Skip to main content
Book cover

Inter-firm Networks pp 7–32Cite as

A Knowledge-Based View of Inter-Firm Interlock Coordination

  • 32 Accesses

Part of the Relational Economics and Organization Governance book series (REOG)

Abstract

In this chapter, we firstly focus on the topic of our work, which is grounded in the knowledge-based view of the firm and inter-firm relationships. Still in the introductory part, we clarify what is out of our scope and then, having set some boundaries, we outline the four research fields that do converge to build our research object. Right after, we briefly introduce them in the four following sections. Then, we shortly comment some of the papers, which help to understand board interlocks as forms of coordination enabling knowledge creation/sharing/transfer between organizations: this is what we call the knowledge-based view of inter-firm interlock coordination. Next, we introduce the reader not only to the issue of interlocking directorates, but also to that of shared managers across companies’ departments and that of hybrid manager–director coordination roles: two phenomena substantially neglected so far, but indeed constituting fundamental means of operative and strategic coordination that accompany or often substitute board interlocks. Finally, we briefly address to the antitrust literature and the standard economics view of board interlocks.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-17389-9_2
  • Chapter length: 26 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-031-17389-9
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Hardcover Book
USD   149.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Learn about institutional subscriptions
Fig. 2.1

Notes

  1. 1.

    Though a bit dated, to summarize the state of the art see Mizrouchi (1996) and, more recently, Carroll & Sapinski (2011) and Simoni & Caiazza (2012).

  2. 2.

    However, to keep the analysis synthetic and reduce complexity, we have aggregated neighbors into sectors, not industries.

  3. 3.

    Others, like von Krogh & Roos (1996), von Krogh et al. (1998) and Magalhaes & Sanchez (2009) grounded that distinction on autopoiesis theory and the constructivist philosophy of science.

  4. 4.

    On the Aerospace Industry, there is a vast literature accumulated especially during last 20 years. For recent reviews, see Biggiero & Angelini (2015, 2016), Biggiero & Magnuszewski (2021).

  5. 5.

    Actually, that of “overboarding” is a phenomenon that is very strong and diffused in the networks studied in this book (see next chapter).

  6. 6.

    Indeed, the analyzes of Zona & Richardson require also some further variable to be handled.

  7. 7.

    The main ones are 8 networks: BINT, DINT, HINT, and ALL (its combination) for the EASIN and the extended network, which includes also the neighbors. For most analyzes, we have distinguished also EASINT, which add to EASIN also the companies that are connected only with neighbors and not even with other EASIN companies. See next chapter.

References

  • Abdollahian, M., Thomas, J., Yang, Z., & Chiang, R. (2017). Making relationships matter: Director interlocks and fortune 500 performance, 1996–2007. In J.I. Kantola et al. (Eds.) Advances in human factors, business management, training and education, advances in intelligent systems and computing (p. 498).

    Google Scholar 

  • Alhares, A., Elamer, A. A., Alshbili, I. A., & Moustafa, M. W. (2020). Board structure and corporate R&D intensity: Evidence from Forbes global 2000. International Journal of Accounting and Information Management.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arkin, A. (2009). Interfirm knowledge exchanges and the knowledge creation capability of clusters. Academy of Management Review, 34(4).

    Google Scholar 

  • Axelsson, B., & Easton, G. (2018). Industrial networks: A new view of reality. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balland, P.-E., Belso-Martínez, J. A., & Morrison, A. (2016). The dynamics of technical and business knowledge networks in industrial clusters: Embeddedness, status, or proximity? Economic Geography, 92(1), 35–60.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Baysinger, B., & Butler, H. (1980). Corporate governance and the board of directors: Illegal networks in heavy electrical equipment Industry. Theoretical Economics Letters, 9(6), 101–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bearden, J., Atwood, W., Freitag, P., Hendricks, C., Mintz, B., & Schwarts, M. (1975). The nature and extent of bank centrality in corporate networks. Presented at annual meeting of American Sociology Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergenholtz, C., & Waldstrøm, C. (2011). Inter-organizational network studies: A literature review. Industry and Innovation, 18(6), 539–562.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Biggiero, L. (2006). Industrial and knowledge relocation strategies under the challenges of globalization and digitization: The move of small and medium enterprises among territorial systems. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 186, 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggiero, L. (2009). Organizations as cognitive systems: Is knowledge an emergent property of information networks? In G. Minati, E. Pessa, & M. Abram (Eds.), Processes of emergence of systems and systems properties. Towards a general theory of emergence (pp. 697–712). World Scientific.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggiero, L. (2012). Practice vs. possession: epistemological implications on the nature of organizational knowledge and cognition. In M. Mora, O. Gelman, A. Steenkamp, & M. S. Raisinghani (Eds.), Research methodologies, innovations and philosophies in software systems engineering and information systems (pp. 82–105). IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggiero, L. (2016a). Network analysis for economics and management studies. In L. Biggiero et al. (Eds.), Relational methodologies and epistemology in economics and management sciences (pp. 1–60). IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggiero, L. (2016b). Conclusions: Methodological pluralism and epistemology between and beyond relational methods. In: L. Biggiero et al. (Eds.), Relational methodologies and epistemology in economics and management sciences (pp. 397–411). IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggiero, L., & Angelini, P. P. (2015). Hunting scale-free properties in R&D collaboration networks: Self-organisation, power-law and policy issues in the European aerospace research area. Technological Forecasting and Social Change., 94, 21–43.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Biggiero, L., de Jongh, D., Priddat, B.P., Wieland, J., & Zicari, A. (2022). Manifesto for a relational economics. In: L. Biggiero, D. de Jongh, B. P. Priddat, J. Wieland, A. Zicari, D. Fischer (Eds.), The relational view of economics. Relational economics and organization governance. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggiero, L., & Magnuszewski, R. (2021). The general ownership structure of the European aerospace industry: A statistical and network analysis. Advances in Complex Systems, 24, 1–47.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Biggiero, L., & Sammarra, A. (2010). Does geographical proximity enhance knowledge exchange? The case of the aerospace industrial cluster of central Italy. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation, 9(4), 283–305.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Biggiero, L. (2022). Why we could need a relational economics and why standard economics and its (orthodox) derivations do not help. In L. Biggiero, D. de Jongh, B. Priddat, J. Wieland, A. Zicari, & D. Fischer (Eds.), The relational view of economics. Relational economics and organization governance. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bojanowski, M., Corten, R., & Westbrock, B. (2012). The structure and dynamics of the global network inter-firm R&D partnerships 1989–2002. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37, 967–987.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S. P., & Foster, P. C. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29, 991–1013.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, B. K., Haynes, T. K., & Zona, F. (2011). Dimensions of CEO-board relations. Journal of Management Studies, 48(8), 1892–1932.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Brennecke, J., & Rank, O. (2017). Tie heterogeneity in networks of interlocking directorates: A cost-benefit approach to firms’ tie choice. Research Policy, 46(4), 768–783.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Broekel, T., & Boschma, R. A. (2011). Aviation, space or aerospace? Exploring the knowledge networks of two industries in the Netherlands. European Planning Studies, 19(7), 1205–1227.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1998). Organizing knowledge. California Management Review, 40(3), 90–111.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. (2006). Interlocking directorates behind the S&P indices. [online] at: https://www.ronaldsburt.com/research/files/IDS&P.pdf

  • Camuffo, A., & Grandinetti, R. (2011). Italian industrial districts as cognitive systems: are they still reproducible? Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 23(9–10), 815–852.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., Assimakopoulus, D. & Kondo, M. (2008). Innovation networks and knowledge clusters: Findings and insights from the US, EU and Japan. Palgrave-Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, M. A., & Westphal, J. D. (2001). The strategic context of external network ties: Examining the impact of director appointments on board involvement in strategic decision making. The Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 639–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrington, P. J., Scott, J., & Wasserman, S. (Eds.). (2005). Models and methods in social network analysis (structural analysis in the social sciences). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caroll, W. K., & Fennema, M. (2002). Is there a transnational business community? International Sociology, 17, 393–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, W. K., & Sapinski, J. P. (2011). Corporate elites and intercorporate networks. In P. J. Carrington & J. Scott (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social network analysis (pp. 180–195). SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cropper, S., Ebers, M., Huxham, C., & Smith Ring, P. (Eds.). (2008). The Oxford handbook of inter-organizational relations. Oxford UP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1154–1191.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Curado, C., & Bontis, N. (2006). The knowledge-based view of the firm and its theoretical precursor. International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, 3(3), 367–381.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, D. R., Daily, C. M., Certo, S. T., & Roengpitya, R. (2003). Meta-analyses of financial performance and equity: Fusion or confusion. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 13–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, S. (1994). Introduction: Information, knowledge and power. Institute of Development Studies, 25(2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, S. (1996). The significance of board interlocks for corporate governance. Corporate Governance an International Review, 4(3), 154–159.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, G. F. (1991). Agents without principles? The spread of poison pill through the intercorporate network. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 583–613.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, G. F., & Cobb, J. A. (2010). Resource dependence theory: Past and future. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 28, 21–42.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, G. F., & Greve, H. R. (1997). Corporate elite networks and governance changes in the 1980s. The American Journal of Sociology, 103, 1–37.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, G. F., Yoo, M., & Baker, W. E. (2003). The small world of the American corporate elite, 1982–2001. Strategic Organization, 1, 301–326.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Devos, E., Prevost, A. K., & Puthenpurackal, J. (2009). Are interlocked directors effective monitors? Financial Management, 38(4), 861–887.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Dickison, M. E., Magnani, M., & Rossi, L. (2016). Multilayer social networks. Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Domhoff, G. W. (1967). Who rules America? Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dosi, G., Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (Eds.). (2000). The nature and dynamics of organizational capabilities. Oxford UP.

    Google Scholar 

  • EACP. (2022). European Aerospace Cluster Partnership. https://www.eacp-aero.eu/. Accessed 16.06.2022.

  • Easterby-Smith, M., & Lyles, M. A. (2011). Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge management. John Wiles & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebers, M. (Eds.). (1997). The formation of inter-organizational networks. Oxford UP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elouaer, S. (2006). A social network analysis of interlocking directorates in French firms. Observatoire Politico-economique des Structures du Capitalisme.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elouaer-Mrizak, S. (2012). A social network analysis of interlocking directorates in French firms. IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining, 2012, 1018–1026.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fich, E., & Shivnasani, A. (2006). Are busy boards effective monitors? The Journal of Finance, 61(2), 689–724.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Fligstein, N., & Brantley, P. (1992). Bank control, owner control, or organizational dynamics: Who controls the large modern corporation? American Journal of Sociology, 98, 280–307.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, L. C. (1978). Segregation in social networks. Sociological Methods and Research, 6, 411–429.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Galaskiewicz, J., & Wasserman, S. (1989). Mimetic processes within an interorganizational field: An empirical test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 454–479.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gilder G. (2013). Knowledge and power: The information theory of capitalism and how it is revolutionizing our world. Gateway Editions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giuliani, E. (2007). The selective nature of knowledge networks in clusters: Evidence from the wine industry. Journal of Economic Geography, 7, 139–168.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Giuliani, E. (2013). Clusters, networks and firms’ product success: An empirical study. Management Decisions, 51(6).

    Google Scholar 

  • Grandori, A. (Eds.). (1999). Interfirm networks, organization and industrial competitiveness. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R. (1999). Network location and learning: The influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 20(5), 397–420.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hallock, K. F. (1997). Reciprocally interlocking boards of directors and executive compensation. The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 32(3), 331–344.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hamdan, A. (2018). Board interlocking and firm performance: The role of foreign ownership in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Managerial Finance, 14(3), 266–281.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Haunschild, P. R. (1993). Interorganisational imitation: The impact of interlocks on corporate acquisition activity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 564–592.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Haunschild, P. R., & Beckman, C. M. (1998). When do interlocks matter? Alternate sources of information, interlock influence. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 815–844.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Haynes, K. T., & Hillman, A. (2010). The effect of board capital and CEO power on strategic change. Strategic Management Journal, 31(11), 1145–1163.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hermalin, B. E., & Weisbach, M. S. (1998). Endogenously chosen boards of directors and their monitoring of the CEO. American Economic Review, 96–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heylighen, F., & Joslyn, C. (2001). Cybernetics and second order cybernetics. In R. A. Meyers (Eds.), Encyclopedia of physical science & technology (pp. 155–170). 4(3). Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, M., & Gulati, R. (2003). Which ties matter when? The contingent effects of interorganizational partnerships on IPO success. Strategic Management Journal, 24(2), 127–144.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J., & Dalziel, T. (2003). Boards of directors and firm performance: Integrating agency and resource dependence perspectives. The Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 383–396.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J., Withers, M. C., & Collins, B. J. (2009). Resource dependence theory: A review. Journal of Management, 35, 1404–1427.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Horton, J., Millo, Y., & Serafeim, G. (2012). Resources or power? Implications of social networks on compensation and firm performance. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 39, 399–426.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, M. D., Withers, M. C. & Tihanyi, L. (2016). Knowledge dependence and the formation of director interlocks. The Academy of Management Journal, 60(5).

    Google Scholar 

  • Huggins, R., & Johnston, A. (2010). Knowledge flow and inter-firm networks: The influence of network resources, spatial proximity and firm size. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 22(5), 457–484.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Huijzer, M. J., & Heemskerk, E. M. (2021). Delineating the corporate elite: Inquiring the boundaries and composition of interlocking directorate networks. Global Networks, 21(4), 791–820.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Jeidel, O. 1905. Das verhaltnis der Deutschen grossbanken zur industrie mit besonderer berucksichtigung der eisenindustrie. Duncher & Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang, J.-K., & Kim, J.-M. (2008). The geography of block acquisitions. The Journal of Finance, 63(6), 2817–2858.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson, C., Johansson, B., & Stough, R. (2005). Industrial clusters and inter-firm networks. Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenis, P., & Knoke, D. (2002). How organizational field networks shape interorganizational tie-formation rates. The Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 275–293.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Knoke, D. (2012). Economic networks. Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kor, Y. Y., & Misangyi, V. F. (2008). Outside directors’ industry—Specific experience and firms’ liability of newness. Strategic Management Journal, 29(12), 1345–1355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamb, N. H., & Roundy, P. (2016). The ‘ties that bind’ board interlocks research: A systematic review. Management Research Review, 39(11), 1516–1542.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, P. J., & Lubatkin, M. (1998). Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 461–477.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, J. H. (1972). The sphere of influence. American Sociological Review, 37, 14–27.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Mace, M. L. (1971). Directors: Myth and reality. Harvard Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magalhaes, R., & Sanchez, R. (Eds.) (2009). Autopoiesis in organization theory and practice. Emerald.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mariolis, P. (1975). Interlocking directorates and control of corporation: The theory of bank control. Social Science Quarterly, 56, 425–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mariolis, P., & Jones, M. H. (1982). Centrality in corporate interlock networks: Reliability and stability. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(4), 571–585.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Meeusen, W., & Cuyvers, L. (1985). The interaction between interlocking directorships and the economic behaviour of companies. In F. N. Stokman, R. Ziegler, & J. Scott (Eds.), Networks of corporate power (pp. 45–72). Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mentzer, K., Wang, Y., & Haughton, D. (2020). Interlocking boards and the corporate elite: A 20-year analysis of the S&P 500. Issues in Information Systems, 21(4), 156–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, C. W. (1956). The power elite. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintz, B., & Schwartz, M. (1981a). Interlocking directorates and interest group formation. American Sociological Review, 46, 851–869.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Mintz, B., & Schwartz, M. (1981a). Interlocking directorates and interest group formation. American Sociological Review, 46, 851–869

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintz, B., & Schwartz, M. (1981b). The structure of intercorporate unity in American business. Social Problems, 29, 87–103.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Mizruchi, M. S. (1982). The American corporate network: 1904–1974. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mizruchi, M. S. (1996). What do interlocks do? An analysis, critique, and assessment of research on interlocking directorates. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 271–298.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C., Oxley, J. E., & Silverman, B. S. (1996). Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 77–91.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Nooteboom, B. (1999). Interfirm alliances, analysis and design. Routledge.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Nooteboom, B. (2000). Learning by interaction: Absorptive capacity, cognitive distance and governance. Journal of Management and Governance, 4, 69–92.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Nooteboom, B. (2004). Inter-firm collaboration, learning & networks: An integrated approach. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nooteboom, B. (2010). A cognitive theory of the firm: Learning, governance, and dynamic capabilities. Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Hagan, S. B., & Green, M. B. (2002). Tacit knowledge transfer via interlocking directorates: A comparison of Canada and the United States. Geographiska Annaler, 84(1), 49–63.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Oleinik, A. (2004). A model of network capitalism: Basic ideas and post-soviet evidence. Journal of Economic Issues, 38(1), 85–111.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, D. A., Jennings, P. D., & Zhou, X. (1993). Late adoption of the multidivisional form by large U.S. corporations: Institutional, political and economic accounts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 100–131.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Parmigiani, A., & Rivera-Santos, M. (2001). Clearing the path through the forest: A meta-review of interorganizational relationships. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1108–1136.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, V. (2016). Interlocking directorates in the European Union: An argument for their restriction. European Business Literature Review, 27(6), 821–864.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew, A. M. (1992). On studying managerial elites. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S2), 163–182.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (1972). Size and composition of corporate boards of directors: The organisation and its environment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 218–228.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (1983). Organizational demography. Research in Organizational Behavior, 5, 299–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: a resource dependence perspective. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pizzurno, E., & Alberti, F. G. (2015). Knowledge exchanges of innovation networks: Evidences from an Italian aerospace cluster. Competitiveness Review, 25(3), 258–287.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, J. (1956). Concentration of economic power and the economic elite in Canada. The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 22(2), 199–220.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 116–145.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Rafael, A., Baiget, J., & Canals, A. (2008). Firm-specific knowledge and competitive advantage: Evidence and KM practices. Knowledge and Process Management, 15(2), 97–106.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Rao, H., Davis, G. F., & Ward, A. (2000). Embeddedness, social identity and mobility: Why firms leave the NASDAQ and join the New York stock exchange. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(2), 268–292.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, R. (1987). Directorship interlocks and corporate profitability. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 367–386.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Rossignoli, C., & Ricciardi, F. (2015). Inter-organizational relationships: Towards a dynamic model for understanding business network performance. Springer.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ruigrok, W., Peck, S. I., & Keller, H. (2006a). Board characteristics and involvement in strategic decision making: evidence from Swiss companies. Journal of Management Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruigrok, W., Peck, S. I., Tacheva, S., Greve, P., & Hu, Y. (2006b). The determinants and effects of board nomination committees. Journal of Management & Governance, 10, 119–148.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Salavisa, I., Sousa, C., & Fontes, M. (2012). Topologies of innovation networks in knowledge-intensive sectors: Sectoral differences in the access to knowledge and complementary assets through formal and informal ties. Technovation, 32, 380–399.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Sammarra, A., & Biggiero, L. (2008). Heterogeneity and specificity of inter-firm knowledge flows in innovation networks. Journal of Management Studies, 45(4), 800–829.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez, L.P.-C., & Barroso-Castro, C. (2015). It is useful to consider the interlocks according to the type of board member (executive or non-executive) who possess them? Their effect on firm performance. Revista Europea De Dirección y Economía De La Empresa, 24(3), 130–137.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Sankar, C. P., Asokan, K., & Kumar, S. (2015). Exploratory social network analysis of affiliation networks of Indian listed companies. Social Networks, 43, 113–120.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Schweitzer, F., Fagiolo, G., Sornette, D., Vega-Redondo, F., & White, D. R. (2009). Economic networks: What do we know and what do we need to know? Advances in Complex Systems, 12, 407–422.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Schweitzer, J. (2017). Network capitalism and the role of strategy, contracts and performance expectations for Asia-Pacific innovation partnerships. In: Clarke, T., & Lee, K. (Eds.), Innovation in the Asia Pacific. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. (1992). Social network analysis: A handbook (2nd ed.). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J., & Carrington, P. J. (2011). The Sage handbook of social network analysis. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. P., & Griff, C. (1984). Directors of industry. Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shropshire, C. (2010). The role of interlocking director and board receptivity in the diffusion of practices. The Academy of Management Review, 35, 246–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simoni, M., & Caiazza, R. (2012). How does learning intent affect interlocking directorates dynamic? The Learning Organization, 19(5), 388–399.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Simoni, M., & Caiazza, R. (2013). Interlocking directorates’ effects on economic system’s competitiveness. Business Strategy Series, 14(1), 30–35.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Sonquist, J. A., & Koenig, T. (1975). Interlocking directorates in the top U.S. corporations: A graph theory approach. Insurg Sociology, 5, 196–229.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Stokman, F. N., Ziegler, R., & Scott, J. (1985). Networks of corporate power: A comparative analysis of ten countries. Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strang, D., & Soule, S. A. (1998). Diffusion in organizations and social movements: From hybrid corn to poison pills. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 265–290.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Takes, F. W., & Heemskerk, E. M. (2016). Centrality in the global network of corporate control. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 6(97).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tallman, S., Jenkins, M., Henry, N., & Pinch, S. (2004). Knowledge, clusters, and competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 29, 258–271.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (Eds.). (2012). Strategy, innovation and the theory of the firm. Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (2009). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thepot, F. (2021). Interlocking directorates in Europe—An enforcement gap? In Corradi, & Nowag (Eds.), The intersections between competition law and corporate law and finance. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Todeva, E. (2011). Business networks: Strategy and structure. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Todorova, G., & Durisin, B. (2007). Absorptive capacity: Valuing a reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 774–796.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Turkina, E., van Assche, A., & Kali, R. (2016). Structure and evolution of global cluster networks: Evidence from the aerospace industry. Journal of Economic Geography, 16(6), 1211–1234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tung, R. L., & Worm, V. (2001). Network capitalism: the role of human resources in penetrating the China market. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(4).

    Google Scholar 

  • Useem, M. (1984). The inner circle. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Krogh, G., & Roos, J. (Eds.) (1996). Managing knowledge. Perspectives on cooperation and competition (pp. 157–183). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Krogh, G., Roos, J., & Kline, D. (Eds.). (1998). Knowing in firms: Understanding, managing and measuring knowledge. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, S., & Galaskiewicz, J. (Eds.). (1994). Advances in social network analysis. Research in the social and behavioral sciences. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westphal, J. D., Seidel, M. D. L., & Stewart, K. J. (2001). Second order imitation: Uncovering latent effects of board network ties. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 717–747.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Wieland, J. (2020). Relational economics: A political economy. Springer.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Windolf, P. (2014). The corporate network in Germany 1896–2010. In G. Westerhuis, & T. David (Eds.), The power of corporate networks: a comparative and historical perspective. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xue, J. (2018). Understanding knowledge networks and knowledge flows in high technology clusters: The role of heterogeneity of knowledge contents. Innovation., 20(2), 139–216.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Yolles, M. (2006). Organizations as complex systems. An introduction to knowledge cybernetics. IAP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaheer, A., Gözübüyük, R., & Milanov, H. (2010). It’s the connections: The network perspective in interorganizational research. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24, 62–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27, 185–203.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Zeitlin, M. (1974). Corporate ownership and control: The large corporation and the capitalist class. American Journal of Sociology, 79, 1073–1119.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Zeleny, M. (2005). Human systems management. integrating knowledge, management and systems. World Scientific.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeleny, M. (2006). Knowledge-information autopoetic cycle: Towards the wisdom systems. International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 7(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeleny, M. (2007). Knowledge management and the strategies of global business education: From knowledge to wisdom. In: Z. Nahorski, J. W. Owsiński, & T. Szapiro (Eds.), The socio-economic transformation. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zona, F., Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Withers, M. (2015). Board interlocks and firm performance: toward a combined agency-resource dependence perspective. Journal of Management, 44(2).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of L’Aquila, L’Aquila, Italy

    Lucio Biggiero & Robert Magnuszewski

Authors
  1. Lucio Biggiero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert Magnuszewski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lucio Biggiero .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Biggiero, L., Magnuszewski, R. (2023). A Knowledge-Based View of Inter-Firm Interlock Coordination. In: Inter-firm Networks. Relational Economics and Organization Governance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17389-9_2

Download citation