WORKSHOP
UNDERSTANDING GOVERNANCE: A NEW PARADIGM FOR AN OLD CONCEPT
9-10 June 2014 – Barcelona
CALL for PAPERS
Contemporary definitions of "good governance" are typically centered upon the ability of a business to achieve its goals while being sustainable. However, nurturing the contradictory interests of shareholders and those of society in general makes corporate governance increasingly challenging in the post-global financial crisis environment. Boards of directors are one of the central mechanisms for governing companies, but they are also one of the central problems companies are facing in terms of effective management. Business success stories and company longevity attributable to competent boards come second in media attention against more sensational stories of corporate failure and underperformance. Lack of strategic lucidity, blocking conflicts, fraud, malfeasance and lack of accountability are proclaimed as examples of boards' deficiencies in corporate oversight. "As America attempts to recover from the wreckage of the Great Recession and confronts an uncertain future, criticisms of corporate power are once again appearing and getting louder. But for all of the indictments, few commentators have been bold enough to propose anything more than the failed regulatory approaches of the past" (Hanna, 2013: 38). This quote hints at the doubt around the ability of regulation and governance reform to address effectively the systemic problems emerging within the corporate world today. A question arising from this disquiet is whether the Global Economic Crisis of the past five years is indicative simply of a need for more effective governance, or does it signify a more deep-seated precursor to social and economic revolution? More precisely, are we seeing the end of western capitalism and the advent of new social power or are we merely experiencing a correction in the existing capital power structures as they evolve across the global economy?
Despite the very large literature on corporate boards of directors, legislators and commentators seek a better formula for the ideal board. Such a formula includes calls for more women directors for a more egalitarian board, more diversified director competence for a more democratic board, fewer family/friends for greater board independence. While these criteria seem to offer efficient solutions to the problems of modern governance, none of them deliver the "silver bullet" to solve the growing complexities of corporate life in a globally stressed world. Little is understood about the inner behavior of boards regarding the companies they govern.
Boards are charged with exercising company oversight. This role can be viewed as a "parenting" role akin to being a "good father" to the organization. Two major questions are: what is meant by a "good father" and why the metaphor of a father in a corporate governance context? This metaphor is deeply embedded in the dominant "pater" paradigm of capital power related to the hegemonic male position in the society. Todd (1983) presented the idea that major ideologies in the world can be explained by family structures and the rules of heritage associated with protection of patrimony. Absolute nuclear family, nuclear family and egalitarian versions of family, according to the categories defined by Todd, provide the main basis for understanding people's behaviors in relation to the development of political systems and, by extension, governance systems. These categories areanchored in the dominant capitalist paradigm of patriarchy.
The paradigm of patriarchy is defined as a "war- system". This system, which can be seen as a main principle of social organization, has become a globalized war on all levels of life, according to Prof. Claudia von Werlhof. By contrast, the matriarchal system is one where "matriarchal people have developed a system of very wise principles and social codes allowing humans to live in peace with each other and in harmony with nature"(Dr. Heide Goettner-Abendroth, 2005). Anthropological studies show that patriarchies are generally regarded by societies as superior or "better", "more developed", and spiritually "higher" than matriarchal social systems. Matriarchies are generally viewed as inferior, being embedded in nature and therefore technologically backward. "When we hear the word 'matriarchy', we are conditioned to a number of responses: that matriarchy refers to the [primitive] past and that matriarchies have never existed; that matriarchy is a hopeless fantasy of female domination, of mothers dominating children, of women being cruel to men. Conditioning us negatively to matriarchy is, of course, in the interests of patriarchs. We are made to feel that patriarchy is natural; we are less likely to question it, and less likely to direct our energies to ending it." (Barbara Love and Elizabeth Shanklin, 1984).
Patriarchy and matriarchy have in common two features: 1/ predetermined social roles (as a father and as a mother) and 2/ the hierarchy, which means the central role of the head and the control of property. But society has fundamentally changed. Fathers and mothers and the nuclear family no longer constitute the "norm" in modern bourgeois society which comprises many forms of "family" (Morck and Steier, 2005). Many commentators believe that this change represents the emergence a new social paradigm. For example, feminist scholars highlight new understandings of gendered power in relation to the global financial crisis (Penny Griffin, 2013) and princes of industry (Knyght, Kakabadse, Kakabadse and Kouzmin, 2011), masculinity and corporate mismanagement (Knights and Tullberg, 2013), and Kanter on gender and power (Lewis and Simpson, 2012). If so, then do we already have models of social organization that might provide a better blueprint for revolutionary change in the way social and economic wealth is created and shared?
This workshop invites thought scholars to present their work on a wide range of topics that may include, but are not limited, to the following:
- Boards and family capitalism
- Boards and gender differences; social power and corporate elites
- Boards and firm life cycles
- Boards and standardized governance regulations (global convergence? Western capitalism? Corporate democracy?)
- Boards: director roles and diversity (gender, ethnicity, religion, professional background)
- Boards: country and business culture.
KEY NOTE SPEAKERS
THOMAS CLARKE
Talk: "Changing Paradigms in Governance: New Cycles and New Responsibilities"
Professor of Management, Director of the Centre for Corporate Governance and formerly Chair of the Academic Board at the University of Technology, Sydney.
In 1998/1999 he attended the OECD in Paris to help develop the international corporate governance code that has now been adopted by governments throughout the industrial and developing world. He is a member of the advisory board of the Strategic Partnership an international strategic management consultancy company and he has specialised as a consultant to the board of directors of international intellectual property rights companies. He is a member of the Editorial Board of the journal, Corporate Governance - An International Review, Oxford: Blackwell (http://www.ccg.uts.edu.au/people/tcbio.html)
SIBEL YAMAK
Talk: "Governance and Business Elites: Differences in Perceptions and Practices"
Professor of management, Director of the Social Sciences Graduate School at Galatasaray University, Istanbul.
She was the chair of the 13. Annual Meeting of the European Academy of Management where she previously acted as the chair of the Corporate Governance Strategic Interest Group. She was the guest co-editor of special issues on top management teams in International Studies of Management and Organization (ISMO) and European Journal of International Management (EJIM) and on Corporate Social Responsibility in Yonetim Arastirmalari Dergisi (YAD).
She is a member of the editorial board of British Journal of Management and Society and Business Review. She has been co-organising EIASM Top Management Team Workshops together with Alejandro Escriba Esteve, Alessando Minichilli and Sabina Nielsen since 2010. Sibel Yamak was a visiting scholar in different universities such as the Panthéon Sorbonne University, Louis Pasteur University, Manchester University among others. Her publications which focus on business elites, top management teams, governance and corporate social responsibility have been published in peer reviewed journals.
IMPORTANT DATES
Workshop: 9-10 June 2014
Deadline for 2 pages Proposals submission: 28 February 2014
Notification of acceptance as of 28 March 2014
Early bird/authors registration 25 April 2014
Workshop Fees in Euros (VAT Incl.) | |
| Early Bird Fee (up to 25 April 2014) | 140€ |
| Regular Fee (24 April - 9 May 2014) | 155€ |
| Late Fee (up to 9 June 2014) | 165€ |
| On-site Registration Fee | 185€ |
For any information please contact: workshop(@)tbs-education.es
Submissions should be sent to: workshop(@)tbs-education.es
ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
Wafa Khlif, Toulouse Business School Barcelona, Spain (w.khlif(@)tbs-education.es)
Coral Ingley, AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand (coral.ingley(@)aut.ac.nz)
Lotfi Karoui, Ecole de Management- Normandie, France (lkaroui(@)em-normandie.fr)