Strategic Implications of Board Interlocks: A Literature Review and Future Research Agenda
Joyce C. WangABSTRACT
Research Question/Issue
Board interlocks, stemming from directors' concurrent board appointments, have been viewed as a double‐edged sword that can generate both positive and negative effects, hinging on strategic outcomes and a multitude of contextual variables. The fragmented research efforts call for a literature review of strategic implications of board interlocks.
Research Findings/Insights
Our review of 126 articles published in 54 high‐quality academic journals between 2008 and 2024 summarizes the scholarly discourse regarding strategic roles of board interlocks. Meanwhile, we document the multifaceted nature of board interlocks. Centering on strategic outcomes, we systematically organize our shortlisted articles into five research clusters that bridge board interlocks and (1) board governance, (2) growth strategies, (3) broad financial practices, (4) nonmarket strategies, and (5) firm performances.
Theoretical/Academic Implications
This narrative review consolidates the largely fragmented literature on board interlocks across disciplines. Going beyond competing views of board interlocks—a resource access lens or a monitoring effectiveness lens—we highlight the expanding strategic implications of board interlocks across broader institutional contexts. By surveying core research ideas in prior studies, we endeavor to synthesize board interlocks research, sharpen our understanding of their strategic roles, and decipher underexplored topics for future research.
Practitioner/Policy Implications
The expanding strategic implications of board interlocks in wider institutional contexts suggest that recommendations for tie formation or dissolution need to be tailored to strategic outcomes and multilevel contextual variables, such as interlocking directors, interlocked firms, and formal and informal institutions.