Table AI Effect sizes of included...

Table AI

Effect sizes of included studies

Author	N	Setting	Process variables included	Board performance variables included	Effect sizes (r)
1. Wan and Ong (2005)	424	Listed firms in Singapore	EN CC UKS	A. Service role B. Monitoring role	EN × A: 0.44 EN × B: 0.57 CC × A: 0.38 CC × B: 0.47 UKS × A: 0.56 UKS × B: 0.58
2. Zona and Zattoni (2007)	301	Large manufacturing firms in Italy	EN CC UKS	A. Service B. Monitoring	EN × A: 0.50 EN × B: 0.33 CC × A: 0.00 CC × B: 0.00 UKS × A: 0.25 UKS × B: 0.39
3. van Ees et al. (2008)	136	Large firms in the Netherlands	EN CC UKS	A. Strategy B. Monitoring	EN × A: 0.19 EN × B: 0.38 CC × A: 0.02 CC × B: 0.45 UKS × A: 0.24 UKS × B: 0.57
4. Minichilli et al. (2009)	301	Large industrial firms in Italy	EN (commitment) CC (critical debate)	A. Service: Advisory task, networking task and strategic participation B. Control: Behavioural control, output control and strategy control.	EN × A: 0.46^a EN × B: 0.41^a CC × A: 0.08^a CC × B: 0.01^a
5. Gnan and Zattoni (2009)	498	Small firms in Norway	EN (commitment) CC	A. Advisory task B. Control task	EN × A: 0.26^b EN × B: 0.19^b CC × A: 0.27^b CC × B: 0.30^b
6.Scarborough et al. (2010)	135	Firms with a corporate secretary in the US	EN	Board activism	EN: 0.56
7. Bailey and Peck (2011)	104	Publicly traded firms in the United Stated	EN CC UKS	Board task performance	EN: 0.53 CC: 0.69 UKS: 0.50
8. Namoga (2011)	86	Public and private enterprises on Fiji and Solomon Islands	EN CC UKS	A. Service role performance B. Monitoring and control role performance	EN × A: 0.62 EN × B: 0.17 CC × A: 0.44 CC × B: 0.29 UKS × A: 0.45 UKS × B: 0.73
9. Minichilli et al. (2012)	535	Listed and large firms in Norway and Italy	EN CC UKS	A. Advisory task performance B. Control task performance	EN × A: 0.40 EN × B: 0.36 CC × A: 0.01 CC × B: 0.01 UKS × A: 0.34 UKS × B: 0.26
10. Garnes and Mathisen (2014)	307	Collaborative tourist organisations in Norway	EN CC	Board commitment	EN 0.44 CC–0.30
11. McNulty et al. (2013)	141	Large firms in the United Kingdom	EN CC UKS	Financial risk-taking	EN: 0.22^c CC: 0.20^c UKS: −0.02^c
12. Msweli and Singh (2014)	289	State owned firms in South Africa	EN CC UKS	Board decision quality	EN: 0.45 CC: 0.54 UKS: 0.60
13. Zattoni et al. (2015)	488	SMEs in Norway	EN CC UKS	A. Strategy task performance B. Monitoring task performance	EN × A: 0.50 EN × B: 0.37 CC × A: 0.10 CC × B: 0.01 UKS × A: 0.65 UKS × B: 0.66
14. Heemskerk et al. (2015)	148	Educational organisations in the Netherlands	EN CC (task conflict) UKS	A. Advisory task performance B. Control task performance	EN × A: 0.39 EN × B: 0.39 CC × A: 0.33 CC × B: 0.32 UKS × A: 0.32 UKS × B: 0.41
15. Ranasinghe et al. (2015)	184	Listed firms in Australia	EN CC UKS	Monitoring of financial reporting	EN: 0.33 CC: 0.10 UKS: 0.30
16. Mostert et al. (2015)	285	Banks and insurance companies in the Netherlands	CC	A. Board advice provision B. Board monitoring	CC × A: −0.09 CC × B: 0.21
17. Zona (2016)	109	Family firms in Italy	EN CC UKS	Board performance	EN: 0.61 CC: 0.21 UKS: 0.43

Author	N	Setting	Process variables included	Board performance variables included	Effect sizes (r)
1. Wan and Ong (2005)	424	Listed firms in Singapore	ENCCUKS	A. Service roleB. Monitoring role	EN × A: 0.44EN × B: 0.57CC × A: 0.38CC × B: 0.47UKS × A: 0.56UKS × B: 0.58
2. Zona and Zattoni (2007)	301	Large manufacturing firms in Italy	ENCCUKS	A. ServiceB. Monitoring	EN × A: 0.50EN × B: 0.33CC × A: 0.00CC × B: 0.00UKS × A: 0.25UKS × B: 0.39
3. van Ees et al. (2008)	136	Large firms in the Netherlands	ENCCUKS	A. StrategyB. Monitoring	EN × A: 0.19EN × B: 0.38CC × A: 0.02CC × B: 0.45UKS × A: 0.24UKS × B: 0.57
4. Minichilli et al. (2009)	301	Large industrial firms in Italy	EN (commitment)CC (critical debate)	A. Service: Advisory task, networking task and strategic participationB. Control: Behavioural control, output control and strategy control.	EN × A: 0.46^aEN × B: 0.41^aCC × A: 0.08^aCC × B: 0.01^a
5. Gnan and Zattoni (2009)	498	Small firms in Norway	EN (commitment)CC	A. Advisory taskB. Control task	EN × A: 0.26^bEN × B: 0.19^bCC × A: 0.27^bCC × B: 0.30^b
6.Scarborough et al. (2010)	135	Firms with a corporate secretary in the US	EN	Board activism	EN: 0.56
7. Bailey and Peck (2011)	104	Publicly traded firms in the United Stated	ENCCUKS	Board task performance	EN: 0.53CC: 0.69UKS: 0.50
8. Namoga (2011)	86	Public and private enterprises on Fiji and Solomon Islands	ENCCUKS	A. Service role performanceB. Monitoring and control role performance	EN × A: 0.62EN × B: 0.17CC × A: 0.44CC × B: 0.29UKS × A: 0.45UKS × B: 0.73
9. Minichilli et al. (2012)	535	Listed and large firms in Norway and Italy	ENCCUKS	A. Advisory task performanceB. Control task performance	EN × A: 0.40EN × B: 0.36CC × A: 0.01CC × B: 0.01UKS × A: 0.34UKS × B: 0.26
10. Garnes and Mathisen (2014)	307	Collaborative tourist organisations in Norway	ENCC	Board commitment	EN 0.44CC–0.30
11. McNulty et al. (2013)	141	Large firms in the United Kingdom	ENCCUKS	Financial risk-taking	EN: 0.22^cCC: 0.20^cUKS: −0.02^c
12. Msweli and Singh (2014)	289	State owned firms in South Africa	ENCCUKS	Board decision quality	EN: 0.45CC: 0.54UKS: 0.60
13. Zattoni et al. (2015)	488	SMEs in Norway	ENCCUKS	A. Strategy task performanceB. Monitoring task performance	EN × A: 0.50EN × B: 0.37CC × A: 0.10CC × B: 0.01UKS × A: 0.65UKS × B: 0.66
14. Heemskerk et al. (2015)	148	Educational organisations in the Netherlands	ENCC (task conflict)UKS	A. Advisory task performanceB. Control task performance	EN × A: 0.39EN × B: 0.39CC × A: 0.33CC × B: 0.32UKS × A: 0.32UKS × B: 0.41
15. Ranasinghe et al. (2015)	184	Listed firms in Australia	ENCCUKS	Monitoring of financial reporting	EN: 0.33CC: 0.10UKS: 0.30
16. Mostert et al. (2015)	285	Banks and insurance companies in the Netherlands	CC	A. Board advice provisionB. Board monitoring	CC × A: −0.09CC × B: 0.21
17. Zona (2016)	109	Family firms in Italy	ENCCUKS	Board performance	EN: 0.61CC: 0.21UKS: 0.43

Notes:

EN = effort norms, CC = cognitive conflict and UKS = the use of knowledge and skills.

^aBoth board roles were measured as three separate variables. Although one should in general not add up correlations, the similarity of the three board roles both in concept as in outcome makes it justifiable to compute a mean r using Fisher’s z-transformation.

^bEffect sizes in this study were reported as βs within a multiple regression analysis. Estimates of effect sizes as r are calculated using the transformation suggested by Peterson and Brown (2005): r = 0.99β + 0.04λ + 0.2η with λ = 1 (for β > 0) and η = 1 (for the average intercorrelation of the predictor variable set is > 0.18).

^cEffect sizes of the three (inverse) proxies of financial risk-taking during the credit crisis: ΔCash&Equivalents, ΔNetCash and ΔFinancialSlack were reported separately. Given the similarities, conceptual as well as numerical, a mean effect size for r was computed using Fisher’s z-transformation

[ViewLarge]

Sharing Unavailable