Article Sidebar

Submitted
May 16, 2022
Published
July 17, 2022
Download
Download PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 328

Main Article Content

Abstract

Adventist University Boards are highly populated by church leaders. This challenge raises concerns about the University Councils' autonomy which is the major underpinning objective of this research. The study used Survey Monkey® to collect data. Regression analysis found that any unit increase in council size, gender diversity, age of council members, and role duality reduced the perceptions of autonomy of the university council and their coefficients were not significant. While the concentration of stakeholders and church leaders and increased tenure of members on the board have a positive contribution to the autonomy of the university council, their contribution also was not significant. This study found composition, ethnicity, and independents as strong predictors of Council autonomy. The regression model shows independent variables contributing 30% variability of council autonomy. Researchers recommend reducing church leaders and increasing professionals on the University Council to enhance the autonomy of the council.

Keywords

council autonomy, council composition, independent professionals, church leaders' concentration, board composition, governance structure

Article Details

How to Cite
Matekenya, D. J. R., & Pittman, S. W. (2022). Influence of University Council Heterogeneity and Proprietor Concentration on Autonomy of Higher Education Governance in Malawi. Pan-African Journal of Education and Social Sciences, 3(1). Retrieved from https://journals.aua.ke/pajes/article/view/178
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Abdullah, S. N. and Mohd, N. N. (2004). Accrual management and the independence of the board of directors and audit committees. IIUM Journal of Economics and Management, 12(1), 49-80.
  2. Ahn, S. and Walker, M. D. (2007). Corporate governance and the spinoff decision. Journal of Corporate Finance,13(1), 76-93.
  3. Arfken, D. E., Bellar, S. L. and Helms, M. M. (2004). The ultimate glass ceiling revisited: The presence of women on corporate boards. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(2), 177-186.
  4. Australian Institute of Company Directors. (2013). https://www.google.com/search?q=
  5. Australian+Institute+of+Company+Directors%2C+2013&rlz=1C1RUCY_enMW939MW941&oq=Australian+Institute+of+Company+Directors%2C+2013&aqs=chrome..69i57.1071j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
  6. Bohren, O. and Strom, R. O. (2010). Governance and politics: Regulating independence and diversity in the boardroom. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 37(9-10), 1281-1308.
  7. Calder, A. (2008). Corporate governance: A practical guide to the legal framework and international codes of practice. Kogan Page Limited.
  8. Carpenter, M. A., Geletkanycz, M. A. and Sanders, W. G. (2004). Upper echelons research revisited: Antecedents, elements and consequences of top management team composition. Journal of Management, 30(6), 749-778.
  9. Carter, D. A., D'Souza, F., Simkins, B. J. and Simpson, W. G. (2010). The gender and ethnic diversity of U.S. boards and board committees and firm financial performance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 18(5), 396-414. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8683.2010.00809.x
  10. Carvalho, T. and Diogo, S. (2018). Exploring the relationship between institutional and professional autonomy: A comparative study between Portugal and Finland. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 40(1), 18-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2018.1395916
  11. Coaldrake, P., Stedman, L., Little, P. (2003) Issues in Australian University governance. University of Queensland Press.
  12. Creswell, J. W. and Creswell, J. D. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. London, UK: SAGE.
  13. Daily, C. M., Dalton, D. R. and Cannella, A. A. (2003). Corporate governance: Decades of dialogue and data. The Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 371–382. https://doi.org/10.2307/30040727
  14. Dalton, D. R., Daily, C. M., Johnson, J. L. and Ellstrand, A. E. (1999). Number of directors and financial performance: A meta-analysis. The Academy of Management Journal, 42(6), 674–686. https://doi.org/10.2307/256988
  15. Erhardt, N. L., Werbel, J. D. and Shrader, C. B. (2003). Board of director diversity and firm financial performance. Blackwell Publishing.
  16. Fan, P-H. and Wong, T. J. (2002). Corporate ownership structure and the informativeness of accounting earnings in East Asia. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 33(3), 401-425. 10.1016/S0165-4101(02)00047-2.
  17. Farrell, K. A. and Hersch, P. L. (2005). Additions to corporate boards: The effect of gender. Journal of Corporate Finance, 11(1-2),85-106.
  18. Flynn, A. (2018). Stewardship Theory of Corporate Governance. https://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/stewardship-theory-corporate-governance-29164.html
  19. Golden, B. R. and Zajac, E. J. (2001). When will boards influence strategy? Inclination × power = strategic change. Strategic Management Journal, 22(12), 1087-1111.
  20. Goodstein, J., Gautam, K. and Boeker, W. (1994). The effects of board size and diversity on strategic change. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 241-250.
  21. Grossi, G. and Reichard, C. (2008). Municipal corporatization in Germany and Italy. Public Management Review, 10(5), 597-617.
  22. Hechinger, D., Bobowick, M. and Heard, E. (Consultants). (2008). Report on the size, composition and structure of the board of regents. BoardSource.
  23. Hillman, A. J., Shropshire, C., Certo, S. T., Dalton, D. R. and Dalton, C. M. (2011). What I like about you: A multilevel study of shareholder discontent with director monitoring. Organization Science, 22(3), 675-687.
  24. Jensen, M. C. and Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305-360.
  25. Johnson, S. G., Schnatterly, K. and Hill, A. D. (2013). Board composition beyond independence: Social capital, human capital and demographics. Journal of Management, 39(1), 232–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312463938
  26. Joshi, A., Liao, H. and Roh, H. 2011. Bridging domains in workplace demography research: A review and reconceptualization. Journal of Management, 37, 521-552.
  27. Kosnik, R. D. (1990). Effects of board demography and directors' incentives on corporate greenmail decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 129-150.
  28. Krause, T. and Van Thiel, S. (2019). Perceived managerial autonomy in municipally owned corporations: disentangling the impact of output control, process control and policy-profession conflict. Public Management Review, 21(2), 1-25.
  29. Krejcie, R.V., & Morgan, D.W., (1970). Determining Sample Size for Research Activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement.
  30. Maug, E. (1998). Large shareholders as monitors: Is there a trade-off between liquidity and control? Journal of Finance, 53, 65-98.
  31. Mitchell, B. C., & King, W. J. (2018). How to run a college: A practical guide for trustees, faculty, administrators and policymakers. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 67-90.
  32. Morrill, Richard. L. (2010). Strategic Leadership: integrating strategy and leadership in colleges and universities. Rowman and Littlefield.
  33. O'Dwyer, L.M. and Bernauer, J. (2014). Quantitative research for the qualitative researcher. SAGE.
  34. Oxelheim, L. and Randoy, T. (2003). The impact of foreign board membership on firm value. Journal of Banking and Finance, 27, 2369-2392.
  35. Platt, H. and Platt, M. (2012). Corporate board attributes and bankruptcy. Journal of Business Research, 65, 1139-1143.
  36. Post, C., Rahman, N. and Rubow, E. (2011). Green governance: Boards of directors' composition and environmental corporate social responsibility. Business and Society, 50, 189-223.
  37. Pratt, J.W. and Zeckhauser, R. J. (1985). Principals and agents: The structure of business. Harvard Business School.
  38. Sundaramurthy, C. and Lewis, M. (2003). Control and collaboration: Paradoxes of governance. Academy of Management Review, 28, 397-415.
  39. Terjesen, S., Sealy, R. and Singh, V. 2009. Women directors on corporate boards: A review and research agenda. Corporate Governance:An International Review, 17(3), 320-337.
  40. Tetteh, E. N. (2007). Governance in Higher Education in Ghana: A Comparative Study of Public and Private Universities. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/234698785.pdf
  41. Tricker, B. (2015). Corporate governance: Principles, policies and practices (3rd Ed.). Oxford University Press.
  42. Voorn, B., van Genugten, M. L. and van Thiel, S. (2017a). The efficiency and effectiveness of municipally owned corporations: a systematic review. Local Government Studies, 43(5), 820-841.
  43. Wiersema, M. F. and Bantel, K. A. (1992). Top management team demography and corporate strategic change. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 91-121.
  44. Yunos, R. and Smith, M. and Zubaidah, I. (2010). Accounting conservatism and ownership concentration: Evidence from Malaysia. Journal of Business Policy and Research, 5, 1-15.
  45. Zelenska, L., Holubnycha, L. Tetiana, L., Matsapura, L. and Popova, N. (2021). Academic council activity as the basis for university autonomy: Historical aspect. Revista Amazonia Investiga, 10(39), 205-217. 10.205-217.10.34069/AI/2021.39.03.20.