Focusing on business leaders in control of Fortune 500 companies, this study examines corporate interlock among CEOs with security exchange commission (SEC) violations and CEOs without. Using affiliation networks built from publicly available information, we analyzed rates of participation (outdegree centrality), organizational influence (indegree centrality), and brokerage (betweenness centrality). The findings suggest that a single, integrated network exists. However, within these interlocking directorates, subsets of executives exhibit substantial cohesion suggesting the presence of distinct social circles. Only a few organizations and individuals were found to link the subset of offending CEOs to their law-abiding counterparts. Moreover, SEC violators were more socially isolated, thereby increasing the influence of weak ties to active executives playing a controlling role within the network.
AllenJ.JamesA.GamlenP. (2007). Formal versus informal knowledge networks in R&D: A case study using social network analysis. R&D Management, 37, 179-196.
2.
BakerW. E.FaulknerR. R. (1993). The social organization of conspiracy: Illegal networks in the heavy electrical equipment industry. American Sociological Review, 58, 837-860.
3.
BalkundiP.KilduffM. (2005). The ties that lead: A social network approach to leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 941-961.
4.
BaucusM.NearJ. (1991). Can illegal corporate behavior be predicted? An event history analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 9-36.
5.
BorgattiS. P. (2009, October1). Things I have wanted to say about the analysis of 2-mode networks but hadn’t had the opportunity to until now. Presentation at Conference and Workshop on Two-Mode Social Network Analysis, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Retrieved from http://steveborgatti.com/research.htm
6.
BorgattiS. P.EverettM. G.FreemanL. C. (2006). UCINET for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
7.
CarrollW. K.SapinskiJ. P. (2011). Corporate elites and intercorporate networks. In ScottJ.CarringtonP. J. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social network analysis (pp. 180-195). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
8.
ClinardM. B. (1983). Corporate ethics and crime. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
9.
ClinardM. B.YeagerP. C. (1980). Corporate crime. New York, NY: The Free Press.
10.
CrossR.ParkerA. (2004). The hidden power of social networks. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
11.
de NooyW.MrvarA.BatageljV. (2005). Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
12.
FreemanL. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215-239.
13.
GalaskiewiczJ. (1997). An urban grants economy revisited: Corporate charitable contributions in the Twin Cities, 1979-81, 1987-89. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 445-471.
14.
GalaskiewiczJ.WassermanS. (1991). A dynamic study of change in a regional corporate network. American Sociological Review, 46, 475-484.
15.
GeisG. (1995). The heavy electrical equipment antitrust cases of 1961. In GeisG.MeierR.SalingerL. (Eds.), White-collar crime: Classic and contemporary views (3rd ed., pp. 151-165) ). New York, NY: The Free Press. (Original work published 1967)
16.
GranovetterM. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380.
17.
HargadonA. B.SuttonR. I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 716-749.
18.
HenningJ. (1973). Corporate social responsibility: Shell game for the seventies? In NaderR.GreenM. (Eds.), Corporate power in America (pp. 65-78). New York, NY: Grossman.
19.
JanicikG. A.LarrickR. P. (2005). Social network schemas and the learning of incomplete networks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 348-364.
20.
KilduffM.TsaiW. (2003). Social networks and organizations. London, England: Sage.
MalmA.BichlerG. (2011). Networks of collaborating criminals: Assessing the structural vulnerability of drug markets. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 48, 271-297.
23.
MarinA.WellmanB. (2011). Social network analysis: An introduction. In ScottJ.CarringtonP. J. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social network analysis (pp. 11-25). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
MintzB.SchwartzM. (1985). The power structure of American business. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
26.
MizruchiM. S. (1996). What do interlocks do? An analysis, critique, and assessment of research on interlocking directorates. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 217-298.
27.
MorselliC.RoyJ. (2008). Brokerage qualifications in ringing operations. Criminology, 46, 71-98.
28.
MullenB.SalasC. (1991). Effects of communication network structure: Components of positional centrality. Social Networks, 13, 169-185.
29.
NashR.BouchardM.MalmA. E. (2013). Investing in people: The role of social networks in the diffusion of a large-scale fraud. Social Networks, 35, 686-698.
30.
PerrucciR.PilisukM. (1970). Leaders and ruling elites: The interorganizational basis of community power. American Sociological Review, 36, 1040-1057.
31.
PfefferJ.SalancikG. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
32.
PiqueroN. L.SchoepferA.LangtonL. (2009). Completely out of control or the desire to be in complete control? How low self-control and the desire for control relate to corporate offending. Crime & Delinquency, 56, 627-647.
33.
PodolnyJ.PageK. (1998). Network forms of organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 57-76.
34.
PowellW. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 295-336.
35.
PowellW. W.KoputK. W.Smith-DoerrL. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 116-145.
36.
SchragerL.ShortJ. (1978). Toward a sociology of organizational crime. Social Problems, 25, 407-419.
37.
ScottJ. (1991). Networks of corporate power: A comparative assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 17, 181-203.
38.
SimpsonS.KoperC. (1997). The changing of the guard: Top management characteristics, organizational strain, and antitrust offending. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 13, 373-404.
39.
SonquistJ.KoenigT. (1975). Interlocking directorates in the top U.S. corporations: A graph theory approach. Insurgent Sociologist, 5, 196-229.
40.
SutherlandE. (1949). White collar crime. New York, NY: Holt.
41.
UzziB. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 61, 674-698.
42.
WassermanS.FaustK. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications.NewYork, NY: Cambridge University Press.
43.
WeisburdD.ChayetE.WaringE. (1990). White-collar crime and criminal careers: Some preliminary findings. Crime & Delinquency, 36, 342-355.
44.
WestphalJ.BoivieS.Han Ming ChngD. (2006). The strategic impetus for social network ties: Reconstituting broken CEO friendship ties. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 425-445.
