Interlocking Boards of Trustees and Grant Acquisition Among Homeless Service Organizations

References

• Abzug, R., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2001). Nonprofit boards: Crucibles of expertise or symbols of local identities? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30(1), 51-73.
   Google Scholar
• Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 425-455.
   Google Scholar
• Andrés-Alonso, P. de; Azofra-Palenzuela, V.; & Romero-Merino, M. E. (2009). Determinants of nonprofit board size and composition: The case of Spanish foundations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(5), 784-809.
   Google Scholar
• Baum, J. A. C., & Oliver, C. (1991). Institutional linkages and organizational mortality. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(2), 187-218.
   Google Scholar
• Baum, J. A. C., & Oliver, C. (1992). Institutional embeddedness and the dynamics of organizational populations. American Journal of Sociology, 57(4), 540-559.
   Google Scholar
• Berardo, R. (2009). Processing complexity in networks: A study of informal collaboration and its effect on organizational success. Policy Studies Journal, 37(3), 521-539.
   Google Scholar
• Berardo, R. (2010). Sustaining joint ventures: The role of resource exchange and the strength of interorganizational relationships. In R. C. Feiock & J. T. Scholz (Eds.), Self-organizing federalism: Collaborative mechanisms to mitigate institutional collective action dilemmas (pp. 204-228). New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bradshaw, P.; Murray, V.; & Wolpin, J. (1992). Do nonprofit boards make a difference? An exploration of the relationships among board structure, process, and effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 21(3), 227-249.
   Google Scholar
• Brass, D. J. (1995). A social network perspective on human resources management. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 13, 39-79.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, W. A. (2005). Exploring the association between board and organizational performance in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 15(3), 317-339.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, W. A. (2007). Board development practices and competent board members: Implications for performance. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 17(3), 301-317.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, W. A., & Guo, C. (2009). Exploring the key roles for nonprofit boards. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(3), 536-546.
   Google Scholar
• Burris, V. (2005). Interlocking directorates and political cohesion among corporate elites. American Journal of Sociology, 111(1), 249-283.
   Google Scholar
• Burris, V. (2008). The interlock structure of the policy-planning network and the right turn in U. S. state policy. Research in Political Sociology, 17, 3-42.
   Google Scholar
• Burt, R. S. (1995). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Callen, J. L.; Klein, A.; & Tinkelman, D. (2010). The contextual impact of nonprofit board composition and structure on organizational performance: Agency and resource dependence perspectives. Voluntas, 21(1), 101-125.
   Google Scholar
• Carpenter, D.; Esterling, K.; & Lazer, D. (2003). The strength of strong ties: A model of contact-making in policy networks with evidence from U. S. health policy. Rationality and Society, 15, 411-440.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, B. (2008). Assessing interorganizational networks for public service delivery: A process-perceived effectiveness framework. Public Performance & Management Review, 31(3), 348-363.
   Google Scholar
• Daily, C. M.; Dalton, D. R.; & Cannella, A. A., Jr. (2003). Corporate governance: Decades of dialogue and data. Academy of Management Journal, 28(3), 371-382.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, G. F. (1991). Agents without principles? The spread of the poison pill through the intercorporate network. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(4), 583-613.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, G. F., & Greve, H. R. (1997). Corporate elite networks and governance changes in the 1980s. American Journal of Sociology, 103(1), 1-37.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, G. F.; Yoo, M.; & Baker, W. (2003). The small world of the American corporate elite: 1982-2001. Strategic Organization, 1(3), 301-326.
   Google Scholar
• Fama, E., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26, 301-325.
   Google Scholar
• Fich, E. M., & White, L. J. (2005). Why do CEOs reciprocally sit on each other's boards? Journal of Corporate Finance, 11(1-2), 175-195.
   Google Scholar
• Galaskiewicz, J. (1997). An urban grants economy revisited: Corporate charitable contributions in the Twin Cities, 1979-81, 1987-89. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 445-471.
   Google Scholar
• Galaskiewicz, J., & Bielefeld, W. (1998). Nonprofit organizations in an age of uncertainty: A study of organizational change. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Galaskiewicz, J., & Wasserman, S. (1989). Mimetic processes within an interorganizational field: An empirical test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(3), 454-479.
   Google Scholar
• Galaskiewicz, J.; Bielefeld, W.; & Dowell, M. (2006). Networks and organizational growth: A study of community based nonprofits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(3), 337-380.
   Google Scholar
• Green, J. C., & Griesinger, D. W. (1996). Board performance and organizational effectiveness in nonprofit social services organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 6(4), 381-402.
   Google Scholar
• Gulati, R., & Westphal, J. D. (1999). Cooperative or controlling? The effects of CEO-board relations and the content of interlocks on the formation of joint ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(3), 473-506.
   Google Scholar
• Hair, J. F.; Anderson, R. E.; Tatham, R. L.; & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis: With readings (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Harlan, S., & Saidel, J. (1994). Board members influence on the government-nonprofit relationship. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 5(2), 173-196.
   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.
   Google Scholar
• Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (1997). Multiple constituencies and the social construction of nonprofit organization effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 26(2), 185-206.
   Google Scholar
• Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (1999). Theses on nonprofit organizational effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(2), 107-126.
   Google Scholar
• Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (2000). Board practices of especially effective and less effective local nonprofit organizations. American Review of Public Administration, 30(2), 146-160.
   Google Scholar
• Higley, J.; Hoffmann-Lange, U.; Kadushin, C.; & Moore, G. (1991). Elite integration in stable democracies: A reconsideration. European Sociological Review, 7(1), 35-53.
   Google Scholar
• Hillman, A. J., & Dalziel, T. (2003). Boards of directors and firm performance: Integrating agency and resource dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 383-396.
   Google Scholar
• Jang, H. S., & Feiock, R. C. (2007). Public versus private funding of nonprofit organizations: Implications for collaboration. Public Performance & Management Review, 31(2), 174-190.
   Google Scholar
• Kistruck, G. (2006) A test of moderated mediation between board size and financial performance in the nonprofit sector. Administrative Sciences Association of Canada Conference: Best Paper Proceedings, 100-119.
   Google Scholar
• Kono, C.; Palmer, D.; Friedland, R.; & Zafonte, M. (1998). Lost in space: The geography of corporate interlocking directorates. American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 863-911.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, D., & Brower, R. S. (2006). Pushing the envelope on organizational effectiveness: Combining an old framework and a sharp tool. Public Performance & Management Review, 30(2), 155-178.
   Google Scholar
• Leroux, K., & Goerdel, H. T. (2009). Political advocacy by nonprofit organizations: A strategic management explanation. Public Performance & Management Review, 32(4), 514-536.
   Google Scholar
• Leveson, N.; Dulac, N.; Marais, K.; & Carroll, J. (2009). Moving beyond normal accidents and high-reliability organizations: A systems approach to safety in complex systems. Organization Studies, 30(2-3), 227-249.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, K.; Gonzalez, M.; & Kaufman, J. (2011). Social selection and peer influence in an online social network. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(1), 68-72.
   Google Scholar
• Marsden, P. V. (1988). Homogeneity in confiding relations. Social Networks, 10, 57-76.
   Google Scholar
• Miller-Millesen, J. L. (2003). Understanding the behavior of nonprofit boards of directors: A theory-based approach. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(4), 521-547.
   Google Scholar
• Mizruchi, M. S. (1982). The American corporate network, 1904-1974. Beverly Hills, CA: 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.
   Google Scholar
• Mizruchi, M. S., & Stearns, L. B. (1994). A longitudinal study of borrowing by large American corporations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(1), 118-140.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, G.; Sobieraj, S.; White, J. A.; Mayorova, O.; & Beaulieu, D. (2002). Elite interlocks in three U. S. sectors: Nonprofit, corporate, and government. Social Science Quarterly, 83(3), 726-744.
   Google Scholar
• Olson, D. E. (2000). Agency theory in the not-for-profit sector: Its role at independent colleges. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(2), 280-296.
   Google Scholar
• Oster, S. M. (1995). Strategic management for nonprofit organizations: Theory and cases. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ostrower, F. (2002). Trustees of culture: Power, wealth, and status on elite arts boards. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ostrower, F., & Stone, M. M. (2006). Boards of nonprofit organizations: Research trends, findings, and prospects for the future. In W. W. Powell & R. Steinberg (Eds.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 612-628). New Haven: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Palmer, D. (1983). Broken ties: Interlocking directorates and intercorporate coordination. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(1), 40-55.
   Google Scholar
• Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
   Google Scholar
• Podolny, J. M. (2001). Networks as the pipes and prisms of the market. American Journal of Sociology, 107(1), 33-60.
   Google Scholar
• Podolny, J. M., & Phillips, D. J. (1996). The dynamics of organizational status. Industrial and Corporate Change, 5(2), 453-472.
   Google Scholar
• Provan, K. G. (1980). Board power and organizational effectiveness among human service agencies. Academy of Management Journal, 23(2), 221-236.
   Google Scholar
• Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (2001). Do networks really work? A framework for evaluating public-sector organizational networks. Public Administrative Review, 61(4), 414-423.
   Google Scholar
• Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 240-267.
   Google Scholar
• Reagans, R.; Zuckerman, E.; & McEvily, B. (2004). How to make the team: Social networks vs. demography as criteria for designing effective teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(1), 101-133.
   Google Scholar
• Shropshire, C. (2010). The role of the interlocking director and board receptivity in the diffusion of practices. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 246-264.
   Google Scholar
• Siciliano, J. I. (1996). The relationship of board member diversity to organizational performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(12), 1313-1320.
   Google Scholar
• Snijders, T. A. B. (2001). The statistical evaluation of social network dynamics. Sociological Methodology, 31, 361-395.
   Google Scholar
• Stearns, L. B., & Mizruchi, M. S. (1986). Broken-tie reconstitution and the functions of interorganizational interlocks: A reexamination. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(4), 522-538.
   Google Scholar
• Steglich, C.; Snijders, T. A. B.; & Pearson, M. (2010). Dynamic networks and behavior: Separating selection from influence. Sociological Methodology, 40, 329-393.
   Google Scholar
• Stone, M. M., & Ostrower, F. (2007). Acting in the public interest? Another look at research on nonprofit governance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(3), 416-438.
   Google Scholar
• Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571-610.
   Google Scholar
• Useem, M. (1984). The inner circle: Large corporations and the rise of business political activity in the US and UK. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Valente, T. W.; Gallaher, P.; & Mouttapa, M. (2004). Using social networks to understand and prevent substance use: A transdisciplinary perspective. Substance Abuse & Misuse, 39, 1685-1712.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, E. T., & McCarthy, J. D. (2010). Legitimacy, strategy, and resources in the survival of community-based organization. Social Problems, 57(3), 315-340.
   Google Scholar
• Westphal, J. D.; Seidel, M. L.; & Stewart, K. J. (2001). Second-order imitation: Uncovering latent effects of board network ties. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4), 717-747.
   Google Scholar
• Zald, M. N., & Lounsbury, M. (2010). The wizards of Oz: Towards an institutional approach to elites, expertise and command posts. Organization Studies, 31(7), 963-996.
   Google Scholar