What is it about?
Directors on boards of nonprofit organizations can have additional director positions in other nonprofit organizations. When several of these interlocking directors exist for a group of nonprofit organizations, a board network is formed. We investigate to what extent similarity between organizations in terms of size, funding structure and operational activities relates to the presence of shared board members between organizations. For a network of 610 organizations we test and confirm that board networks are not formed at random, but that similarity of organizational characteristics explains interlocking behaviour, and that clusters of similar organizations exist within the overall nonprofit sector. Given this observation we propose three areas for further research. In particular we discuss opportunities regarding potential effects of network clustering, the causal direction of the relationship found, and the complementarity of the board network to other social networks in the nonprofit sector.
Featured Image
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: EXPLORING BOARD INTERLOCKING BEHAVIOUR BETWEEN NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS, Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, February 2015, Wiley,
DOI: 10.1111/apce.12067.
You can read the full text:
Resources
Related Project:
In this project, we work on several research questions that relate to the governance of social profit and public goals. In particular, we are intrigued by the growing role of governance networks within and across organizations and sectors.
Figure: largest component of network intrastructure of the Belgian nonprofit board-of-directors network
Figure 1 gives a representation of the largest connected component of the board-director network in Belgium. A component is a part of a network where every node is at least connected to any other node in that component, but is not connected to a node of another component. This largest component comprises in total 442 boards (squares) and 693 directors that have at least two board positions (rounds). Furthermore, the total network also includes 47 other but much smaller components. Looking at the example of this largest component, and combining it with the findings of a higher likeliness of observing an interlocking director when organizations are similar, clarifies how organizations can be different regarding clustering. Some organizations are highly connected to many other organizations, while others are only peripherally connected through a single string of boards and directors to the core group of organizations. As a result, the observation can be made that organizations tend to cluster based on organizational similarity, but that this happens to a varying and gradual extent.
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
