Research on Interlocking Directorates in Family Business: Evidence from Scopus Bibliometric Data



Abstract Views
837

Downloads
637

Citations

Share

Article Sidebar

Submitted 2021-07-31
Published 2021-08-23
10.24018/ejbmr.2021.6.4.1012

Abstract viewed = 837 times

Table of Contents

Article Main Content

We examined the trend of studies on interlocking directorates in family businesses using bibliometric data mined from the Scopus database. Search terms including “family business” and seven other variant terms (including family ownership) plus a wildcard (interlock*) yielded only 17 peer-reviewed papers written in the English Language, published between 1999 and 2020. We used graphical tools to summarise the data. Pearson’s r was employed to analyse the data on three of Scopus’ bibliometric indicators (CiteScore, SCImago Journal Rank, and Source Normalized Impact per Paper) using JASP. The only 17 articles on interlocking directorates in family business poorly compare with the 4,792 articles returned when the wildcard was dropped. Thus, the data show that interlocking directorates in family businesses is a grossly neglected niche in the otherwise steadily maturing field of family business research. The distribution of the scanty literature by country of origin, research purpose pursued, theories employed as explanatory frameworks, the most frequently studied interlocking directorate typologies, and their respective implications were pointed out.

Keywords: Bibliometric data, CiteScore, Family business, Interlocking directorates, Scopus database

References

  1. M. Fennema and H. Schijf, "Analysing interlocking directorates: Theory and methods," Social Networks, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 297-332, 1978.
     Google Scholar
  2. F. H. Dixon, "The Economic Significance of Interlocking Directorates in Railway Finance," Journal of Political Economy, vol. 22, no. 10, pp. 937-954, 1914.
     Google Scholar
  3. E. D. Durand, "The Trust Legislation of 1914," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 72-97, 1914.
     Google Scholar
  4. K. Kirkpatrick, "Publication trends of interlocking directorate studies," The American Sociologist, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 257-270, 1990.
     Google Scholar
  5. R. Caiazza and M. Simoni, "Directorate ties: a bibliometric analysis," Management Decision, vol. 57, no. 10, pp. 2837-2851, 2019.
     Google Scholar
  6. C. Helmers, M. Patnam, and P. R. Rau, "Do board interlocks increase innovation? Evidence from a corporate governance reform in India," Journal of Banking & Finance, vol. 80, pp. 51-70, 2017.
     Google Scholar
  7. G. F. Davis, "The Significance of Board Interlocks for Corporate Governance," Corporate Governance: An International Review, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 154-159, 1996.
     Google Scholar
  8. E. M. Azila-Gbettor, B. Q. Honyenuga, R. J. Blomme, and A. Kil, "Review of differences between listed and unlisted family business research trends: a corporate governance context," (in English), Journal of Family Business Management, vol. ahead-of-print, no. ahead-of-print, pp. 1-23, Apr 29 2021.
     Google Scholar
  9. R. S. Burt, S. Opper, and N. Zou, "Social network and family business: Uncovering hybrid family firms," Social Networks, vol. 65, pp. 141-156, 2021.
     Google Scholar
  10. R. S. Burt, Corporate Profits and Cooptation: Networks of Market Constraints and Directorate Ties in the American Economy. New York, NY: Academic Press, Inc., 1983.
     Google Scholar
  11. B. Bird, H. Welsch, J. H. Astrachan, and D. Pistrui, "Family Business Research: The Evolution of an Academic Field," Family Business Review, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 337-350, 2002.
     Google Scholar
  12. M. C. Shanker and J. H. Astrachan, "Myths and Realities: Family Businesses' Contribution to the US Economy— A Framework for Assessing Family Business Statistics," Family Business Review, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 107-123, 1996.
     Google Scholar
  13. I. F. Ansari, M. Goergen, and S. Mira, "How Reported Board Independence Overstates Actual Board Independence in Family Firms: A Methodological Concern," Annals of Corporate Governance, vol. 3, no. 8, pp. 82-183, 2018.
     Google Scholar
  14. E. Johnsen and B. Mintz, "Organizational versus Class Components of Director Networks," in Networks of Power: Organizational Actors at the National, Corporate, and Community Levels, R. Perrucci and H. R. Potter, Eds. Hawthorne, New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1989, pp. 57-80.
     Google Scholar
  15. E. M. Heemskerk, Decline of the Corporate Community: Network Dynamics of the Dutch Business Elite. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2007.
     Google Scholar
  16. M. C. Withers, M. D. Howard, and L. Tihanyi, "You’ve Got a Friend: Examining Board Interlock Formation After Financial Restatements," Organization Science, vol. ahead-of-print, no. ahead-of-print, pp. 1-29, 2020.
     Google Scholar
  17. M. T. Nguyen, "The impact of political connection on firm performance: empirical evidence from Vietnamese listed companies in manufacturing sector," PhD Thesis, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, Dorset, England, 2020.
     Google Scholar
  18. J. Chu and J. Davis, "When board interlock fell apart, so did political moderation in the boardroom," vol. 2020, ed, 2017.
     Google Scholar
  19. L. N. Wati, H. I. Primiana, K. Pirzada, and R. Sudarsono, "Political connection, blockholder ownership and performance," Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 52-68, 2019.
     Google Scholar
  20. R. Nason, A. Mazzelli, and M. Carney, "The Ties That Unbind: Socialization and Business-Owning Family Reference Point Shift," Academy of Management Review, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 846-870, 2019.
     Google Scholar
  21. N. Mans-Kemp, S. Viviers, and S. Collins, "Exploring the causes and consequences of director overboardedness in an emerging market," International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 210-220, 2018.
     Google Scholar
  22. Y. Teng, E. Gimmon, and W. Lu, "Do Interlocks Lead to the Convergence of Interfirm Innovation Performance? Evidence From China," SAGE Open, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 1-20, 2021.
     Google Scholar
  23. D. Valeeva, E. M. Heemskerk, and F. W. Takes, "The duality of firms and directors in board interlock networks: A relational event modeling approach," Social Networks, vol. 62, pp. 68-79, 2020.
     Google Scholar
  24. S.-H. Lee, P. H. Phan, and H.-b. Ding, "A theory of family employee involvement during resource paucity," Journal of Family Business Strategy, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 160-166, 2016.
     Google Scholar
  25. F. Zona, B. K. Boyd, and K. Takacs Haynes, "Coordination, control, or charade? The role of board interlocks among business group members," Management Decision, vol. 57, no. 10, pp. 2630-2652, 2019.
     Google Scholar
  26. A. Klobuchar, Antitrust: Taking on Monopoly Power from the Gilded Age to the Digital Age. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2021.
     Google Scholar
  27. (2017). Amended on 20/5/2019 by Resolution of the Board of the Capital Market Authority Number 3-57-2019, Corporate Governance Regulations.
     Google Scholar
  28. M. Zeitlin, "Corporate Ownership and Control: The Large Corporation and the Capitalist Class," American Journal of Sociology, vol. 79, no. 5, pp. 1073-1119, 1974.
     Google Scholar
  29. F. Lundberg, Ameriaca's 60 Families. New York: The New Vanguard Press, 1937.
     Google Scholar
  30. R. Pranckutė, "Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World," Publications, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 12-, 2021.
     Google Scholar
  31. G. Budimir, S. Rahimeh, S. Tamimi, and P. Južnič, "Comparison of self-citation patterns in WoS and Scopus databases based on national scientific production in Slovenia (1996–2020)," Scientometrics, vol. 126, no. 3, pp. 2249-2267, 2021.
     Google Scholar
  32. JASP Team, "JASP," 0.14.1 ed, 2020.
     Google Scholar
  33. D. Tunger and J. Wilhelm, "The bibliometric community as reflected by its own methodology," Journal of Scientometric Research, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 92-101, 2013.
     Google Scholar
  34. E. A. Abdul Wahab, M. F. Jamaludin, D. Agustia, and I. Harymawan, "Director Networks, Political Connections, and Earnings Quality in Malaysia," Management and Organization Review, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 687-724, 2020.
     Google Scholar
  35. Y. Wu and B. Dong, "Independent director network and corporate innovation: evidence from a natural experiment in China," Applied Economics Letters, vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 559-564, 2021.
     Google Scholar
  36. M. A. Joshi, "Bibliometric indicators for evaluating the quality of scientifc publications," The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 258-262, Mar 1 2014.
     Google Scholar
  37. J. Brennecke and O. N. Rank, "Tie heterogeneity in networks of interlocking directorates: a cost–benefit approach to firms’ tie choice," Business Research, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 97-122, 2017.
     Google Scholar
  38. M. Szomszor et al., "Interpreting Bibliometric Data," Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, vol. 5, pp. 1-20, 2021.
     Google Scholar
  39. P. V. Kamat, "Impact Factor, CiteScore, and Citation Analysis," ACS Energy Letters, vol. 5, no. 7, pp. 2452-2453, 2020.
     Google Scholar
  40. C. James, L. Colledge, W. Meester, N. Azoulay, and A. Plume, "CiteScore metrics: Creating journal metrics from the Scopus citation index," Learned Publishing, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 367-374, 2019.
     Google Scholar
  41. E. Roldan-Valadez, S. Y. Salazar-Ruiz, R. Ibarra-Contreras, and C. Rios, "Current concepts on bibliometrics: a brief review about impact factor, Eigenfactor score, CiteScore, SCImago Journal Rank, Source-Normalised Impact per Paper, H-index, and alternative metrics," Ir J Med Sci, vol. 188, no. 3, pp. 939-951, Aug 2019.
     Google Scholar
  42. S. S. Vijayan and V. R. Renjith, "Visualization of Library and Information Science (LIS) Journals in SCImago: An Analysis of First Quartile (Q1) Journals," Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal), vol. 2021, no. 5775, pp. 1-16, 2021.
     Google Scholar
  43. A. Wooditch, N. J. Johnson, R. Solymosi, J. Medina Ariza, and S. Langton, "Bivariate Correlation," in A Beginner’s Guide to Statistics for Criminology and Criminal Justice Using R, A. Wooditch, N. J. Johnson, R. Solymosi, J. M. Ariza, and S. Langton, Eds. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2021, pp. 227-244.
     Google Scholar
  44. S. S. Shapiro and M. B. Wilk, "An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples)," Biometrika, vol. 52, no. 3 and 4, pp. 591-611, 1965.
     Google Scholar
  45. G. Haynes et al., "Family business research: Reviewing the past, contemplating the future," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, vol. 42, no. Suppl 1, pp. S70–S83, Oct 31 2021.
     Google Scholar
  46. H. C. Fang, K. Singh, T. Kim, L. Marler, and J. J. Chrisman, "Family business research in Asia: review and future directions," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, pp. 1-42, 2021.
     Google Scholar
  47. J. C. Short, P. Sharma, G. T. Lumpkin, and A. W. Pearson, "Oh, the Places We’ll Go! Reviewing Past, Present, and Future Possibilities in Family Business Research," Family Business Review, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 11-16, 2016.
     Google Scholar
  48. J.-F. Siebels and D. zu Knyphausen-Aufseß, "A Review of Theory in Family Business Research: The Implications for Corporate Governance," International Journal of Management Reviews, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 280-304, 2012.
     Google Scholar
  49. J. E. Jennings, R. S. Breitkreuz, and A. E. James, "Theories from Family Science: A Review and Roadmap for Family Business Research," in The SAGE Handbook of Family Business, L. Melin, M. Nordqvist, and P. Sharma, Eds. London: SAGE Publications Inc., 2004, pp. 25-46.
     Google Scholar
  50. R. Arteaga and A. Escribá-Esteve, "Heterogeneity in family firms: contextualising the adoption of family governance mechanisms," Journal of Family Business Management, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 200-222, 2020.
     Google Scholar
  51. F. W. Andersson, D. Johansson, J. Karlsson, M. Lodefalk, and A. Poldahl, "The characteristics of family firms: exploiting information on ownership, kinship, and governance using total population data," Small Business Economics, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 539-556, 2017.
     Google Scholar
  52. M. Güldenkoh and U. Silberg, "The characteristics of family businesses: A comparative analysis of East European countries," Estonian Discussions on Economic Policy, vol. 27, no. 1-2, pp. 63-82, 2019.
     Google Scholar
  53. D. Alrubaishi, M. McAdam, and R. Harrison, "Culture, Islamic capital and the entrepreneurial behaviour of family firms in Saudi Arabia," International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, vol. ahead-of-print, no. ahead-of-print, pp. 1-26, 2021.
     Google Scholar
  54. O. Machek, "Where have all the countries of origin gone? A note on the neglect of firm nationality in family business studies," Journal of Family Business Management, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 331-338, 2018.
     Google Scholar
  55. IFERA, "Family Businesses Dominate," Family Business Review, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 235-240, 2003.
     Google Scholar
  56. T. M. Pieper, F. W. Kellermanns, and J. H. Astrachan, Update 2021: Family Businesses’ Contribution to the U.S. Economy. Washington, DC: Family Enterprise USA, 2021.
     Google Scholar
  57. M. S. Mizruchi, The Fracturing of the American Corporate Elite. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2013.
     Google Scholar
  58. S. Yazdani, A. Shirvani, and P. Heidarpoor, "A Model for the Taxonomy of Research Studies: A Practical Guide to Knowledge Production and Knowledge Management," Archives of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, vol. In Press, no. In Press, pp. 1-9, 2021.
     Google Scholar
  59. P. Biecek and T. Burzykowski, Explanatory Model Analysis: Explore, Explain, and Examine Predictive Models. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2021.
     Google Scholar
  60. S. Jain, Research Methodology in Arts, Science and Humanities. Oakville, ON, Canada: Society Publishing, 2019.
     Google Scholar
  61. S. L. Siedlecki, "Understanding Descriptive Research Designs and Methods," Clinical Nurse Specialist, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 8-12, Jan/Feb 2020.
     Google Scholar
  62. B. D. Piana, A. Vecchi, and C. Cacia, "Towards a better understanding of Family Business Groups and their key dimensions," Journal of Family Business Strategy, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 174-192, 2012.
     Google Scholar
  63. W. Gibb Dyer and M. Sánchez, "Current State of Family Business Theory and Practice as Reflected in Family Business Review 1988—1997," Family Business Review, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 287-295, 1998.
     Google Scholar
  64. C. Kivunja, "Distinguishing between Theory, Theoretical Framework, and Conceptual Framework: A Systematic Review of Lessons from the Field," International Journal of Higher Education, vol. 7, no. 6, 2018.
     Google Scholar
  65. S. A. Zahra, "Developing theory-grounded family business research: Some suggestions," Journal of Family Business Strategy, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 3-7, 2016.
     Google Scholar
  66. M. Berge and Å. Ingerman, "Multiple theoretical lenses as an analytical strategy in researching group discussions," Research in Science & Technological Education, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 42-57, 2017.
     Google Scholar
  67. P. Cairney, "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: How Do We Combine the Insights of Multiple Theories in Public Policy Studies?," Policy Studies Journal, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 1-21, 2013.
     Google Scholar
  68. F. Zona, L. R. Gomez-Mejia, and M. C. Withers, "Board Interlocks and Firm Performance: Toward a Combined Agency–Resource Dependence Perspective," Journal of Management, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 589-618, 2018.
     Google Scholar
  69. W. Schulze and T. M. Zellweger, "Property Rights, Owner-Management, and Value Creation," Academy of Management Review, vol. 00, no. 0, 2020.
     Google Scholar
  70. R. Beachy, "Business was a family affair: Women of commerce in central Europe, 1650-1880," Histoire sociale / Social History, vol. 34, no. 68, pp. 307-330, 2001.
     Google Scholar
  71. R. Suddaby, B. S. Silverman, A. De Massis, P. Jaskiewicz, and E. R. Micelotta, "Call for Papers for the 2023 Family Business Review (FBR) Special Issue on History-informed Family Business Research," Family Business Review, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 331-334, 2020.
     Google Scholar
  72. E. R. Kushins and E. Behounek, "Using sociological theory to problematize family business research," Journal of Family Business Strategy, vol. 11, no. 1, 2020.
     Google Scholar
  73. R. H. Lester and A. A. Cannella, "Interorganizational Familiness: How Family Firms Use Interlocking Directorates to Build Community–Level Social Capital," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 755-775, 2006.
     Google Scholar
  74. A. A. Cannella, C. D. Jones, and M. C. Withers, "Family- versus Lone-Founder-Controlled Public Corporations: Social Identity Theory and Boards of Directors," Academy of Management Journal, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 436-459, 2015.
     Google Scholar
  75. M. Bianco, A. Ciavarella, and R. Signoretti, "Women on Corporate Boards in Italy: The Role of Family Connections," Corporate Governance: An International Review, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 129-144, 2015.
     Google Scholar
  76. D. Singh and A. Delios, "Corporate governance, board networks and growth in domestic and international markets: Evidence from India," Journal of World Business, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 615-627, 2017.
     Google Scholar
  77. L. Bellenzier and R. Grassi, "Interlocking directorates in Italy: persistent links in network dynamics," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 183-202, 2014.
     Google Scholar
  78. X. Zang, "Research Note: Personalism and Corporate Networks in Singapore," Organization Studies, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 861-877, 1999.
     Google Scholar
  79. C. Seaman, R. McQuaid, and M. Pearson, "Social networking in family businesses in a local economy," Local Economy: The Journal of the Local Economy Policy Unit, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 451-466, 2017.
     Google Scholar
  80. J. Naudet and C.-L. Dubost, "The Indian exception: the densification of the network of corporate interlocks and the specificities of the Indian business system (2000–2012)," Socio-Economic Review, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 405–434, 2017.
     Google Scholar
  81. J. H. Chua, L. P. Steier, and J. J. Chrisman, "How Family Firms Solve Intra–Family Agency Problems Using Interlocking Directorates: An Extension," Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 777-783, 2006.
     Google Scholar
  82. X. Chen, J. Arnoldi, and C. Na, "Governance Structure and Related Party Loan Guarantees: The Case of Chinese Family Business Groups," Management and Organization Review, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 599-619, 2015.
     Google Scholar
  83. J. Naudet, A. Allorant, and M. Ferry, "Heirs, corporate aristocrats and ‘Meritocrats’: the social space of top CEOs and Chairmen in India," Socio-Economic Review, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 307-339, 2018.
     Google Scholar
  84. F. Rubino and F. Napoli, "What Impact Does Corporate Governance Have on Corporate Environmental Performances? An Empirical Study of Italian Listed Firms," Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 14, pp. 5742-5762, 2020.
     Google Scholar
  85. V. Sanchez-Famoso, J.-H. Mejia-Morelos, and L. Cisneros, "New Insights into Non-Listed Family SMEs in Spain: Board Social Capital, Board Effectiveness, and Sustainable Performance," Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 814-831, 2020.
     Google Scholar
  86. V. S. Panicker and R. S. Upadhyayula, "Limiting role of resource dependence: an examination of director interlocks, board meetings and family ownership," Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 424-451, 2020.
     Google Scholar
  87. R. Anand and B. Singh, "Effect of Composition of Board and Promoter Group Retained Ownership on Underpricing of Indian IPO firms: An Empirical Study," Indian Journal of Corporate Governance, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 21-38, 2019.
     Google Scholar