The Probabilities of the Transitions between the Interlocking Directorates' States Based on Markov Chains

• Autorzy: Dariusz Siudak
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The article analyzes the process of changes in the interlocking directorates network using Markov chains. The probabilities of company transitions between three specific states of networking, i.e. isolation, networking outside the largest component, and networking inside the largest component, were estimated. In addition, the average probabilities of transitions between states in the next 6 quarter periods, constant probabilities of transitions independent of the initial state of the process, and the expected time of return of the chain to individual states were estimated. Regardless of the initial state of networking of the enterprise, the highest probability was obtained for the process to be found in the state of connection with the largest component. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Markov chain; Network structure

PL

Łańcuch Markowa; Struktury sieciowe

• Czasopismo: Organizacja i Zarządzanie : kwartalnik naukowy
• Rocznik: 2019
• Numer: nr 4 (48)
• Strony: 103--120

Twórcy

autor

Dariusz Siudak

• Lodz University of Technology, Poland

Bibliografia

• Allen, M. (1974). The Structure of Interorganizational Elite Cooptation: Interlocking Corporate Directorates. American Sociological Review, 39, 3, 393-406.
• Barringer, B., and Harrison, J. (2000). Walking a Tightrope: Creating Value Through Interorganizational Relationships. Journal of Management, 26(3), 367-403.
• Bazerman, M., and Schoorman, F. (1983). A Limited Rationality Model of Interlocking Directorates. Academy of Management Review, 8, 206-217.
• Boyd, B. (1990). Corporate Linkages and organizational Environment: A Test of the Resource Dependence Model. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 419-430.
• Burt, R. (1980). Cooptive Corporate Actor Networks: A Reconsideration of Interlocking Directorates Involving American Manufacturing. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 557-581.
• Burt, R. (1983). Corporate Profits and Cooptation. Networks of Market Constrains and Directorate Ties in the American Economy. New York: Academic Press.
• Chen, R., Dyball, M., and Wright, S. (2009). The Link Between Board Composition and Corporate Diversification in Australian Corporations. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17, 208-223.
• Chin-Huat, O., Wan, D., and Kee-Sing, O. (2003). An Exploratory Study on Interlocking Directorates in Listed Firms in Singapore. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 11, 322-334.
• Chuluun, T., Prevost, A., and Upadhyay, A. (2017). Firm Network Structure and Innovation. Journal of Corporate Finance, 44, 193-214.
• Connelly, B., Johnson, J., Tihanyi, L., and Ellstrand, A. (2011). More Than Adopters: Competing Influences in the Interlocking Directorate, Organization Science, 22(3), 688-703.
• Core, J., Shivdasani, A., and Yermack, D. (1999). CEO Involvement in the Selection of New Board Members: An Empirical Analysis. Journal of Finance, 54, 1829-1853.
• Cyram, 2019, NetMiner 4.4.3, Cyram Inc., Seoul.
• Dalton, D., Daily, C., Johnson, J., and Ellstrand, A. (1999). Number of Directors and Financial Performances: A Meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 674-686.
• Davis, G. (1991). Agents without Principles? The Spread of the Poison Pill Through the Intercorporate Network. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 583-613.
• Davis, G., and Greve, H. (1997). Corporate Elite Networks and Governance Changes in the 1980s. American Journal of Sociology, 103, 1-37.
• Dooley, P. (1969), The Interlocking Directorate. The American Economic Review, 59, 314-323.
• Drago, C., Millo, F., Ricciuti, R., and Santella, P. (2015). Corporate Governance Reforms, Interlocking Directorship and Company Performance in Italy. International Review of Law and Economics, 41, 38-49.
• Durbach, I., Katshunga, D., and Parker, H. (2013). Community Structure and Centrality Effects in the South African Company Network. South African Journal of Business Management, 44, 35-43.
• Ferris, S., Jagannathan, M., and Pritchard, A. (2003). Too Busy to Mind the Business? Monitoring by Directors with Multiple Board Appointments. The Journal of Finance, 58, 1087-1111.
• Fich, E., and Shivdasani, A. (2006). Are Busy Boards Effective Monitors? The Journal of Finance, 61, 689-724.
• Freeman, L. (1979). Centrality in Social Networks Conceptual Clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215-239.
• Galaskiewicz, J., and Wasserman, S. (1989). Mimetic and Normative Processes within an Interorganizational Field: An Empirical Test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 454-479.
• George, G., Wood, D., and Khan, R. (2001). Networking Strategy of Boards: Implications for Small and Medium-sized Enterprise. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 13, 269-285.
• Hallock, K. (1997). Reciprocally Interlocking Boards of Directors and Executive Compensation. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 32, 332-344.
• Harris, I., and Shimizu, K. (2004). Too Busy To Serve? An Examination of the Influence of Overboarded Directors. Journal of Management Science, 41, 775-798.
• Horton, J., Millo, Y., and Serafeim, G. (2012). Resources or Power? Implications of Social Networks on Compensation and Firm Performance. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 39, 399-426.
• Iosifescu, M., Limnios, N., and Oprisan, G. (2010). Introduction to Stochastic Models. London: John Wiley & Sons.
• Kaczmarek, S., Kimino, S., and Pye, A. (2014). Interlocking Directorship and Firm Performance in Highly Regulated Sectors: the Moderating Impact of Board Diversity. Journal of Management & Governance, 18, 347-372.
• Keister, L. (1998). Engineering Growth: Business Group Structure and Firm Performance in China's Transition Economy. The American Journal of Sociology, 104, 404-440.
• Koenig, T., Gogel, R., and Sonquist, J. (1979). Models of the Significance of Interlocking Corporate Directorates. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 38, 173-186.
• Lacker, D., So, E., and Wang, C. (2011). Boardroom Centrality and Firm Performance. Working Paper, 84, Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University.
• Lamb, N. (2017). Does the Number of Interlocking Directorates Influence a Firm's Financial Performance? An Exploratory Meta-Analysis. American Journal of Management, 17(2), 47-57.
• Lang, J., and Lockhart, D. (1990). Increased Environmental Uncertainty and Changes in Board Linkage Patterns. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 129-128.
• Lawrence, J., and Pasternack, B. (2002). Applied Management Science. Modeling, Spreadsheet Analysis, and Communication for Decision Making. John Wiley & Sons.
• Lichtarski, J.M., Piórkowska, K., and Ćwik, K. (2017). Uzależnienie strategiczne: Perspektywa sieci międzyorganizacyjnych [Strategic Addiction: Inter-organizational Networks Perspective]. Organizacja i Kierowanie, 2(176), 65-77.
• Loderer, C., and Peyer, U. (2002). Board Overlap, Seat Sccumulation and Share Pices. European Financial Management, 8(2), 165-192.
• Mariolis, P. (1975). Interlocking Directorates and Control of Corporations: The Theory of Bank Control. Social Science Quarterly, 56, 425-439.
• Martin, G., Gözübüyük, R., and Becerra, M. (2013). Interlocks and Firm Performance: The Role of Uncertainty in the Directorate Interlock-Performance Relationship. Strategic Management Journal, 36, 235-253.
• Mazzola, E., Perrone, G., and Kamuriwo, D. (2016). The Interaction Between Inter-firm and Interlocking Directorate Networks on Firm's New Product Development Outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 69, 672-682.
• Mintz, B., and Schwartz, M. (1985). The Power Structure of American Business. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Mizruchi, M. (1992). The Structure of Corporate Political Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Mizruchi, M. (1996). What do Interlocks do? An Analysis, Critique, and Assessment of Research on Interlocking Directorates. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 271-298.
• Mizruchi, M., and Stearns, L. (1988). A Longitudinal Study of the Formation of Interlocking Directorates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 194-210.
• Mizruchi, M., and Stearns, L. (1994). A Longitudinal Study of Borrowing by Large American Corporations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 118-140.
• Newman, M. (2010). Networks. An Introduction, Oxford University Press.
• O'Hagan, S., and Green, M. (2002). Tacit Knowledge Transfer via Interlocking Directorates: A Comparison of Canada and the United States. Geografiska Annaler, 84, 49-63.
• O'Hagan, S., and Green, M. (2004). Corporate Knowledge Transfer via Interlocking Directorates: A Network Analysis Approach. Geoforum, 35, 127-139.
• O'Hagan, S., and Rice, M. (2015). The Geography of Canadian Interlocking Directorates: How do they Relate to Brain Circulation? Urban Geography, 36, 823-843.
• Ortiz-de-Mandojana, N., Aragón-Correa, J., Delgado-Ceballos, J., and Ferrón-Vílchez, V. (2012). The Effect of Director Interlocks on Firms' Adoption of proactive Environmental Strategies. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 20(2), 164-178.
• Palmer, D. (1983). Broken Ties: Interlocking Directorates and Intercorporate Coordinating. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 40-55.
• Pearce, J., and Zahra, S. (1992). Board composition form strategic contingency perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 29, 411-438.
• Pennings, J. M., (1980). Interlocking Directorates. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Limited.
• Perry, T., and Peyer, U. (2005). Board Seats Accumulation by Executives: A Shareholder Perspective. The Journal of Finance, 60, 2083-2123.
• Pfeffer, J. (1972). Size and Composition of Corporate Boards of Directors: The Organization and its Environment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 218-228.
• Pfeffer, J. (1987). A Resource Dependence Perspective on Intercorporate Relations. In: M. Mizruchi, and M. Schwartz (Eds.), Intercorporate Relations: The Structural Analysis of Business. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Pfeffer, J., and Salancik G. (2003/1978). The External Control of Organizations: A Resources Dependence Perspective. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Phan, P., Lee, S., and Lau, S. (2003). The Performance Impact of Interlocking Directorates: The Case of Singapore. Journal of Managerial Issues, 15(3), 338-352.
• Pombo, C., and Gutiérrez, L. (2011). Outside Directors, Board Interlocks and Firm Performance: Empirical Evidence form Columbian Business Groups. Journal Economics and Business, 63, 251-277.
• Provan, K. (1980). Board Power and Organizational Effectiveness among Human Service Agencies. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 221-236.
• Rao, H., and Sivakumar, K. (1999). Institutional Sources of Boundary-spanning Structures: The Establishment of Investor Relations Departments in the Fortune 500 Industrials. Organizations Science, 10, 27-42.
• Richardson, R. (1987). Directorship Interlocks and Corporate Profitability. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 367-386.
• Sankowska, A., and Siudak, D. (2015). Empiryczna weryfikacja teorii uzależnienia zasobowego w kontekście usieciowienia rady dyrektorów (interlocking directorates) [An Empirical Test of the Resources Dependence Theory in Regard to Interlocking Directorates]. Finanse, Rynki Finansowe, Ubezpieczenia, 74, 1, 661-673.
• Schoorman, F., Bazerman, M., and Atkin, R. (1981). Interlocking Directorates: A Strategy for Reducing Environmental Uncertainty. Academy of Management Review, 6, 243-251.
• Sharopshire, C. (2010). The Role of the Interlocking Director and Board Receptivity in the Diffusion of Practices. Academy of Management Journal, 35(2), 246-264.
• Shipilov, A., Greve, H., and Rowley, T. (2010). When do Interlocks Matter? Institutional Logics and the Diffusion of Multiple Corporate Practices. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 846-864.
• Shivdasani, A., and Yermack, D. (1999). CEO Involvement in the Selection of New Board Members: An Empirical Analysis. Journal of Finance, 54, 1829-1853.
• Simoni, M., and Caiazza, R. (2013). Interlocking Directorates' Effects on Economic System's Competitiveness. Business Strategy Series, 14(1), 30-35.
• Siudak, D. (2017). Strategia interlocking directorates a wartość przedsiębiorstwa [Interlocking Directorates Strategy vs. Corporate Value]. Nauki o Finansach, 1(30), 76-85.
• Siudak, D. (2018). Analiza dynamiczna wpływu usieciowienia na wartość przedsiębiorstwa [Dynamic Analysis of the Impact of Network Relationships on the Company Value]. PWN.
• Srinivasan, R., Wuyts, S., and Mallapragada, G. (2018). Corporate Board Interlocks and New Product Introductions. Journal of Marketing, 82, 132-148.
• Stokman, F., Van der Knoop, J., and Wasseur, F. (1988). Interlocks in the Netherlands: Stability and Careers in the Period 1960-1980. Social Networks, 10, 183-208.
• Uddin, M. (2012). Interfirm Cooperation and Information Sharing through Interlocking Directorates. Management & Marketing, 10, 205-214.
• Useem, M. (1979). The Social Organization of the American Business Elite and Participation of Corporation Directors in the Government of America Institutions. American Sociological Review, 44, 553-571.
• Useem, M. (1984). The Inner Cycle: Large Corporations and the Rise of Business Political Activity in the US and UK. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Williamson, O. (1984). Corporate Governance. Yale Law Journal, 93, 1197-1229.
• Withers, M., Kim, J., and Howard, M. (2018). The Evolution of the Board Interlock Network Following Sarbanes-Oxley. Social Networks, 52, 56-67.
• Wong, L., Gygax, A., and Wang, P. (2015). Board interlocking network and the design of executive compensation packages. Social Networks, 41, 85-100.
• Yang, Y., and Cai, N. (2011). Interlocking Directorate and Firm's Diversification Strategy: Perfective of Strategy Learning. In: M. Dali (Ed.), Innovative Computing and Information. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 87-94.
• Yeo, H., Pochet, C., and Alcouffe, A. (2003). CEO Reciprocal Interlocks in French Corporations. Journal of Management and Governance, 7, 87-108.
• Zajac, E. (1988). Interlocking Directorates as an Interorganizational Strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 428-438.
• Zeitlin, M. (1974). Corporate Ownership and Control: The Large Corporation and the Capitalist Class. American Journal of Sociology, 79, 1073-1119.
• Zona, F. Gomez-Mejia, L., and Withers, M. (2017). Board Interlocks and Firm Performance: Toward a Combined Agency-Resource Dependence Perspective. Journal of Management, 44(2), 589-618.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.29119/1899-6116.2019.48.8