governance and only a minority addresses the antecedents of corporate governance arrangements or cross-country differences in corporate governance mechanisms. For example, what drives the appointment of directors with specific characteristics (skills, gender, etc.) across countries? What causes different patterns of board interlocks in different nations? Can ESG-friendly funds shape governance practices?
An underexplored area in corporate governance concerns how boards work. For example, do board processes matter for firm outcomes and if so, to what extent? What board process are more influential and in what contexts? How do board processes affect board and firm level outcomes? Alternatively, what factors influence board processes and under what conditions?
A growing body of work discusses how individuals receive their initial and subsequent board appointments, how directors' careers (e.g., tenure, compensation, appointment to multiple boards) vary, and how shareholders vote on directors during elections (e.g., shareholder dissent). What can we learn about the arc of directors' careers, their variance depending on individual director characteristics and context, from the accumulating empirical evidence on this issue?
Meta-analysis is well suited to identify lack of methodological sophistication and variety. For example: How does the operationalization of constructs shape study results? Or how do corporate governance constructs compare and contrast across countries (e.g., Blat in Russia, or Guanxi in China)?
TIMELINE AND SUBMISSION PROCESS
Submissions must follow a two-step process. First, an article proposal must be submitted by May 1, 2022 via the CGIR website (https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cgir), with an indication that the submission is intended for the CGIR meta-analysis special issue. Proposals should conform to the general CGIR formatting requirements and be no longer than five pages single-spaced, excluding references, tables, or figures. The proposal should address the following issues:
Relationships of interest: What specific relationship, or set of relationships, are under investigation in the meta-analysis? Why is it important to synthesize the evidence regarding this/these relationship(s), or what theoretical and/or empirical problems do you hope to solve? If a prior meta-analysis has been published on the topic, please explain the need for a new study.
The contribution of the study: What specific insights do you propose to add to relevant literatures, and what will your meta-analysis yield that is not already known?
Theory: What previously used theoretical perspectives do you plan to apply? Are you introducing any new theoretical lenses to the research topic?
Methodological approach and sample: Describe your planned analytical approach for research synthesis and explain why it is the preferred methodology. A strong proposal will have a clearly defined focus – e.g., what journals and disciplines will you be sampling? Expected timeframe covered? Do you have a preliminary estimate of the size of the target article pool?
Timetable: Given the constraints of a special issue, authors will need to deliver a first draft and subsequent revisions in a timely manner. Please provide a brief description of key tasks associated with your manuscript, including any work that is already underway.
Final decisions on proposals will be made by June 1, 2022. Authors invited to submit a full paper will be invited to attend a Paper Development Workshop, which will be hosted by one of the Guest Editors' universities and take place in an hybrid format online/ face-to-face, to accommodate for the possible travel restrictions that may be in place at the time of the workshop, in early October 2022. Full papers have to be submitted by March 1, 2023 and will be subject to the CGIR standard double-blind reviewing process. It is anticipated that the special issue will be published in 2024.
For queries about this special issue, please feel free to contact the Guest Editors Brian K. Boyd (firstname.lastname@example.org), Corinne Post (email@example.com), and Angelo M. Solarino (firstname.lastname@example.org), or the editorial office of the journal (CGIR@wiley.com).
Bergh, D. D., Aguinis, H., Heavey, C., Ketchen, D. J., Boyd, B. K., Su, P., Lau, C. L. L., & Joo, H. (2016). Using meta‐analytic structural equation modeling to advance strategic management research: Guidelines and an empirical illustration via the strategic leadership‐performance relationship. Strategic Management Journal, 37(3), 477–497.
Gonzalez-Mulé, E., & Aguinis, H. (2018). Advancing theory by assessing boundary conditions with metaregression: A critical review and best-practice recommendations. Journal of Management, 44(6), 2246–2273.
Habersang, S., Küberling‐Jost, J., Reihlen, M., & Seckler, C. (2019). A process perspective on organizational failure: A qualitative meta-analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 56(1), 19–56.
Post, C., & Byron, K. (2015). Women on boards and firm financial performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 58(5), 1546–1571.
Post, C., Sarala, R., Gatrell, C., & Prescott, J. E. (2020). Advancing theory with review articles. Journal of Management Studies, 57(2), 351–376
Solarino, A. M., & Boyd, B. K. (2020). Are all forms of ownership prone to tunneling? A meta‐analysis. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 28(6), 488–501.
Steel, P., Beugelsdijk, S., & Aguinis, H. (2021). The anatomy of an award-winning meta-analysis: Recommendations for authors, reviewers, and readers of meta-analytic reviews. Journal of International Business Studies, 52(1), 23–44.
--------------------------------Angelo M. SolarinoAssociate Professor in Strategy and InnovationDurham University Business School, Mill Hill Lane, Durham, DH1 3LB------------------------------