Playing the Board Game: An Empirical Analysis of University Trustee and Corporate Board Interlocks

References

• Alchian, A. A., & Demsetz, H. (1972). Production, information costs, and economic organization. A.E.R., 777–795.
   Google Scholar
• Basinger, J. (2002). The growing $500,000 club: 27 private-college presidents earned more than half a million in compensation in 2000–1. Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(13), p. A30.
   Google Scholar
• Basinger, J. (2004, November 19). Proving presidential worth. Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(13), Executive Compensation: A Special Supplement, p. B11.
   Google Scholar
• Basinger, J., & Henderson, S. H. (2004, November 19). It's lucrative at the top. Chronicle of Higher Education, 57(13), Executive Compensation: A Special Supplement, pp. B3–B5.
   Google Scholar
• Basinger, J., & Perry, S. (2002). Private funds drive up pay of public university presidents. Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac 49(3), 6–11.
   Google Scholar
• Birnbaum, R. (2000). Management fads in higher education: Where they come from, what they do, why they fail. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Breneman, D. (2003, April 25). Why a public college wants to send in-state tuition soaring. Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(33), B20.
   Google Scholar
• Burt, R. S. (1983). Corporate profits and cooptation: Networks of market constraints and directorate ties in the American economy. New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Callan, P. M. (2001). Reframing access and opportunity: Problematic state and federal higher education policy in the 1990s. In D. E. Heller (Ed.), The states and public higher education: Affordability, access, and accountability (pp. 83–99). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chait, R. P., Holland, T. P., & Taylor, B. E. (1991). The effective board of trustees. New York: MacMillan.
   Google Scholar
• Choo, C. W., & Bontis, N. (Eds.). (2002). The strategic management of intellectual capital and organizational knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, G. F. (1991). Agents without principles? The spread of the poison pill through the intercorporate network. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 583–613.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ehrenberg, R. G. (2000). Tuition rising: Why college costs so much. Boston: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Executive's compensation at public institutions. (2004, November 19). Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(13), Executive Compensation: A Special Supplement.
   Google Scholar
• Fama, E. F. (1980). Agency problems and the theory of the firm. Journal of Political Economy, 88(2), 288–307.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feldman, M., Feller, I., Bercovitz, J., & Burton, R. (2002). Equity and the technology transfer strategies of American research universities. Management Science, 48(1), 105–121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gale, R. L. (1993). Selecting, orienting and developing trustees. In R. T. Ingram & Associates (Ed.), Governing independent colleges and universities: A handbook for trustees, chief executives and other campus leaders (pp. 287–301). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Geiger, R. (2004). Knowledge and money: Research universities and the paradox of the marketplace. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ghoshal, S., & Norhria, N. (1993). Horses for courses: Organizational forms for multinational corporations. Sloan Management Review, 34(2), 23–35.
   Google Scholar
• Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haunschild, P. R., & Beckman, C. M. (1998). When do interlocks matter?: Alternate sources of information and interlock influence. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(4), 815–844.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill, B., Green, M., & Eckel, P. (2001). What governing boards need to know and do about institutional change. Washington, DC: American Council on Education: Project on Leadership and Institutional Transformation.
   Google Scholar
• Huizing, A., & Bouman, W. (2001). Knowledge and learning, markets and organizations: Managing the information transaction space. In C. W. Choo & N. Bontis (Ed.), The strategic management of intellectual capital and organizational knowledge (pp. 185–206). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ingram, R. T. (1995). Effective trusteeship: A guide for board members of independent colleges and universities. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, G. A., & Skolnik, L. (1997). Governing boards in Canadian universities. Review of Higher Education, 20(3), 277–295.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerr, C., & Gade, M. L. (1989). The guardians: Boards of trustees of American colleges and universities. Washington, DC: AGB.
   Google Scholar
• Kirp, D. (2003). Shakespeare, Einstein, and the bottom line: The marketing of higher education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Madsen, H. (1997). Composition of governing boards of public colleges and universities (Occasional Paper AGB No. 37). Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.
   Google Scholar
• Marginson, S. (1997). Markets in education. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
   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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicholson-Crotty, J., & Meier, K. J. (2003). Politics, structure and public policy: The case of higher education. Educational Policy, 17(1), 80–98.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ordorika, I. (2003). Power and politics in university governance: Organization and change at the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico. New York: Routledge Falmer
   Google Scholar
• Pettigrew, A. M. (1992). On studying managerial elites. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 163–182.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
   Google Scholar
• Press, E., & Washburn, J. (2000, March). The kept university. Atlantic Monthly, 39–54.
   Google Scholar
• Pusser, B. (2002). Higher education, the emerging market, and the public good. In P. Graham & N. Stacey (Ed.), The knowledge economy and postsecondary education (pp. 105–126). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pusser, B. (2003). Beyond Baldridge: Extending the political model of higher education governance. Educational Policy, 17(1), 121–140.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pusser, B. (2004). Burning down the house: Politics, governance and affirmative action at the University of California. Albany: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pusser, B. (2006). New competition from for-profit education providers. AGB Priorities, 27, 1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Pusser, B. (forthcoming). Reconsidering higher education and the public good: The role of public spheres. In W. G. Tierney (Ed.), Governance and the public good. Albany: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pusser, B., & Doane, D. (2001). Public purpose and private enterprise: The contemporary organization of postsecondary education. Change, 33, 19–22.
   Google Scholar
• Pusser, B., & Turner, S. E. (2004). Nonprofit and for-profit governance in higher education. In R. G. Ehrenberg (Ed.), Governing academia. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pusser, B., & Wolcott, D. A. (In press). A crowded lobby: Nonprofit and for-profit universities in the emerging politics of higher education. In D. Breneman, B. Pusser, & S. E. Turner (Eds). Earnings from Learning: The Rise of For-Profit Universities. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pusser, B., Gansneder, B. M., Gallaway, N., & Pope, N. S. (2005). Entrepreneurial activity in nonprofit institutions: A portrait of continuing education. In B. Pusser (Ed.), Arenas of Entrepreneurship: Where nonprofit and for-profit institutions compete. New Directions for Higher Education, 129, 27–42.
   Google Scholar
• Rhoades, G. (1998). Managed professionals: Unionized faculty and restructuring academic labor. Albany: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation. New York: Harper & Row.
   Google Scholar
• Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state and higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Smallwood, S. (2001). Average faculty salary outpaced inflation. Chronicle of Higher Education, 47, A17–A18.
   Google Scholar
• Stearns, L. B., & Mizruchi, M. S. (1993). Board composition and corporate financing: The impact of financial institution representation on borrowing. Academy of Management Journal, 56(3), 603–618.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stinchcombe, A. L. (1990). Weak structural data. Contemporary Sociology, 19, 380–382.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) System. Retrieved January 20, 2002 from U.S. Census Bureau Online, http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/sic.html
   Google Scholar
• Useem, M. (1984). The inner circle. Cambridge: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zajac, E. J. (1988). Interlocking directorates as an inter-organizational strategy: A test of critical assumptions. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 428–438.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar