You’ve Got a Friend: Examining Board Interlock Formation After Financial Restatements

References

• Acharya AG, Pollock TG (2012) Shoot for the stars? Predicting the recruitment of prestigious directors at newly public firms. Acad. Management J. 56(5):1396–1419.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Agrawal A, Cooper T (2017) Corporate governance consequences of accounting scandals: Evidence from top management, CFO and auditor turnover. Quart. J. Finance 07(01):1650014-1–1650014-41.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Allison PD, Waterman RP (2002) 7. Fixed-effects negative binomial regression models. Sociol. Methodology 32(1):247–265.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Amel-Zadeh A, Zhang Y (2014) The economic consequences of financial restatements: Evidence from the market for corporate control. Accounting Rev. 90(1):1–29.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Armstrong D (2003) Tyco to restate financial results. Wall Street Journal (June 17), https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB105579848639788200.Google Scholar
• Arthaud-Day ML, Certo ST, Dalton CM, Dalton DR (2006) A changing of the guard: Executive and director turnover following corporate financial restatements. Acad. Management J. 49(6):1119–1136.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baber WR, Liang L, Zhu Z (2012) Associations between internal and external corporate governance characteristics: Implications for investigating financial accounting restatements. Accounting Horizons 26(2):219–237.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bazerman MH, Schoorman FD (1983) A limited rationality model of interlocking directorates. Acad. Management Rev. 8(2):206–217.Google Scholar
• Beckman CM, Haunschild PR (2002) Network learning: The effects of partners’ heterogeneity of experience on corporate acquisitions. Admin. Sci. Quart. 47(1):92–124.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Beckman CM, Haunschild PR, Phillips DJ (2004) Friends or strangers? Firm-specific uncertainty, market uncertainty, and network partner selection. Organ. Sci. 15(3):259–275.Link, Google Scholar
• Benjamin BA, Podolny JM (1999) Status, quality, and social order in the california wine industry. Admin. Sci. Quart. 44(3):563–589.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bidwell M, Won S, Barbulescu R, Mollick E (2015) I used to work at goldman sachs! How firms benefit from organizational status in the market for human capital. Strategic Management J. 36(8):1164–1173.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boivie S, Graffin S, Pollock T (2012) Time for me to fly: Predicting director exit at large firms. Acad. Management J. 55(6):1334–1359.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boivie S, Graffin S, Oliver AG, Withers M (2016) Come aboard! Exploring the effects of directorships in the executive labor market. Acad. Management J. 59(5):1681–1706.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bonacich P (1987) Power and centrality: A family of measures. Amer. J. Sociol. 92(5):1170–1182.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Borgatti SP, Foster PC (2003) The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. J. Management 29(6):991–1013.Google Scholar
• Boyd B (1990) Corporate linkages and organizational environment: A test of the resource dependence model. Strategic Management J. 11(6):419–430.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burk WJ, Steglich CEG, Snijders TAB (2007) Beyond dyadic interdependence: Actor-oriented models for co-evolving social networks and individual behaviors. Internat. J. Behav. Development 31(4):397–404.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (1978) A structural theory of interlocking corporate directorates. Soc. Networks 1(4):415–435.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (1980) Cooptive corporate actor networks: A reconsideration of interlocking directorates involving American manufacturing. Admin. Sci. Quart. 25(4):557–582.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS, Knez M (1995) Kinds of third-party effects on trust. Rationality Soc. 7(3):255–292.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Certo ST (2003) Influencing initial public offering investors with prestige: Signaling with board structures. Acad. Management Rev. 28(3):432–446.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Certo ST, Withers Michael C, Semadeni M (2017) A tale of two effects: Using longitudinal data to compare within- and between-firm effects. Strategic Management J. 38(7):1536–1556.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chakravarthy J, deHaan E, Rajgopal S (2014) Reputation repair after a serious restatement. Accounting Rev. 89(4):1329–1363.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chandler D, Haunschild PR, Rhee M, Beckman CM (2013) The effects of firm reputation and status on interorganizational network structure. Strategic Organ. 11(3):217–244.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chatterjee S, Harrison JS (2001) Corporate governance. Hitt M, Freeman RE, Harrison J, eds. Blackwell Handbook of Strategic Management (Blackwell, Oxford, UK), 543–563.Google Scholar
• Chen G, Hambrick DC, Pollock TG (2008) Puttin’ on the ritz: Pre-ipo enlistment of prestigious affiliates as deadline-induced remediation. Acad. Management J. 51(5):954–975.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cheng Q, Farber DB (2008) Earnings restatements, changes in CEO compensation, and firm performance. Accounting Rev. 83(5):1217–1250.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chu JSG, Davis GF (2016) Who killed the inner circle? The decline of the american corporate interlock network. Amer. J. Sociol. 122(3):714–754.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Coleman JS (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. Amer. J. Sociol. 94:S95–S120.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Connelly BL, Certo ST, Ireland RD, Reutzel CR (2011) Signaling theory: A review and assessment. J. Management 37(1):39–67.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Connelly BL, Ketchen DJ, Gangloff KA, Shook CL (2016) Investor perceptions of CEO successor selection in the wake of integrity and competence failures: A policy capturing study. Strategic Management J. 37(10):2135–2151.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cowen AP, Marcel JJ (2011) Damaged goods: Board decisions to dismiss reputationally compromised directors. Acad. Management J. 54(3):509–527.Crossref, Google Scholar
• D’Aveni RA (1996) A multiple-constituency, status-based approach to interorganizational mobility of faculty and input-output competition among top business schools. Organ. Sci. 7(2):166–189.Link, Google Scholar
• Daily CM, Dalton DR (1998) The role of governance in corporate decline: A review and research agenda. Ketchen D, ed. Turnaround Research: Past Accomplishments and Future Challenges. Advances in Applied Business Strategy (JAI Press, Stamford, CT), 239–260.Google Scholar
• Daily CM, Certo ST, Dalton DR (1999) A decade of corporate women: Some progress in the boardroom, none in the executive suite. Strategic Management J. 20(1):93–100.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis GF (1991) Agents without principles? The spread of the poison pill through the intercorporate network. Admin. Sci. Quart. 36(4):583–613.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis GF (1996) The significance of board interlocks for corporate governance. Corporate Governance Internat. Rev. 4(3):154–159.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis GF, Greve HR (1997) Corporate elite networks and governance changes in the 1980s. Amer. J. Sociol. 103(1):1–37.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis GF, Yoo M, Baker WE (2003) The small world of the american corporate elite, 1982-2001. Strategic Organ. 1(3):301–326.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Desai H, Hogan CE, Wilkins MS (2006) The reputational penalty for aggressive accounting: Earnings restatements and management turnover. Accounting Rev. 81(1):83–112.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Devers CE, Cannella AA, Reilly GP, Yoder ME (2007) Executive compensation: A multidisciplinary review of recent developments. J. Management 33(6):1016–1072.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Elsbach KD (1994) Managing organizational legitimacy in the california cattle industry: The construction and effectiveness of verbal accounts. Admin. Sci. Quart. 39(1):57–88.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fama EF (1980) Agency problems and the theory of the firm. J. Political Econom. 88(2):288–307.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Farber DB (2005) Restoring trust after fraud: Does corporate governance matter? Accounting Rev. 80(2):539–561.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Feldmann DA, Read WJ, Abdolmohammadi MJ (2009) Financial restatements, audit fees, and the moderating effect of CFO turnover. Auditing 28(1):205–223.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ferris SP, Jagannathan M, Pritchard AC (2003) Too busy to mind the business? Monitoring by directors with multiple board appointments. J. Finance 58(3):1087–1111.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fich EM, Shivdasani A (2007) Financial fraud, director reputation, and shareholder wealth. J. Financial Econom. 86(2):306–336.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fich EM, White LJ (2005) Why do CEOs reciprocally sit on each other’s boards? J. Corporate Finance 11(1):175–195.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Flickinger M, Wrage M, Tuschke A, Bresser R (2016) How CEOs protect themselves against dismissal: A social status perspective. Strategic Management J. 37(6):1107–1117.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Galaskiewicz J (1985) Interorganizational relations. Annual Rev. Sociol. 11(1):281–304.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gangloff KA, Connelly BL, Shook CL (2016) Of scapegoats and signals: Investor reactions to CEO succession in the aftermath of wrongdoing. J. Management 42(6):1614–1634.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gertsen FHM, van Riel CBM, Berens G (2006) Avoiding reputation damage in financial restatements. Long Range Planning 39(4):429–456.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gomulya D, Boeker W (2014) How firms respond to financial restatement: CEO successors and external reactions. Acad. Management J. 57(6):1759–1785.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gomulya D, Boeker W (2016) Reassessing board member allegiance: CEO replacement following financial misconduct. Strategic Management J. 37(9):1898–1918.Google Scholar
• Goode WJ (1978) The Celebration of Heroes: Prestige as a Control System (University of California Press, Berkeley).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Granovetter M (1985) Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. Amer. J. Sociol. 91(3):481–510.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Granovetter M (2005) The impact of social structure on economic outcomes. J. Econom. Perspect. 19(1):33–50.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greene WH (2007) Fixed and random effects models for count data. NYU Working Paper No. EC-07-16, New York University, New York.Google Scholar
• Greve HR, Palmer D, Pozner JE (2010) Organizations gone wild: The causes, processes, and consequences of organizational misconduct. Acad. Management Ann. 4(1):53–107.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grodal S, Nelson AJ, Siino RM (2015) Help-seeking and help-giving as an organizational routine: Continual engagement in innovative work. Acad. Management J. 58(1):136–168.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grover SL, Hui C (2005) How job pressures and extrinsic rewards affect lying behavior. Internat. J. Conflict Management 16(3):287–300.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gryta T, Lublin JS (2018) GE overhauls board, dumps longest-serving directors, names outsiders. Wall Street Journal (February 28), https://www.wsj.com/articles/ge-revamps-board-adds-accounting-expert-former-ceos-of-danaher-american-airlines-1519647911.Google Scholar
• Gupta A, Otley D, Young S (2008) Does superior firm performance lead to higher quality outside directorships? Accounting Auditing Accountability J. 21(7):907–932.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hallock KF (1997) Reciprocally interlocking boards of directors and executive compensation. J. Financial Quant. Anal. 32(3):331–344.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hambrick DC, Finkelstein S, Cho TS, Jackson EM (2004) Isomorphism in reverse: Institutional theory as an explanation for recent increases in intraindustry heterogeneity and managerial discretion. Res. Organ. Behav. 26:307–350.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrigan N, Bond M (2013) Differential impact of directors’ social and financial capital on corporate interlock formation. Lusher D, Koskinen J, Robins G, eds. Exponential Random Graph Models for Social Networks: Theory, Methods and Applications (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK), 260–271.Google Scholar
• Harris J, Bromiley P (2007) Incentives to cheat: The influence of executive compensation and firm performance on financial misrepresentation. Organ. Sci. 18(3):350–367.Link, Google Scholar
• Haunschild PR (1994) How much is that company worth?: Interorganizational relationships, uncertainty, and acquisition premiums. Admin. Sci. Quart. 39(3):391–411.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Haunschild PR, Beckman CM (1998) When do interlocks matter?: Alternate sources of information and interlock influence. Admin. Sci. Quart. 43(4):815–844.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hennes KM, Leone AJ, Miller BP (2008) The importance of distinguishing errors from irregularities in restatement research: The case of restatements and CEO/cfo turnover. Accounting Rev. 83(6):1487–1519.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hennes KM, Leone AJ, Miller BP (2013) Determinants and market consequences of auditor dismissals after accounting restatements. Accounting Rev. 89(3):1051–1082.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hillman AJ, Cannella AA, Paetzold RL (2000) The resource dependence role of corporate directors: Strategic adaptation of board composition in response to environmental change. J. Management Stud. 37(2):235–255.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Horton J, Millo Y, Serafeim G (2012) Resources or power? Implications of social networks on compensation and firm performance. J. Bus. Finance Accounting 39(3/4):399–426.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Howard MD, Withers MC, Tihanyi L (2017) Knowledge dependence and the formation of director interlocks. Acad. Management J. 60(5):1986–2013.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Howard MD, Withers MC, Carnes CM, Hillman AJ (2016) Friends or strangers? It all depends on context: A replication and extension of beckman, haunschild, and phillips (2004). Strategic Management J. 37(11):2222–2234.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hunter DR, Goodreau SM, Handcock MS (2008) Goodness of fit of social network models. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 103(481):248–258.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jaccard P (1900) Contributions au problème de l'immigration post-glaciaire de la flore alpine. Bulletin de la Société Vaudoise des Sciences Naturelles 37:547–579.Google Scholar
• Joseph J, Ocasio W, McDonnell M-H (2014) The structural elaboration of board independence: Executive power, institutional logics, and the adoption of CEO-only board structures in U.S. Corporate governance. Acad. Management J. 57(6):1834–1858.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kang E (2008) Director interlocks and spillover effects of reputational penalties from financial reporting fraud. Acad. Management J. 51(3):537–555.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karpoff JM, Lee DS, Martin GS (2009) The cost to firms of cooking the books. J. Financial Quant. Anal. 43(3):581–611.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karpoff JM, Scott Lee D, Martin GS (2008) The consequences to managers for financial misrepresentation. J. Financial Econom. 88(2):193–215.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kim JY, Howard M, Cox Pahnke E, Boeker W (2016) Understanding network formation in strategy research: Exponential random graph models. Strategic Management J. 37(1):22–44.Crossref, Google Scholar
• King G, Zeng L (2001) Logistic regression in rare events data. Political Anal. 9(2):137–163.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Koenig T, Gogel R (1981) Interlocking corporate directorships as a social network. Amer. J. Econom. Sociol. 40(1):37–50.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Koenig T, Gogel R, Sonquist J (1979) Models of the significance of interlocking corporate directorates. Amer. J. Econom. Sociol. 38(2):173–186.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krause RA, Semadeni M, Cannella AA (2014) CEO duality: A review and research agenda. J. Management 40(1):256–286.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Larcker DF, Richardson SA, Tuna Ir (2007) Corporate governance, accounting outcomes, and organizational performance. Accounting Rev. 82(4):963–1008.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee F (1997) When the going gets tough, do the tough ask for help? Help seeking and power motivation in organizations. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 72(3):336–363.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lin Z, Yang H, Arya B (2009) Alliance partners and firm performance: Resource complementarity and status association. Strategic Management J. 30(9):921–940.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Linck JS, Netter JM, Yang T (2009) The effects and unintended consequences of the sarbanes-oxley act on the supply and demand for directors. Rev. Financial Stud. 22(8):3287–3328.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lorsch JW, MacIver E (1989) Pawns or Potentates: The Reality of America’s Boards (Harvard Business School Press, Boston).Google Scholar
• Lungeanu R, Paruchuri S, Tsai W (2017) Stepping across for social approval: Ties to independent foundations’ boards after financial restatement. Strategic Management J. 39(4):1163–1187.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lusher D, Robins G (2013) Formation of social network structure. Lusher D, Koskinen J, Robins G, eds. Exponential Random Graph Models for Social Networks: Theory, Methods and Applications (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK), 16–28.Google Scholar
• Lusher D, Koskinen J, Robins G (2013) Exponential Random Graph Models for Social Networks: Theory, Methods, and Applications (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
• Mace ML (1971) Directors: Myth and Reality (Harvard University Press, Boston).Google Scholar
• Marcel JJ, Cowen AP (2014) Cleaning house or jumping ship? Understanding board upheaval following financial fraud. Strategic Management J. 35(6):926–937.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mariolis P (1975) Interlocking directorates and control of corporations: The theory of bank control. Soc. Sci. Quart. 56(3):425–439.Google Scholar
• Martin G, Gözübüyük R, Becerra M (2015) Interlocks and firm performance: The role of uncertainty in the directorate interlock-performance relationship. Strategic Management J. 36(2):235–253.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mills CW (1956) The Power Elite (Oxford, New York).Google Scholar
• Mizruchi MS (1996) What do interlocks do? An analysis, critique, and assessment of research on interlocking directorates. Annual Rev. Sociol. 22(1):271–298.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mizruchi MS (2013) The Fracturing of the American Corporate Elite (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mizruchi MS, Stearns LB, Marquis C (2006) The conditional nature of embeddedness: A study of borrowing by large U.S. firms, 1973–1994. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 71(2):310–333.Crossref, Google Scholar
• O’Connor JJP, Priem RL, Coombs JE, Gilley KM (2006) Do CEO stock options prevent or promote fraudulent financial reproting? Acad. Management J. 49(3):483–500.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oliver C (1990) Determinants of interorganizational relationships: Integration and future directions. Acad. Management Rev. 15(2):241–265.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Palmer D, Friedland R, Singh JV (1986) The ties that bind: Organizational and class bases of stability in a corporate interlock network. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 51(6):781–796.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Palmrose Z-V, Scholz S (2010) The circumstances and legal consequences of non-gaap reporting: Evidence from restatements. Contemporary Accounting Res. 21(1):139–180.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Parkhe A, Wasserman S, Ralston DA (2006) New frontiers in network theory development. Acad. Management Rev. 31(3):560–568.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pearson CM, Clair JA (1998) Reframing crisis management. Acad. Management Rev. 23(1):59–76.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pennings JM (1980) Interlocking Directorates (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).Google Scholar
• Pfeffer J (1972) Size and composition of corporate boards of directors. Admin. Sci. Quart. 17(2):218–229.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pfeffer J (1987) A resource dependence perspective on intercorporate relations. Mizruchi MS, Schwartz M, eds. Intercorporate Relations: The Structural Analysis of Business (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK), 22–55.Google Scholar
• Pfeffer J, Salancik GR (1978) The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective (Harper & Row, New York).Google Scholar
• Phan PH, Lee SH, Lau SC (2003) The performance impact of interlocking directorates: The case of Singapore. J. Management Issues 15(3):338–352.Google Scholar
• Piazza A, Castellucci F (2013) Status in organization and management theory. J. Management 40(1):287–315.Google Scholar
• Podolny JM (1993) A status-based model of market competition. Amer. J. Sociol. 98(4):829–872.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pozner J-E (2008) Stigma and settling up: An integrated approach to the consequences of organizational misconduct for organizational elites. J. Bus. Ethics 80(1):141–150.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reagans R, McEvily B (2003) Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Admin. Sci. Quart. 48(2):240–267.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reagans R, McEvily B (2008) Contradictory or compatible? Reconsidering the trade-off between brokerage and closure on knowledge sharing. Baum JAC, Rowley TJ, eds. Network Strategy, Advances in Strategy Management, vol. 25 (Emerald Publishing Group, Bingley, UK), 275–314.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reinhart CM, Rogoff KS (2014) Recovery from financial crises: Evidence from 100 episodes. Amer. Econom. Rev. 104(5):50–55.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ripley RM, Snijders TA, Preciado P (2011) Manual for RSiena (Department of Statistics, Nuffield College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Department of Sociology, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands).Google Scholar
• Sauder M, Lynn F, Podolny JM (2012) Status: Insights from organizational sociology. Annual Rev. Sociol. 38(1):267–283.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shapiro EG (1980) Is seeking help from a friend like seeking help from a stranger? Soc. Psych. Quart. 43(2):259–263.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sharkey AJ (2014) Categories and organizational status: The role of industry status in the response to organizational deviance. Amer. J. Sociol. 119(5):1380–1433.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shropshire C (2010) The role of the interlocking director and board receptivity in the diffusion of practices. Acad. Management Rev. 35(2):246–264.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith EB, Menon T, Thompson L (2011) Status differences in the cognitive activation of social networks. Organ. Sci. 23(1):67–82.Link, Google Scholar
• Snijders TAB (2001) The statistical evaluation of social network dynamics. Sociol. Methodology 31(1):361–395.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Snijders TAB, Steglich CEG, Schweinberger M (2007) Modeling the co-evolution of networks and behavior. Montfort KV, Oud H, Satorra A, eds. Longitudinal Models in the Behavioral and Related Sciences (Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ), 41–71.Google Scholar
• Snijders TAB, van de Bunt GG, Steglich CEG (2010) Introduction to stochastic actor-based models for network dynamics. Soc. Networks 32(1):44–60.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Snijders TAB, Steglich CEG, Schweinberger M, Huisman M (2008) Manual for Siena Version 3.2 (ICS, Department of Sociology, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands; Department of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• Sorenson O, Stuart TE (2001) Syndication networks and the spatial distribution of venture capital investments. Amer. J. Sociol. 106(6):1546–1588.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Srinivasan S (2005) Consequences of financial reporting failure for outside directors: Evidence from accounting restatements and audit committee members. J. Accounting Res. 43(2):291–334.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stearns LB, Mizruchi MS (1993) Board composition and corporate financing: The impact of financial institution representation on borrowing. Acad. Management J. 36(3):603–618.Google Scholar
• Stuart TE, Hoang H, Hybels RC (1999) Interorganizational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Admin. Sci. Quart. 44(2):315–349.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Useem M (1979) The social organization of the american business elite and participation of corporation directors in the governance of american institutions. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 44(4):553–572.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Washington M, Zajac EJ (2005) Status evolution and competition: Theory and evidence. Acad. Management J. 48(2):282–296.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Westphal JD, Seidel M-DL, Stewart KJ (2001) Second-order imitation: Uncovering latent effects of board network ties. Admin. Sci. Quart. 46(4):717–747.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Westphal James D, Boivie S, Ming Chng Daniel H (2006) The strategic impetus for social network ties: Reconstituting broken ceo friendship ties. Strategic Management J. 27(5):425–445.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wiesenfeld BM, Wurthmann KA, Hambrick DC (2008) The stigmatization and devaluation of elites associated with corporate failures: A process model. Acad. Management Rev. 33(1):231–251.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Withers MC, Corley KG, Hillman AJ (2012a) Stay or leave: Director identities and voluntary exit from the board during organizational crisis. Organ. Sci. 23(3):835–850.Link, Google Scholar
• Withers MC, Hillman AJ, Cannella AA (2012b) A multidisciplinary review of the director selection literature. J. Management 38(1):243–277.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yermack D (2004) Remuneration, retention, and reputation incentives for outside directors. J. Finance 59(5):2281–2308.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yue LQ (2012) Asymmetric effects of fashions on the formation and dissolution of networks: Board interlocks with Internet companies, 1996–2006. Organ. Sci. 23(4):1114–1134.Link, Google Scholar
• Zahra SA, Priem RL, Rasheed AA (2005) The antecedents and consequences of top management fraud. J. Management 31(6):803–828.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhu DH, Shen W, Hillman AJ (2014) Recategorization into the in-group: The appointment of demographically different new directors and their subsequent positions on corporate boards. Admin. Sci. Quart. 59(2):240–270.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zona F, Gomez-Mejia LR, Withers MC (2018) Board interlocks and firm performance: Toward a combined agency–resource dependence perspective. J. Management 44(2):589–618.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zorn ML, Shropshire C, Martin JA, Combs JG, Ketchen DJ (2017) Home alone: The effect of lone-insider boards on CEO pay, financial misconduct, and firm performance. Strategic Management J. 38(13):2623–2646.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zucker LG, Darby MR, Brewer MB (1998) Intellectual human capital and the birth of U.S. Biotechnology enterprises. Amer. Econom. Rev. 88(1):290–306.Google Scholar