Boards' Relevant Experience And International Strategy: A Recipe For Success Or A Case Of Too Many Cooks?

Research Summary Board scholarship has generally taken the perspective that when it comes to board expertise, more is better. This study, in contrast, explores contingencies that may stretch board experience beyond the limits of its usefulness. We integrate insights from extant research in board leadership and international strategy to identify and test internal and external contextual factors that can limit the effectiveness of boards' international experience. Exploring this in the context of cross-border M&As, we find evidence that the positive effects of boards' international experience are attenuated when the CEO lacks such knowledge, and when the institutional distance between the home and target countries is high. Overall, our findings suggest the need to exercise caution in viewing board expertise as a "panacea" of board effectiveness. Managerial Summary Boards are generally viewed as experts that CEOs can look to for advice when formulating corporate strategy. Accordingly, the predominant view has been that the more relevant expertise on the board, the better the strategic advice they can offer. The results of our study, however, suggest that is not always the case. As it pertains to cross-border M&As, in order to get the maximum benefit from boards' international experience, CEOs must have enough international experience of their own, and the institutional environment of the target firm's country must not be too dissimilar from the acquiring firm's home country. Otherwise, it is possible that the boards' international experience will be stretched beyond its strategic usefulness.