The Board Process Factors Antecedents of Board Performance

Main Article Content

Kittisak Jermsittiparsert
Kovit Wongsurawat


                The main objective is to investigate that if a significant relationship exists among the board’s process factors and the board performance. For this purpose, a hypothesis was developed stating that variables like, effort norms, cognitive conflict, and use of skills and knowledge are the manifest variables for the board process, and the group think is positively related with board monitoring, networking and service roles of performance in Thailand. This relationship was tested using PLS. Thus, significant association was found among the two constructs which is also consistent with findings, in which the found supporting evidence for the idea that the board’s task performance is significantly influenced by the board’s process variables. In addition, each particular monitoring, networking and service tasks are differently affected by board processes. Furthermore, industry and firm characteristics also significantly affect the board’s task performance. In a similar vein, collected 325 samples from Thailand companies and 384 from the directors. Thus, board performance and board process are found to be related in terms of cognitive conflict, use of skills and knowledge, and individual parameters of effort norms. When information is received, the group members tend to avoid any superior debate and give in to their peers’ persuasive power and do not attempt to raise their point. This explains why policymakers use inefficient approach while taking decisions. suggested to integrate those processes which reinforce each other in a group. Besides, he also cited a few examples, such as, failure to consider risks arising from the selection of preferred choices; incomplete survey of objectives and alternatives; selective bias during information processing, inefficient search of information, failure to review alternatives that were rejected initially; and failure of executing contingency plans.

Article history : Received 18 March 2021
                             Revised 15 April 2021
                             Accepted 30 April 2021
                             SIMILARITY INDEX = 0.00 %

Article Details

How to Cite
Jermsittiparsert , K. ., & Wongsurawat, K. . (2023). The Board Process Factors Antecedents of Board Performance. Journal of Management Science Nakhon Pathom Rajabhat University, 8(2), 348–369. (Original work published December 31, 2021)
Research Articles


Akter, S., Fosso Wamba, S., & Dewan, S. (2017). Why PLS-SEM is suitable for complex modelling? An empirical illustration in big data analytics quality. Production Planning & Control, 28(11-12), 1011-1021.

Aw, V., & Ayoko, O. (2017). The impact of followers’ conflict behaviors on teams’ transformational leadership, team member exchange and engagement. International Journal of Conflict Management, 28(4), 509-532.

Babagana, S., Mat, N., & Ibrahim, H. (2019). Moderating Effect of Employee Participation on Factors that Determine Effective Performance Appraisal (EPA): Data Screening and Preliminary Analysis. International Journal of Academic Research Business and Social Sciences, 9(4), 116-134.

Chang, E., Milkman, K., & Chugh, D. (2019). Diversity thresholds: How social norms, visibility, and scrutiny relate to group composition. Academy of management Journal, 62(1), 144-171.

Cucari, N., Esposito, S., & Orlando, B. (2018). Diversity of board of directors and environmental social governance: Evidence from Italian listed companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(3), 250-266.

Dawd, I., Burton, B., & Dunne, T. (2018). Corporate reporting and disclosures in the emerging capital market of Kuwait: the perceptions of users and preparers. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 15(2), 61-72.

Du, F., & Xu, K. (2018). The path to independence: Board cohesion, cognitive conflict, and information sharing. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 30(1), 31-54.

Erlmann, V. (ed.). (2020). Hearing Cultures: Essays on Sound, Listening, and Modernity. London: Routledge.

Hafeez, M., Basheer, M., & Rafique, M., Siddiqui, S. (2018). Exploring the Links between TQM Practices, Business Innovativeness and Firm Performance: An Emerging Market Perspective. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, 38(2), 485-500.

Hair, Jr., J., Hult, G., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). 2nd ed. California: Sage.

Hair Jr., J., Matthews, L., Matthews, R., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated guidelines on which method to use. International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, 1(2), 107-123.

Hameed, W., Nawaz, M., Basheer, M., & Waseem, M. (2019). The Effect of Amanah Ikhtiar Malaysia (AIM) on Microenterprise Success in Sabah State Malaysia. Dialogue, 14(2), 223-238.

Hatamifar, P., Darban, A., & Rezvani, M. (2018). Analyzing Quality of Supply Chain Management in Hotels of Isfahan Using the Partial Least Squares (PLS). Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 19(2), 172-191.

Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: updated guidelines. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(1), 2-20.

Huang, Y., Ma, Z., & Meng, Y. (2018). High‐performance work systems and employee engagement: empirical evidence from China. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 56(3), 341-359.

Intezari, A., & Gressel, S. (2017). Information and reformation in KM systems: big data and strategic decision-making. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(1), 71-91.

Jaber, A. (2017). Moral Judgment and the Brain: The Role of the Frontal Lobes and the Moderating Influence of Mortality Salience and Type of Moral Dilemma on Moral Judgment. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Detroit Mercy.

Jenkins, H. (2009). A ‘business opportunity’model of corporate social responsibility for small‐and medium‐sized enterprises. Business Ethics: A European Review, 18(1), 21-36.

Joshi, A., Bollen, L., & Hassink, H. (2018). Explaining IT governance disclosure through the constructs of IT governance maturity and IT strategic role. Information & Management, 55(3), 368-380.

Klein, P., Mahoney, J., & McGahan, A. (2019). Organizational governance adaptation: Who is in, who is out, and who gets what. Academy of Management Review, 44(1), 6-27.

Krawczyk, K. (2019). International NGOs, Transnational Civil Society, and Global Public Policy. In Stone, D., & Moloney, K. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Global Policy and Transnational Administration. (pp. 148) Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Loon, J., & Aalbers, M. (2017). How real estate became ‘just another asset class’: The financialization of the investment strategies of Dutch institutional investors. European Planning Studies, 25(2), 221-240.

Merendino, A., Dibb, S., & Meadows, M. (2018). Big data, big decisions: The impact of big data on board level decision-making. Journal of Business Research, 93, 67-78.

Mikalef, P., & Pateli, A. (2017). Information technology-enabled dynamic capabilities and their indirect effect on competitive performance: Findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA. Journal of Business Research, 70, 1-16.

Naala, M., Nordin, N., & Omar, W. (2017). Innovation capability and firm performance relationship: A study of pls-structural equation modeling (Pls-Sem). International Journal of Organization & Business Excellence, 2(1), 39-50.

Neill, T., Hoffart, G., & McLarnon, M. (2017). Constructive controversy and reflexivity training promotes effective conflict profiles and team functioning in student learning teams. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(2), 257-276.

Ong, M., & Puteh, F. (2017). Quantitative Data Analysis: Choosing Between SPSS, PLS, and AMOS in Social Science Research. International Interdisciplinary Journal of Scientific Research, 3(1), 14-25.

Packer, D., & Ungson, N. (2017). Group decision-making. Social Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies, 182, 182-200.

Parker, D., Dressel, U., & Chevers, D. (2018). Agency theory perspective on public-private-partnerships: International development project. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 67(2), 239-259.

Ramayah, T., Cheah, J., & Memon, M. (2018). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using SmartPLS 3.0 An Updated Guide and Practical Guide to Statistical Analysis. New Jersey: Pearson.

Shuhaiber, A. (2018). The role of perceived control, enjoyment, cost, sustainability and trust on intention to use smart meters: An empirical study using SEM-PLS. In: Rocha Á., Adeli H., Reis L., Costanzo S. (eds.). Trends and Advances in Information Systems and Technologies. (pp. 789-799) Cham: Springer.

Tabassum, N., & Singh, S. (2020). Corporate Governance and Organisational Performance: The Impact of Board Structure. Berlin: Springer.

Tetteh, A. (2017). An Assessment of the Impact of Employee Motivation on Organisational Performance and Productivity in State-Owned Enterprises: A Case of ECG Legon District. Retrieved from

Zona, F. (2016). CEO leadership and board decision processes in family-controlled firms: comparing family and non-family CEOs. Small Business Economics, 47(3), 735-753.