8.7.4 Impact and relevance of the empirical research study

Within the framework of this dissertation I have conducted a large number of interviews (par. 1.4). For methodological (self-)reflection, it is interesting to see what they have contributed to the analysis framework and for the purpose of answering the central research question of this dissertation.

The interviews have made a significant contribution to the perception of legal practice regarding the performance assessment of management duties from the perspectives of group 1, group 2 and group 3. Especially the perspective of group 1 on the actual performance of management duties has been of great value. The input of group 1 on diversity is far from negligible in this regard. The same can be said for the input of group 1 with respect to the performance of duties as an organ, the collaboration between the individual members, the chairman’s role, and openness (boardroom dynamics). This has formed the context for both chapter 2 and chapter 3, as well as parts of chapter 6.

I would have liked to have seen more respondents in group 3. This would have made it possible to give more views on the impact of biases in the court in chambers and to elaborate on this (even more extensively) in chapters 4 and 5. In an ideal scenario, I could have conducted several experiments with judges to test the impact of biases among them. For example Implicit Association Tests. I could also have been present at the meeting in chambers to provide an analysis of the actual deliberations. Due to the limited size of group 3, such experiments were not possible, not feasible or not empirically valuable for my research.

I did an interesting observation after completing the empirical study, but this observation was not included in the content of this dissertation because of the lack of connection with the main research question. The observation is that there appears to be a discrepancy between certain answers from directors and members of the SB on the one hand (group 1) and lawyers et cetera (group 2) on the other. There were, for example different views on the division of tasks, the degree of internal supervision between directors, the ‘fear’ of directors and members of the SB and the opinion on judicial judgment, in particular in directorsliability cases. In this dissertation, I was unable to express this research. Furthermore, empirically justified statements on this require further research. I would like to continue my research on this topic. This research may, for example, be useful for lawyers advising clients, it could show gaps in knowledge among the various groups and could provide the judiciary with insight into the degree of alignment with and familiarity with the judgments concerning the task of directors and members of the SB.

A question that came to my mind after completing the research for this dissertation was whether it would have been better to work with a structured questionnaire instead of the lightly structured method I used. Then the subgroups on every answer would have been bigger. However, I do not think that would have been the better method. The light structure enabled the respondents to elaborate on topics that were relevant to them. Where respondents, for example, had no ‘feeling’ with the topic, I also did not receive comprehensive or clear answers. Moreover, if group size and general statements had been the goal, a quantitative study using (digital) questionnaires would have been a better approach. That was not the goal now, but might be one of my goals for future research in the area of boardroom dynamics and diversity.

Briefly and well, empirical research has made a significant contribution to the realization of this dissertation. The contribution could have been even greater if I had immediately started the empirical research at the start of my research, followed by the publications. This is not the reality. Moreover, conducting the interviews with a more limited knowledge of the field would have been a difficult matter.