Board interaction with information based on grounding theory

Document Type : Research Paper


1 Department of Accounting, Kashan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Kashan, Iran

2 Department of Accounting, Faculty of Management, University of Qom, Qom, Iran


The present dissertation is based on a contextual approach and in order to provide a model based on the risk and complexity of board interaction as a pillar of corporate governance with information based on grounding theory. In order to validate the field research and in fact, as a kind of initial practice, a pilot sample has been used. In addition to the interviews, in this research, field notes were also used, which were also recorded and coded in the field. These notes produced a total of 46 codes with a total of 96 sources, and the final reviews produced 76 codes and 142 sources. The pilot interview highlighted the need to focus more on listening during the interview and to ensure that the coding was done effectively in the research and that trends and activities were examined. The first stage of the survey was to draw potential study lines and one-page feedback was prepared for the interviewees the second stage of the survey was received from the interviewees in four stages by e-mail. In addition, two of the initial interviewees were re-interviewed based on the findings. The other three interviews at this stage were conducted using a one-page report for the structure of the interview.


[1] S.E. Abraham, Information technology, an enabler in corporate governance, Corporate Govern.: Int. J. Effect. Board Perform. 12 (2015), 281–291.
[2] M. Allegrini, R. Melville, L. Paape and G. Selim, Special issue on ”internal audit and corporate governance”: introduction, J. Manag. Govern. 13 (2021), 1–3.
[3] S. Bloomfield, Theory and practice of corporate governance: an integrated approach, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2013.
[4] A. Bryman, Social research methods, Oxford University Press, 2008.
[5] A. Cadbury, Corporate governance and chairmanship: a practical view, Oxford University Press, 2015.
[6] J. Carver, A case for global governance theory: practitioners avoid it, academics narrow it, the world needs it, Corporate Govern.: Int. Rev. 18 (2019), 149–157.
[7] J.W. Creswell, Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches, CA, USA, SAGE Publications, 2019.
[8] I. Dey, Grounding categories, In: A. Bryant and K. Charmaz (eds.), The sage handbook of grounded theory, London, UK: SAGE Publications, 2017.
[9] L. Donaldson and J.H. Davis, Stewardship theory or agency theory: CEO governance and shareholder returns, Aust. J. Manag. 16 (2011), no. 1, 49–64.
[10] R.G. Eccles, The performance measurement manifesto, Harvard Bus. Rev. 69 (1991) no. 1, 131–137.
[11] M.Y. Feilzer, Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm, J. Mixed Methods Res. 4 (2020), 6–16.
[12] L. Frewer, Risk perception, social trust, and public participation in strategic decision making: implications for emerging technologies, Ambio, (1999), 569–574.
[13] S.W. Geiger and D. Marlin, The relationship between organizational/board characteristics and the extent of female representation on corporate boards, J. Manag. Issues 24 (2012), 157–172.
[14] B. Gibson and J. Hartman, Rediscovering grounded theory, SAGE Publications, 2014.
[15] A. Hillman, J. Cannella and R. Paetzold, The resource dependence role of corporate directors: strategic adaptation of board composition in response to environmental change, J. Manag. Stud. 37 (2021), 43–58.
[16] M. Huse, Accountability and creating accountability: a framework for exploring behavioral perspectives of corporate governance, British J. Manag. 16 (2015), 65–79.
[17] M.C. Jensen and W.H. Meckling, Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure, J. Financ. Econ. 3 (1976), 305–360.
[18] S. Joseph, Pause for thought, BBC Radio 2,, 2022.
[19] W. Judge, The importance of considering context when developing a global theory of corporate governance, Corporate Govern.: Int. Rev. 20 (2012), 123–124.
[20] S.-H. Lee and P. Phan, Competencies of directors in global firms: requirements for recruitment and evaluation, Corporate Govern.: Int. Rev. 8 (2000), no. 3, 204–214.
[21] R.B. Lewis, NVivo 2.0 and ATLAS. ti 5.0: A comparative review of two popular qualitative data-analysis programs, Field Methods 16 (2014), 439–464.
[22] A. Manzoni and S.M.N. Islam, Performance measurement in corporate governance, Springer Sci. Business Media, 2009.
[23] V.B. Martin and A. Gynnild, Grounded theory: The philosophy, method, and work of Barney Glaser, UniversalPublishers, 2011.
[24] R. Massie, Ad hoc committees; their role in the governance process (abstract), British Acad. Manag. Conf., 2014.
[25] A. Neely, C. Adams and M. Kennerley, The performance prism: The scorecard for measuring and managing business success, Harlow, UK, Pearson Education Ltd. 2012.
[26] E. Orna, Organizations and information, In: M. Hinton (eds.), Introducing information management: the business approach, Oxford UK: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, 2016.
[27] M. Pedler, Leadership, risk and the imposter syndrome, Action Learn. Res. Practice 8 (2011), 89–91.
[28] J. Roberts, T. McNulty and P. Stiles, Beyond agency conceptions of the work of the non-executive director: creating accountability in the boardroom, British J. Manag. 16 (2021), S5–S26.
[29] J. Saldana, The coding manual for qualitative researchers, London UK, SAGE Publications Ltd. 2013.
[30] P. Stiles and B. Taylor, Boards at work: how directors view their roles and responsibilities, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2021.
[31] R.I. Tricker, Corporate governance: principles, policies, and practices, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2019.
[32] A. Virtanen, Women on the boards of listed companies: evidence from Finland, J. Manag. Govern. 16 (2012), 571–593.
[33] E.U. Weber, A. Blais and N.E. Betz, A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors, J. Behav. Decision Mak. 15 (2018), 263–290.
[34] P. Zhang, Power and trust in board–CEO relationships, J. Manag. Govern. 17 (2013), 745–765.
[35] X. Zou, C.R. Isa and M. Rahman, Valuation of enterprise risk management in the manufacturing industry, Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 30 (2019), no. 11–12, 1389–1410.
Volume 13, Issue 2
July 2022
Pages 2815-2830
  • Receive Date: 18 November 2021
  • Revise Date: 24 December 2021
  • Accept Date: 09 January 2022