Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 328

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Broken Ties: Interlocking Directorates and Intercorporate Coordination

Palmer, Donald·1983·Administrative Science Quarterly

Abstract

For detailed comments on the most recent versions ot this paper, I wish to thank Ronald Burt, Maggie McLoughlin, Jeffrey Pfeffer, Jerry Ross, and an anonymous ASQ reviewer. For comments on earlier drafts, I wish to thank Charles Perrow, Michael Schwartz, Joanne Martin, Jon Bendor, Dick Scott, the participants of the NIMH Research Training Program at Stanford University, and the members of the MACNET Research Group at SUNY-Stony Brook For patience, I thank the union waiters and waitresses at Zim's. Little is known about the specific types of relationships that interlocking corporate directorates facilitate. This study examines the connective and directional continuity of all ties disrupted accidentally among 1,131 large U.S. corporations between 1962 and 1964to determinethe relative likelihood that different types of interlock ties facilitate relationships of formal coordination. In accordance with previous theory, the number and type of interlocks of which a tie consists was found to be related to the likelihood that it is a vehicle of formal coordination. However, previous assumptions aboutthe percentage of ties in thefull network that facilitate such relationships and the significance of interlock direction were not supported. The implications of these results for interpreting past results and directing future research are also discussed.@

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/2392384

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Palmer, D.
Venue
Administrative Science Quarterly
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
1983-03
Volume
28
Issue
1
Pages
40
ISSN
0001-8392 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2318557892
Cited by
328
References
0
FWCI
20.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.