The moderating effect of national culture on board interlocks’ impact on firm performance: A meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globalization has made it essential to examine the effectiveness of management practices in different cultural contexts. This study employs a meta-analysis method to explore the effects of board interlocks across cultures. Based on 56 empirical studies with 121 correlations between board interlocks and firm performance, this meta-analytic study shows a positive relationship between board interlocks and firm performance. It further demonstrates that the widely examined cultural dimensions including individualism vs. collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity vs. femininity, and long-term vs. short-term orientation do not influence the impact of board interlocks on firm performance across cultures. The exception to this is that power distance and indulgence negatively moderate the relationship between board interlocks and firm performance: the impact of board interlocks on firm performance is stronger in cultures characterized by high power distance and low restraint. The findings of this study can help enrich the research on board interlocks and provide insights for international management.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".