Efisiensi Perusahaan: Apakah Busyness Dewan Komisaris Berkontribusi?

  • Zaitul zaitul universitas bung hatta
  • Desi ilona Universitas Putra Indonesia YPTK
  • Shinta Dea Maharani Universitas Bung Hatta
  • Ethika Ethika Universitas Bung Hatta
  • Dandes Rifa Universitas Bung Hatta
Keywords: company efficiency, supervisory board busyness, supervisory board experience, supervisory board size


The busyness of the board members has become a hot topic since this can positively and negatively impact corporate governance outcomes, such as company efficiency. However, a limited study investigates the role of supervisory board busyness and company efficiency using Indonesian data. Therefore, this study aims to determine the relationship between supervisory board busyness and company efficiency. In addition, this study also analyzes the effect of the supervisory board experience and size on firm efficiency. Forty-two publicly listed transportation companies are employed as research samples. Secondary data from the annual and financial reports are used, and multivariate regression analysis is applied. This study found that supervisory board experience is positively related to company efficiency (α=5%). Hence, the company's efficiency is achieved if the supervisory board has more experience. Besides, this study also found that company profitability, leverage, and size significantly related to company efficiency.


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Desi ilona, Universitas Putra Indonesia YPTK

Jurusan Akuntansi, Universitas Putra Indonesia YPTK, Padang, Indonesia

Shinta Dea Maharani, Universitas Bung Hatta

Jurusan Akuntansi, Universitas Bung Hatta, Padang, Indonesia

Ethika Ethika , Universitas Bung Hatta

Jurusan Akuntansi, Universitas Bung Hatta, Padang, Indonesia

Dandes Rifa, Universitas Bung Hatta

Jurusan Akuntansi, Universitas Bung Hatta, Padang, Indonesia


Adams, R. B., & Ferreira, D. (2007). A theory of friendly boards. Journal of Finance, 62(1), 217–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2007.01206.x

Adeabah, D., Gyeke-dako, A., & Andoh, C. (2019). Board gender diversity, corporate governance and bank efficiency in Ghana : a two stage data envelope analysis ( DEA ) approach. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 19(2), 299–320. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-08-2017-0171

Alberty, P., Zaitul, Z., Puttri, D., & Ilona, D. (2023). Board Diversity and Government Link Company Performance: the Case of Emerning Country. Journal Markcount Finance, 1(3), 196–205. https://doi.org/10.55849/jmf.v1i3.145

Ali, F., Wang, M., Jebran, K., & Ali, S. T. (2021). Board diversity and firm efficiency: evidence from China. Corporate Governance (Bingley), 21(4), 587–607. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-10-2019-0312

Bonn, I., Yoshikawa, T., & Phan, P. H. (2004). Effects of board structure on firm performance : A Comparison Between Japan and Australia. Asian Business and Management, 3(1), 105–125. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.abm.9200068

Colpan, A. M., & Yoshikawa, T. (2012). Performance Sensitivity of Executive Pay: The Role of Foreign Investors and Affiliated Directors in Japan. Corporate Governance An International Review, 20(6), 547–561.

Daily, C. M., Certo, S. T., & Dalton, D. R. (1999). Entrepreneurial ventures as an avenue to the top?: Assessing the advancement of female CEOs and directors in the Inc. 100. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 4(1), 19–32.

Darmadi, S. (2016). Ownership concentration, family control, and auditor choice: Evidence from an emerging market. Asian Review of Accounting, 24(1), 19–42.

Douma, S., George, R., & Kabir, R. (2006). Foreign and domestic ownership, business groups, and firm performance: Evidence from a large emerging market. Strategic Management Journal, 27(7), 637–657. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.535

Durbin, J., & Watson, G. S. (1950). Testing for serial correlation in least squares regression. I. Biometrika, 37, 1950.

Eisenberg, T., Sundgren, S., & Wells, M. T. (1998). Larger Board Size and Decreasing Firm Value in Small Firms. Journal of Financial Economics, 48(1), 35–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-405X(98)00003-8

Fama, E. (1980). Agency problems and the theory of the firm. The Journal of Political Economy, 88(2), 288–307. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511817410.022

Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Agency Problems and Residual Claims. The Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), 327–349. https://doi.org/10.1086/467038

Fich, E. M., & Shivdasani, A. (2006). Are Busy Boards Effective Monitors? The Journal of Finance, 61(2), 689–724. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2006.00852.x

Foong, S., & Idris, R. (2012). Leverage, product diversity and performance of general insurers in Malaysia. The Journal of Risk Finance, 13(4), 347–361. https://doi.org/10.1108/15265941211254462

Ghahroudi, M. R. (2011). Ownership Advantages and Firm Factors Influencing Performance of Foreign Affiliates in Japan. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(11), 119–137. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v6n11p119

Ghozali, I. (2014). Ekonometrika: Teori , Konsep dan Aplikasi dengan IBM SPSS 22 (Edisi 7). Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro.

Gray, S., & Nowland, J. (2015). The diversity of expertise on corporate boards in Australia. Accounting and Finance, 57(2), 429–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.12146

Grubbs, F. F. (1969). Procedures for Detecting Outlying Observations in Samples. Tachometric, 11(1), 1–21.

Gujarati, D. (1995). Basic Econometric. McGraw-Hill.

Hair, J. F., William, C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th Editio). Pearson Education Limited.

Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper Echelons: The Organization as a Reflection of Its Top Managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1984.4277628

Hambrick, Donald C. (2007). Upper Echelons Theory: An Update. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 334–343. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.24345254

Hamdi, M., Ilona, D., & Zaitul. (2021). Supervisory board and Indonesia’s company internationalisation. Int. J. Business and Globalisation, 28(1/2), 148–160.

Harymawan, I., Nasih, M., Rahayu, N. K., Kamarudin, K. A., & Wan Ismail, W. A. (2022). Busy CEOs and financial reporting quality: evidence from Indonesia. Asian Review of Accounting, 30(3), 314–337. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARA-11-2021-0203

Harymawan, I., Nasih, M., Ratri, M. C., & Nowland, J. (2019). CEO busyness and firm performance: evidence from Indonesia. Heliyon, 5(5), e01601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01601

Hillman, A. M. Y. I., & Dalziel, T. (2003). Boards of Directors and Firm Performance : Integrating Agency and Resource Dependence Perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 383–396. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2003.10196729

Huther, J. (1997). An empirical test of the effect of board size on firm efficiency. Economics Letters, 54(3), 259–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1765(97)00035-9

Ilona, D., Zaitul, & Ethika. (2019). Supervisory Board and company borrowing: The case of developing economics. Journal of Reviews on Global Economics, 8. https://doi.org/10.6000/1929-7092.2019.08.63

Jensen, C., & Meckling, H. (1976). . Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X

Jiraporn, P., Singh, M., & Lee, C. I. (2009). Ineffective corporate governance: Director busyness and board committee memberships. Journal of Banking and Finance, 33(5), 819–828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2008.09.020

Kavitha, D., Nandagopal, R., & Uma, B. M. (2019). Impact of the busyness and board independence on the discretionary disclosures of Indian fi rms. International Journal of Law and Management, 61(1), 250–265. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLMA-04-2018-0062

Larmou, S., & Vafeas, N. (2010). The relation between board size and firm performance in firms with a history of poor operating performance. Journal of Management and Governance, 14, 61–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-009-9091-z

Lin, Y., Wang, Y., Chiou, J., & Huang, H. (2014). CEO Characteristics and Internal Control Quality. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 22(1), 24–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12042

Lu, X., Wang, J., & Dong, D. (2013). Busy boards and corporate performance. China Finance Review International, 3(2), 203–219. https://doi.org/10.1108/20441391311330618

Mak, Y. T., & Kusnadi, Y. (2005). Size really matters: Further evidence on the negative relationship between board size and firm value. Pacific Basin Finance Journal, 13(3), 301–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2004.09.002

Manning, M. L., & Munro, D. (2004). The business survey researcher’s SPSS cookbook (2nd ed). Pearson Education.

Muth, M. M., & Donaldson, L. (1998). Stewardship Theory and Board Structure: a contingency approach. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 6(1), 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8683.00076

Nas, T. I., & Kalaycioglu, O. (2016). The effects of the board composition, board size and CEO duality on export performance: Evidence from Turkey. Management Research Review, 39(11), 1374–1409. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MRR-09-2015-0216

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (2003). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Stanford Business Books.

Ratri, M. C., Harymawan, I., & Kamarudin, K. A. (2021). Busyness, tenure, meeting frequency of the ceos, and corporate social responsibility disclosure. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(10), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105567

Sarkar, J., & Sarkar, S. (2009). Multiple board appointments and firm performance in emerging economies: Evidence from India. Pacific Basin Finance Journal, 17(2), 271–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2008.02.002

Sekaran, U. (2013). Reserch Methods For Business.

Shrader, C., Blackburn, V., & Iles, P. (1997). Women in management and firm financial performance : An exploratory study. Journal Managerial Issues, 9(3), 355–372. http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=management_pubs

Shu, P. G., Yeh, Y. H., Chiu, S. B., & Yang, Y. W. (2015). Board external connectedness and earnings management. Asia Pacific Management Review, 20(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2015.03.003

Spitzeck, H., & Hansen, E. G. (2010). Stakeholder governance: how stakeholders influence corporate decision making. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 10(4), 378–391. https://doi.org/10.1108/14720701011069623

Tan, J. D., Supratikno, H., Pramono, R., Purba, J. T., & Bernarto, I. (2019). Nurturing transgenerational entrepreneurship in ethnic Chinese family SMEs: exploring Indonesia. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 13(2), 294–325. https://doi.org/10.1108/JABS-04-2018-0132

Tan, K. M., Bany-Ariffin, A. N., Kamarudin, F., & Abdul Rahim, N. (2019). Does directors’ experience positively moderate the impact of board busyness on firm efficiency? Evidence from Asia-Pacific. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 11(3), 232–250. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJBA-01-2019-0008

Tan, K. M., Kamarudin, F., Bany-Ariffin, A. N., & Abdul Rahim, N. (2020). Moderation of directors’ education on board busyness-firm efficiency. Management Decision, 58(7), 1397–1423. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-09-2017-0905

Tan, K. M., Kamarudin, F., Bany-Ariffin, A. N., & Rahim, N. A. (2018). Firm efficiency and board busyness: Empirical evidence in southeast and Northeast Asia. Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, 52(2), 231–251. https://doi.org/10.17576/jem-2018-5202-19

Trinh, V. Q., Elnahass, M., Salama, A., & Izzeldin, M. (2020). Board busyness, performance and financial stability: does bank type matter? European Journal of Finance, 26(7–8), 774–801. https://doi.org/10.1080/1351847X.2019.1636842

Trinugroho, I., Risfandy, T., Hanafi, M. M., & Sukmana, R. (2022). Busy commissioners and firm performance: evidence from Indonesia. International Journal of Emerging Markets, ahead of p(ahead of print), ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-01-2020-0007

Van Ees, H., Gabrielsson, J., & Huse, M. (2009). Toward a behavioral theory of boards and corporate governance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(3), 307–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2009.00741.x

White, H. (1980). A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica, 48(4), 817–838.

Wooldridge, J. M. (2003). Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach (2nd Editio). Thomson South Western. https://doi.org/10.1017/asb.2017.16

Zahra, S. A., & Pearce, J. A. (1989). Boards of directors and corporate financial performance: A review and integrative model. Journal of Management, 15(2), 291–334. https://doi.org/0803973233

Zaitul, & Ilona, D. (2018). Gender in Audit Committee and Financial reporting timeliness: The case of uniquecontinental European model. International Journal of Engineering and Technology(UAE), 7(2.29), 436–432.

Zaitul, Melmusi, Z., & Ilona, D. (2019). Corporate governance and bank performance: Global financial crisis 2008. Journal of Reviews on Global Economics, 8, 625–636. https://doi.org/10.6000/1929-7092.2019.08.54

Zaitul, Ridwan, M., & Pratiwi, H. (2018). Dividend policy in Indonesian companies: Does corporate governance matter? International Journal of Engineering and Technology(UAE), 7(3.25), 306–310. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i3.25.17587.

How to Cite
zaitul, Z., ilona, D., Maharani, S. D., Ethika , E., & Rifa, D. (2024). Efisiensi Perusahaan: Apakah Busyness Dewan Komisaris Berkontribusi?. Jurnal Akuntansi Dan Ekonomika, 13(2), 232-242. https://doi.org/10.37859/jae.v13i2.4294
Abstract views: 54 , PDF downloads: 58