Corporate Governance and Accountability

Question 1:
Performance measures refer to qualitative and quantitative methods that define and illustrate
performance. They are used by organizations management as tools for managing progress to
achieve set goals, hence define the major indicators of customer satisfaction and performance of
the organization.
Performance measurement is a process of assessing the actual progress made aimed at achieving
set or predetermined objectives or starting point on a scale with which other values can be
compared. Output measures are computations of activities recorded quantitatively or
qualitatively while outcome measures constitute assessment of results of programs vis--vis the
programmes intended purpose.
According to the dataset, the performance measures most likely to be affected by board structure
is return on capital employed and return on shareholders fund. According to Adjett (2012)
correlation and analyses carried out by financial performance data or return on assets and
investment were used alongside the proportion of minorities and women on boards of directors,
and there was an indication of a positive association between diversity and performance
indicators of a company. From the dataset it is evident that companies that have gender diversity
have a tendency of having good financial performance.
It is also evident from the dataset that in cases where non-executives constitute higher percentage
of the board size, the financial performance is enhanced. An independent board can greatly
effectively control and influence management, thus improving shareholder value (Fatma and

Jensen, 2008; Baysinger and Butler, 2009). Independence of the board can generally be measured
by the proportion of autonomy of non-executive board directors.
Question 2:
Part a:
A board independence implies a state in which mainstream of the board members or entirely the
members of the board of executives do not have any other interest with the organization but as
directors. They therefore may not be relations of the corporations initiators, main players or key
personnel. In the case of the dataset, the higher the percentage of the non-executives as board
members, there exists an evident robust financial performance.
Nonetheless, other studies submit that the unwarranted independence of the board may upset a
firms performance. Too much board independence may set the organization at occupation threat
with greater management turnover (Heffes 2007), generate complex agency overheads for
creditors (Weber 2006), and produce advanced costs to safeguard the proprietary situation of the
organization. Consequently a high proportion of external executives may result in inferior
business performance (Coles, McWilliams, 2001).
Part b:
The datasheet focuses on quantifiable processes enchanting the large scale framework. The
significant issues comprise the role of females in such corporations in expressions of influence
and policy- making. It doesnt mention the technique in which femininity range really touches
on routine board tasks.

The dataset indicates that a few executives were female and that no companies had a majority of
female directors with the company holding the highest female executives ranking at about 33%
of the executive board of that company. Consequently, where females were included on the
boards, they remained in the minority. The breakdown of board gender range and corporate
development shows that there is a commercial cost implication on the balance of gender in the
form of foregone performance (Fatma, 2008). Diversity in this sense should therefore ensure the
inclusion of both genders for the optimum performance of an organization.
Diversity as derived from the data sheet not only addresses gender balance, but also diversity in
the management board mix in the sense that non executives also constitute considerable
proportions of the board size (Marlow et al., 2008). Therefore more diverse companies are
composed of an optimum blend of women and non-executives on the company board and such
companies are seen to have higher financial performance. Therefore a well diverse board
enhances the performance of a company.
Question 3:
When conducting a causal link between board composition and company performance, the
analysis would take a paradigm shift and look at either dominance of either female or male
leadership or control among the bigger companies. Also, more focus would be placed in trying to
find out the sectors where the female has more control or higher representation in board
management and their effects on the financial performance of the companies. The researcher
would also seek to find out whether diversity in board gender role has an influence on the
development of an industry (Heffes 2007).

Therefore the study will be confined to two main objectives, to investigate equally business
governance and commercial performance as of the standpoint of gender diversity. The dataset
implies consistent disproportions between males and females on the boards of the companies
with men controlling the boards transversely. From the dataset, therefore there are some matters
that are overlooked, but it is evident that there are implications of overlooking some issues such
as diversity, especially gender diversity. There exists a business performance cost to sexual
category equilibrium in the form of foregone development of the business. Gender diversity
should therefore be embraced and women should be regarded in the boards of various companies
since majority of women have been found to be rational in embracing less perilous development
policies (Marlow et al., 2008).
References
Adgett, C. (2012). Corporate Governance: Theory and Practice. Palgrave Macmillan
Coles, M. (2008). An overview of corporate governance and accountability in southern Africa,
ECA, SRO-SA.
Fatma, J. (2008). Corporate governance and accountability. Hoboken, N.J., Wiley.
Heffes, F. R. (2007). A blueprint for corporate governance: strategy, accountability and the
preservation of shareholder value. New York, AMACOM.
Marlow et al. (2008). Corporate governance, accountability, and pressures to perform: an
international study. Stamford, Conn, JAI Press.
Weber, D. (2006). Corporate governance: Practical guidance on accountability requirements : A
specially commissioned report. London, Thorogood.