Beyond Facts and Figures: The Role of Emotions in Boardroom Dynamics

• Author: Ethel Brundin,Mattias Nordqvist
• Date: 01 July 2008
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2008.00688.x
• Published date: 01 July 2008

Beyond Facts and Figures: The Role of Emotions

in Boardroom Dynamics

Ethel Brundin* and Mattias Nordqvist

ABSTRACT

Manuscript Type: Empirical

Research Question/Issue: We address the call for qualitative research in order to better understand the micro-level

dynamics of boardwork. Our aim is to investigate the role of emotions when board members interact to perform the board’s

control and service tasks.

Research Findings/Results: Empirical accounts from board meetings and diary notes from a CEO show in detail how

emotions work as power energizers and status energizers in boardroom dynamics. We f‌ind that short-term as well as

long-term emotions are a source of energy that affects board work, and that they are inf‌luential in the board members’ task

performance.

Theoretical Implications: We provide process insights with process insights to a f‌ield dominated by studies of the

structures of corporate governance. We disclose the difference between board expectations and board performance, and

offer a new understanding as to how and why this difference emerges. Our results also challenge theories thatpropose that

authenticity of emotional displays is necessary in order to achieve a positive outcome in boardroom interactions. The

f‌indings also show that confrontation of negative emotions in boardroom communication may alter the power and status

relations among board members.

Practical Implications: Our study shows that the board members who inf‌luence processes in the board are those whose

emotional energies are built up and transformed as power and status energizers in line with board task expectations. Being

aware, and able to understand the subtle working of emotions in board processes are crucial for being an effective board

member.

Keywords: Board Task Performance, Emotions, Power Energizers, Status Energizers, Micro Processes

INTRODUCTION

Corporate governance and board research has been

dominated by agency theory and cross-sectional

studies of the structure, composition, and roles of the board

in mainly large, publicly listed companies (Pettigrew, 1992;

Daily, Dalton and Cannella, 2003; Roberts, McNulty and

Stiles, 2005). This has diverted attention away from more

relational and emotive considerations, which are typically

important in micro-level processes in and around the

boardroom (Pettigrew, 1992; Starkey, 1995; Pettigrew and

McNulty, 1998). New directions in board research include

calls for qualitative and in-depth empirical research, as

well as the use of alternative theories in order to under-

stand board members’ interactions (Clarke, 1998; Samra-

Fredericks, 2000a; 2000b; Roberts et al., 2005; Huse, 2005).

This is a result of the growing awareness of the need to

combine research into what boards look like with what

boards actually do; how they do it and what inf‌luences board

member interactions (Forbes and Milliken, 1999; Daily et al.,

2003; Maitlis, 2004; Pye and Pettigrew, 2005). To better

understand boardprocesses, “what goes on beyond the door

of the boardroom is the most critical task of governance

research, examining the networks and relationships that

comprise corporate governance” (Clarke, 1998: 57).

Research on board member interactions and micro-

processes is still rare because of the assumed diff‌iculties in

gaining access to observe and interview board members

(Daily et al., 2003; Johnson, 2004; Leblanc and Schwartz,

2007; Parker, 2007). Some exceptions do exist, however.

For instance, Charan (1998), Pettigrew and McNulty (1995),

McNulty and Pettigrew (1999), and Pye (2001) all explore

*Address for correspondence: Entrepreneurship, Marketing and Management,

Jönköping International Business School, P.O. Box 1026, 551 11 Jönköping, Sweden.

Tel: 46 36 10 18 27; Fax:46 36 16 10 69; E-mail: ethel.brundin@jibs.hj.se

326 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Volume 16 Number 4 July 2008 © 2008 TheAuthors

Journal compilation © 2008 BlackwellPublishing Ltd

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8683.2008.00688.x

boardroom dynamics and relations through interviews,

whereas Huse (1998), Samra-Fredericks (2000b), and

Johnson (2004) draw on observations during board meetings.

These scholars have indicated, but not studied specif‌ically,

how emotions inf‌luence board work in the interactions

between board members. We argue that emotions are a

natural and important attribute of the “inner context” of

the board itself (Pettigrew and McNulty, 1995; Samra-

Fredericks, 2000b) and can play a considerable role in the

inf‌luence of board members as they interact and contribute

to board task performance. The current lack of studies that

address the role of emotions in board processes limits our

understanding of effective board work. This lack is some-

what surprising, given the increasing amount of research on

the role of emotions in strategy and organizational studies

(e.g., Westley, 1990; Hatch, 1997; Fineman, 2000; Barsade,

2002; Huy, 2002; 2005; Grandey, 2003).

To address this limitation in board research, this article

presents a qualitative f‌ield study with the aim of under-

standing how emotions matter when board members inter-

act to perform their tasks. Our focus is on the board’stasks to

control and service the CEO, the two most common board

tasks for understanding boards as groups of interacting indi-

viduals (Forbes and Milliken, 1999). We draw on literature

on board processes and task performance, as well as on

Collins’s (1981; 1990; 2004) notions of emotional energies

and interaction rituals. Our study of two board meetings

and a diary written by a CEO show in detail how emotions

matter in relation to board task expectations and task perfor-

mance. Our study contributes with a new empirical account

and conceptual understanding for how emotions work as,

what we label power energizers and status energizers in the

interactions between board members. We propose that emo-

tions are sources of energy that plays a role depending on

the interpretations that board members assign to them. Fur-

thermore, emotions are not viewed as merely short term and

of the moment, but also long term, and with impact on

subsequent interactions between the board members. More-

over, by looking closely into the interactions between the

CEO and other board members, our study discloses the dif-

ference between board expectations and board performance

(cf. Mace, 1971) and offers a new understanding into how

and why this difference emerges. Finally, our study indicates

the analytical help board members can f‌ind in emotions in

order to break unwanted patterns of interactions.

The article is structured as follows: First, we ground our

rationale for bringing emotions into the boardroom and

present a framework of emotions that include emotional

energy and power and status rituals of emotions. The fol-

lowing section gives a background to the methodology in

use, and contextualizes our empirical case. Thereafter, we

provide empirical illustrations of how and why emotions

play a role for the actual board work to control and service

the CEO. A discussion, conclusion, and implications close

the article.

BOARD PROCESSES AND EMOTIONS

Researching board processes means focusing on how boards

work (Maitlis, 2004; Pye and Pettigrew, 2005) and is related

to concepts such as board effectiveness (Roberts et al., 2005)

and board task expectations and performance (Forbes and

Milliken, 1999; Huse, 2005). Effective boards are those that

distinctively service and control the top management and

that manage to continue to work together (Forbes and Mil-

liken, 1999). The board’s service task “refers to its potential

to provide advice and counsel to the CEO and other top

managers and to participate actively in the formulation of

strategy,” whereas the control task is concerned with “its

legal duty to monitor management on behalf of the f‌irm’s

shareholders and to carry out this duty with suff‌icient

loyalty and care” (Forbes and Milliken, 1999: 492). Board

task performance is thus about how well boards control and

service the CEO and top management, whereas the board

task expectation is how various stakeholders, including the

CEO, presume the board should work (Huse, 2005).

Sundaramurthy and Lewis (2003) argue that the control

and service tasks assert the simultaneous need for control

and collaboration within the board. This means that effec-

tive board task performance consists in the resolution of

moments of conf‌lict, frustration, and distrust with moments

of collaboration, harmony, and trust among the interacting

board members. In an ethnographic study, Samra-Fredericks

(2000b) observes that feelings manifested in terms of varying

levels of emotional display inf‌luence board processes. In

particular, she describes how the way board members “do

appropriate forms of emotions” (Hochschild, 1983) is linked

to how they are deemed honest and trustworthy by other

board members, as well as the extent to which they inf‌luence

the board’s working in the direction that they prefer.

We take a social constructionist perspective on emotions

(Averill, 1980; Harré, 1986; Parkinson, 1995; Fineman, 2000).

This means that even if emotions are, to some extent, re-

garded as universal (Frijda, 1986; Ekman, 1992), they are

also socially and culturally ingrained (Rafaeli and Sutton,

1989; Matsumoto, Franklin, Choi, Rogers and Tatani, 2002).

Emotional processes are triggered by interactions where

societal and organizational norms and values inf‌luence and

inform how emotions evolve and are interpreted in emo-

tional displays, emotional states, and emotional rules re-

gulating what is appropriate in a given cultural context.

Cultural differences in emotions are thus related to how

people are affected by antecedent events, to culture-specif‌ic

ways to appraise such events, and to culturally taught emo-

tional behavior (Mesquita and Frijda, 1992).

Viewing emotions as socially and culturally embedded

allows us to distinguish between short-term and long-term

emotions. Short-term emotions are affective, dramatic, and

interruptive (Izard, 1977; Parkinson, 1995; Collins, 2004), for

example, anger and surprise. Long-term emotions, such as

conf‌idence and distrust, are built up over time, stable, and

persist over a longer period of time (Collins, 2004). The

representation of emotions is salient to interpersonal com-

munication and interaction (Westley, 1990; Parkinson, 1995;

Huy, 2002; 2005), such as board micro-processes, whereby

they constitute emotional processes. We follow Collins

(1990; 2004), who argues that emotions keep social interac-

tion alive. He draws on the ideas of Durkheim ([1893] 1964)

and Goffman (1967), arguing that experiencing emotions

results in emotional energy. So-called positive emotions,

such as conf‌idence, satisfaction, and enthusiasm, typically

EMOTIONS IN BOARDROOM DYNAMICS 327

Volume 16 Number 4 July 2008© 2008 TheAuthors

Journal compilation © 2008 BlackwellPublishing Ltd