ABSTRACT
A small board can be more easily 'managed' by the Chief Executive Officer, but its members may not have adequate opportunities to influence policy and operations, whereas a large board can offer a wider range of expertise, but may be more difficult to control and can become bogged down by procedural inactivity. Any legislation that can support the board in prime objective would then be amply justified. The motives that led R. S. Chaganti et al. to undertake empirical research are laudable enough. If boards are supposed to have an effect on the welfare of their firms, it is natural to probe into the circumstances under which they succeed or fail. Instead of looking at industry at large and using corporate success' as a yardstick, with all the problems of definitions and measurement that such a concept would entail, Chaganti et al chose to look at companies in the retailing industry in the USA that managed to survive.
