Reimagining corporate board effectiveness: Accountability, value creation, and governance reform in Zimbabwe’s state-owned enterprises
Keywords:
corporate board performance, governance reform, accountability, SOEs, board health drivers, baord ecosystemsAbstract
In an era of heightened scrutiny and complexity, understanding the dynamics of corporate board effectiveness has become central to organisational performance and governance integrity. Across both private and public sectors, boards are now positioned not only as oversight bodies but as strategic partners in value creation. In Zimbabwe, the performance of corporate boards within State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) has become emblematic of broad international efforts to strengthen accountability and counteract impunity. This paper re-examines the foundations of board effectiveness through the lenses of board health drivers, behavioural archetypes, and governance ecosystems, drawing on contemporary governance theory and emerging evidence from developing economies. Drawing on agency theory, stakeholder theory, and dynamic capabilities, the paper critiques enduring myths about board chemistry. It explores how contextual dynamics, such as political interference, institutional maturity, and leadership culture, mediate board functionality. It further argues that Zimbabwe’s reform trajectory, anchored in the Public Entities Corporate Governance Act [Chapter 10:31] (2018), demands a shift from compliance-based governance to adaptive, evidence-driven, and performance-oriented board leadership. The analysis offers a framework for cultivating agile, accountable, and value-creating boards within the SOE sector and beyond.
References
Aguilera, R. V., Florackis, C., & Kim, H. (2023). Advances in corporate governance research: Theoretical perspectives and global developments. Journal of Management Studies, 60(2), 215–243. https://doi.org/10.xxxx/joms.2023.0001.
Aprio. (2021). Corporate governance: Board effectiveness and responsibility. Aprio Governance Insights. https://www.aprio.com.
Bahl, S. A. (2012). Structural equation modelling: A review. International Journal of Business Research, 12(3), 45–58.
Behnam Tabrizi. (2023, June). 75% of cross-functional teams are dysfunctional. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org.
Carter, D. A., D’Souza, F., Simkins, B. J., & Simpson, W. G. (2021). Board diversity and firm performance: Contemporary evidence. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 29(2), 123–142.
Centre for Board Matters. (2024). Trends in board performance and governance oversight. Deloitte Insights. https://www2.deloitte.com.
Chigudu, D. (2022). Public sector governance reforms in Africa: The Zimbabwean experience. African Journal of Public Affairs, 11(4), 55–74.
Cohen, J., Krishnamoorthy, G., & Wright, A. (2018). Corporate governance and audit quality: Contemporary developments. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 37(2), 1–28.
Deloitte. (2023). Global boardroom program: Board effectiveness and accountability report 2023. Deloitte Global. https://www2.deloitte.com.
Dinh, J. V., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. (2021). Developing team trust: Leader insights for virtual settings. Organizational Dynamics, 50(1), 100814. https://doi.org/10.xxxx/orgdyn.2021.100814.
Ernst & Young. (2022). Board matters 2022. EY Global. https://www.ey.com/us/boardmatters.
Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), 301–325.
Freire, M., Silva, J., & Cunha, P. E. (2020). Agency theory and board accountability in emerging markets. Corporate Governance International, 20(4), 567–583.
Froehlich, C., Wegerer, P., & Leitner, S. M. (2020). Ethical considerations in organisational research: A review. Journal of Business Ethics, 162(3), 533–550.
Grosh, B., & Rwekaza, S. M. (2023). State-owned enterprises in Africa (Rev. ed.). Lynne Rienner Publishers. https://doi.org/10.xxxx/9781685855468.
Hillman, A. J., Withers, M. C., & Collins, B. J. (2021). Resource dependence theory: A review. Academy of Management Annals, 15(2), 543–586.
International Corporate Governance Network (ICGN). (2024). Global governance principles 2024. ICGN Publications. https://www.icgn.org.
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behaviour, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X.
Karim, K., Li, Y., & Ma, L. (2019). Board diversity, monitoring, and resource dependence: Evidence from emerging markets. Journal of Corporate Finance, 58, 103–121.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R., & Engellau, E. (2010). A clinical approach to the dynamics of leadership and executive transformation. In N. Nohria & R. Khurana (Eds.), Handbook of leadership theory and practice (pp. 183–208). Harvard Business Press.
Krause, R., Withers, M. C., & Semadeni, M. (2020). Compensation and governance: How board structures shape outcomes. Academy of Management Review, 45(4), 691–710.
Maibvisira, G., & Tefera, O. (2022). The impact of servant leadership on the performance of commercialised state-owned enterprises in Zimbabwe: An empirical study. Journal of African Business Management, 17(1), 101–129. https://doi.org/10.31920/1750-4562/2022/v17n1a5.
Makanyeza, C., & Mutambara, E. (2023). Corporate governance and performance of state-owned enterprises in Zimbabwe: Empirical perspectives. African Journal of Economic and Management Studies, 14(2), 211–231.
Mathieu, J. E., Hollenbeck, J. R., van Knippenberg, D., & Ilgen, D. R. (2019). Embracing complexity: Reviewing the past decade of team effectiveness research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6, 17–46. https://doi.org/10.xxxx/annurev-orgpsych-2019.
McKinsey & Company. (2023). State of the board 2023: Board effectiveness and value creation. McKinsey Insights. https://www.mckinsey.com
Minichilli, A., Zattoni, A., Nielsen, S., & Huse, M. (2020). Board task performance: An integrative model of board behaviour. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 28(2), 114–137.
Mikalef, P., Pappas, I. O., Krogstie, J., & Giannakos, M. (2019). Big data analytics capabilities: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 17(3), 547–578.
Moyo, T., & Sibanda, K. (2022). Governance reforms and accountability in Zimbabwe’s public enterprises. Journal of Public Administration and Policy Research, 14(1), 15–28.
Nyoni, B. (2024). Leadership culture and board performance in Zimbabwean state-owned enterprises. Zimbabwe Journal of Business and Management Studies, 10(1), 25–42.
Obholzer, A., & Roberts, V. Z. (2019). The unconscious at work: A Tavistock approach to making sense of organisational life (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2023).
OECD guidelines on corporate governance of state-owned enterprises (2023 edition). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264262096-en.
O’Leary, B., & Stewart, G. L. (2023). The dynamics of boards and teams: Toward integrative governance research. Academy of Management Perspectives, 37(2), 183–204.
Pedersen, T. (2022). Corporate governance, ethics, and sustainable value creation. Journal of Business Research, 142, 597–608.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Harper & Row.
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). (2022). Annual corporate governance survey 2022. PwC Publications. https://www.pwc.com.
Rizani, R., Hadi, A., & Rahman, M. (2022). Resource dependence and board composition: Evidence from emerging markets. Asian Journal of Business Ethics, 11(2), 189–207.
Rutberg, S., & Bouikidis, C. D. (2018). Ethical considerations in qualitative research. American Journal of Nursing, 118(2), 58–61.
Tricker, B. (2021). Corporate governance: Principles, policies, and practices (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1), 145–180
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Upon acceptance and publication, authors grant The Dyke a non-exclusive licence to publish and distribute their article in all formats and media. This means: Authors may freely share, deposit, and republish their work (e.g., in institutional repositories, websites, or future publications), provided proper citation and acknowledgment of The Dyke as the original publisher.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All articles in The Dyke are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
Under this licence:
- Others may copy, redistribute, remix, transform, and build upon the work for any purpose, even commercially.
- Appropriate credit must be given to the original author(s) and source (The Dyke), along with a link to the license.
- Any changes made must be indicated.
Full licence details: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Archiving and Preservation
The Dyke supports long-term preservation of scholarly work through partnerships with digital repositories and indexing services, including Sabinet African Journals. Authors are also encouraged to deposit a copy of their published article in institutional or subject-specific repositories.
