Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Business Administration, Management, and Operations Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Business Law, Public Responsibility, and Ethics (4)
- Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration (3)
- Public Policy (3)
- Social and Behavioral Sciences (3)
- Human Resources Management (2)
-
- Labor and Employment Law (2)
- Policy Design, Analysis, and Evaluation (2)
- Arts and Humanities (1)
- Behavioral Economics (1)
- Benefits and Compensation (1)
- Business and Corporate Communications (1)
- Economic Policy (1)
- Economic Theory (1)
- Economics (1)
- Entrepreneurial and Small Business Operations (1)
- Ethics and Political Philosophy (1)
- Industrial Organization (1)
- Industrial and Organizational Psychology (1)
- Inequality and Stratification (1)
- International Business (1)
- Labor Economics (1)
- Labor Relations (1)
- Legal Studies (1)
- Legal Theory (1)
- Litigation (1)
- Models and Methods (1)
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Business Administration, Management, and Operations
Voice Without Say: Why Capital-Managed Firms Aren’T (Genuinely) Participatory, Justin Schwartz
Voice Without Say: Why Capital-Managed Firms Aren’T (Genuinely) Participatory, Justin Schwartz
Justin Schwartz
Why are most capitalist enterprises of any size organized as authoritarian bureaucracies rather than incorporating genuine employee participation that would give the workers real authority? Even firms with employee participation programs leave virtually all decision-making power in the hands of management. The standard answer is that hierarchy is more economically efficient than any sort of genuine participation, so that participatory firms would be less productive and lose out to more traditional competitors. This answer is indefensible. After surveying the history, legal status, and varieties of employee participation, I examine and reject as question-begging the argument that the rarity of genuine …
A Conflict Primacy Model Of The Public Board, Usha Rodrigues
A Conflict Primacy Model Of The Public Board, Usha Rodrigues
Scholarly Works
e board of directors is the theoretical fulcrum of the corporate form: Statutes task the board with managing the corporation. Yet in the twentieth century, CEOs and other executives came to dominate the real-world control of the corporation. In light of this transformation, in the 1970s Melvin E. Eisenberg proposed reconceiving the board as an independent monitor. Eisenberg’s monitoring board is now the dominant regulatory model of the board. Recently two different visions of the board of directors have emerged. Stephen Bainbridge’s “director primacy” model calls directors “Platonic guardians,” and Margaret Blair and Lynn Stout’s “team production model” characterizes them …
The Merits Of Cooperative Corporate Governance In The Digital Age, Meredith-Anne Kurz
The Merits Of Cooperative Corporate Governance In The Digital Age, Meredith-Anne Kurz
Meredith-Anne Kurz
No abstract provided.
Mandating Board-Shareholder Engagement?, Lisa Fairfax
Mandating Board-Shareholder Engagement?, Lisa Fairfax
All Faculty Scholarship
This Article not only argues that corporations must be encouraged to enhance the level of communication between shareholders and the board, but also maintains that the benefits of increased engagement are significant enough that we should consider developing standards for incentivizing, if not mandating, more robust board-shareholder engagement for corporations that fail to respond to such encouragement. In the last several years, shareholders not only have gained increased authority over corporate elections and governance matters, but also have demonstrated a willingness to use that authority to challenge, and even reject, management policies and practices. Shareholders also have begun to demand …
Sue On Pay: Say On Pay’S Impact On Directors’ Fiduciary Duties, Lisa Fairfax
Sue On Pay: Say On Pay’S Impact On Directors’ Fiduciary Duties, Lisa Fairfax
All Faculty Scholarship
This Article advances a normative case for using say on pay litigation to enhance the state courts’ role in policing directors’ compensation decisions. Outrage over what many perceive to be excessive executive compensation has escalated dramatically in recent years. In 2010, such outrage prompted Congress to mandate say on pay—a nonbinding shareholder vote on executive compensation. In the wake of say on pay votes, some shareholders have brought suit against directors alleging that a negative vote indicates a breach of directors’ fiduciary duties. To date, the vast majority of courts have rejected these suits. This Article insists that such rejection …