What Do Interlocks Do? An Analysis, Critique, and Assessment of Research on Interlocking Directorates

Abstract

Research on interlocking directorates has gained increasing prominence within the field of organizations, but it has come under increasing criticism as well. This chapter presents an in-depth examination of the study of interlocking directorates. I focus initially on both the determinants and the consequences of interlocking directorates, reviewing alternative accounts of both phenomena. Special attention is paid to the processual formulations implied by various interlock analyses. I then address the two primary criticisms of interlock research and evaluate the tenability of these criticisms. I conclude with a discussion of future directions for interlock research.

The Strategic Context of External Network Ties: Examining the Impact of Director Appointments on Board Involvement in Strategic Decision Making

“…We tested our theoretical perspective with a unique data set that combines archival reports with primary behavioral data obtained through surveys of Forbes 1000 outside directors and GEOs. The theoretical perspective and empirical analysis presented here may help answer recent calls for research that examines the "substantive context" of board appointments (Nohria, 1992: 14) and moves our understanding beyond the simple number of such appointments or director independence as predictors of board influence and decision making (Mizruchi, 1996;Pettigrew, 1992;Stinchcombe, 1990).…”

“…This work demonstrates how the involvement of directors on other boards provides an important source of information about business practices and policies (cf. Mizruchi, 1996;Palmer, Jennings, & Zhou, 1993). For example, Useem (1982) observed that executives use their board appointments as a way to scan the environment for timely and pertinent information.…”

“…A growing body of research on boards recognizes corporate director appointments as an indicator of access to information network fiows (Mizruchi, 1996;Palmer et al, 1993), but much of it has emphasized a firm's number of interlocks (centrality) as indicative of the extent to which it is integrated into a community of information. Critics of interlock research have emphasized the need to examine the "substantive context" of interlock appointments if their consequences are to be understood (Nohria, 1992: 14;Pettigrew, 1992;Stinchcombe, 1990).…”

Redes sociais e poder no Estado brasileiro: aprendizados a partir de políticas urbanas

“…Embora as preocupações se centrassem na "estrutura do mundo dos negócios", as análises apresentaram evidentes contribuições para o entendimento do poder em nossas sociedades, dialogando explícita e implicitamente com as explicações marxista e elitista para os processos de reprodução social. Nessa tradição inscrevem-se desde o já clássico Mintz e Schwartz (1981) até Mizruchi (1996) Knoke (1987). O estudo partia, em especial, de elementos presentes no pluralismo, mas pretendia "desenvolver uma abordagem mais informada sociologicamente sobre a comportamento dos grupos de interesse" (Laumman e Knoke, 1987, p.7).…”

Industry consolidation and network evolution in U.S. global banking, 1986–2004

“…Corporate boards and the networks they create play a role, we argue, in both reflecting and shaping bank strategy. Board interlocks have been shown to affect strategies among a wide range of non-financial corporations, from acquisitions (Haunschild, 1993) to takeover defense policies (Davis, 1991) to philanthropy and political activity (see Mizruchi, 1996 for a review of the literature on interlocks). These effects may be even more pronounced among banks.…”