PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 15, 2026Academy of Management Review0 citations

Corrective Governance in the Boardroom: A Negotiated Order Perspective

View Full Paper
DBDana BementRKRyan KrauseMWMichael C. Withers

Key Points

  • To explore how boards manage CEO leadership through negotiated governance processes.
  • Developed a theoretical model based on negotiated order theory.
  • Identified dimensions of board affiliation and dependence on the CEO.
  • Analyzed negotiation conditions influencing governance outcomes.
  • Outlined four negotiation conditions affecting CEO-board dynamics.
  • Identified first-order outcomes like retention and discipline.
  • Proposed second-order outcomes impacting board affiliation and dependence.

Abstract

We leverage negotiated order theory to develop a model of board corrective governance concerning CEO leadership. We extend research on corporate governance to theorize that a board’s response to concerns about CEO leadership is a dynamic process of social order disruption and negotiation. When a disruption of an existing social order occurs, the CEO–board relationship is renegotiated by the board and, potentially, the CEO. We identify two critical relational dimensions—board affiliation with the CEO and board dependence on the CEO—that create four distinct negotiation conditions. Our model delineates the manner in which these negotiation conditions, in conjunction with the negotiation approach (cooperative or competitive) of the board and the CEO, give rise to a spectrum of first-order (i.e., retention, discipline, empowerment, dismissal) and second-order (i.e., changes to board dependence and affiliation) outcomes that influence the CEO–board relationship and subsequent corrective governance episodes. Our theoretical framework has important implications for governance research and practice, underscoring the need to view corrective governance decisions as interrelated negotiated outcomes shaped by evolving relational dynamics.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Bement et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69b606c483145bc643d1d0c5https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2023.0238
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Global governance and local bonds: CEO–chair role separation and executive relationship reconfiguration2026 · 2 citations
  2. 2Corporate Governance Dynamics: Contending with Egocentric Leadership and Enhancing Board Efficacy2024 · 4 citations
  3. 3Rethinking Board–Executive Relations: Toward a Relational Model of Non-Profit Governance2025 · 5 citations
  4. 4From formal contracts to psychological contracts: a dual-contract process model of corporate governance2026
  5. 5Aligning boards and CEOs for strategy execution2026