Does board of directors affect financial performance? A study of the Jordanian companies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of the board of directors on the economic performance of Jordanian companies listed on the Amman stock exchange (ASE) by measuring the board of administrators using a variety of indicators, including board size, board independence, and CEO duality. Economic performance is measured by going back on property and returning on equity. During the study period (2015–2020), 186 industrial corporations were examined. The study found that the indexed organizations at ASE during the years 2015–2020 showed full-size financial overall performance in accordance with Jordan's improving understanding of and application of the board of directors' traits. This study found that board size and independence had a substantial influence on financial performance. Based on the findings, the study recommends that the codes be evaluated on a regular basis and that corporations be instructed to examine corporate governance principles through legislation and regulations to encourage enterprises to follow these rules. Furthermore, board members' experience, devotion, and independence are reviewed on an ongoing basis. Stock exchanges should also conduct seminars and workshops for company managers and decision-makers to enhance understanding of effective corporate governance, especially its importance. The correlation coefficient shows a negative relationship between Board size and Board Independence with ROA, while board size and CEO duality are positive correlation with ROE. On The other side the regressions test of the effect of the variables on financial performance ratios (ROA and ROE) shows that there is a significant effect of board size and board independence on ROA and ROE. While CEO duality has an insignificant effect on both ratios ROA and ROE.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".