The Networked Boardroom: Director Network Centrality and Firm Performance in Malaysia

Achieving consistent firm performance is a crucial issue in strategic management and corporate governance research. This study uses Social Network Theory to present a network-based perspective and Resource Dependence Theory to suggests that directors' networks can serve as strategic governance resources. These networks help firms obtain essential external resources and reduce their dependence on the environment, thereby improving firm performance, as indicated by changes in return on assets. Additionally, the study claims that directors with extensive and influential interlocking networks give firms easier access to valuable information, legitimacy, and resource pathways. This support enhances strategic decision-making, resulting in better performance. Using secondary data from 579 publicly listed Malaysian firms in the consumer products and services sectors between 2017 and 2019, and applying content analysis of social networks and panel regression methods, the findings firmly back the proposed framework. The results indicate that a director's network positively and significantly impacts firm performance across all centrality dimensions. This finding means that firms with more centrally located and well-connected directors achieve better performance improvements. Overall, this study emphasizes a director's network as a unique source of performance advantage, distinct from traditional governance methods. By combining network-based corporate governance with the dynamic capability perspective, the study broadens our understanding of how firms in emerging, relationship-driven institutional settings use director networks to boost adaptive efficiency and maintain performance improvements.

director networks, firm performance, corporate governance, social network theory, resource dependency theory

1. Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17–40. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Aguilera, R. V., Judge, W. Q., & Terjesen, S. (2019). Corporate governance in emerging markets. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 27(1), 2–16. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bai, X., Krishnan, R., & Wang, H. (2021). Social network centrality and firm innovation: Evidence from board interlocks. Journal of Business Research, 129, 280–292. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bonacich, P. (1987). Power and centrality: A family of measures. American Journal of Sociology, 92(5), 1170–1182. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Carpenter, M. A., Li, M., & Jiang, H. (2012). Social network research in organizational contexts: A systematic review of methodological issues and choices. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1328–1361 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Chen, Y., Wang, Y., & Lin, L. (2014). Board networks and tunneling behavior. China Journal of Accounting Research, 7(4), 251–266. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Claessens, S., & Fan, J. P. H. (2002). Corporate governance in Asia: A survey. International Review of Finance, 3(2), 71–103. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Claessens, S., & Yafeh, Y. (2021). Corporate groups and economic performance: A survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 59(1), 225–276 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1), 39–67. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Cross, R., & Parker, A. (2004). The hidden power of social networks. Harvard Business School Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Fan, J. P. H., Wong, T. J., & Zhang, T. (2022). Institutional context and director networks in emerging markets. In M. Wright, G. T. Wood, A. Cuervo-Cazurra, P. Sun, I. Filatotchev, & G. D. Bruton (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of State Capitalism and the Firm (pp. 513–536). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Fang, V. W., Tian, X., & Tice, S. (2014). Does stock liquidity enhance or impede firm innovation? The Journal of Finance, 69(5), 2085–2125. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Fang, R., Chi, L., Chen, M., & Baron, R. A. (2015). Bringing political skill into social networks: Findings from a field study of entrepreneurs. Journal of Management Studies, 52(2), 175–212 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Ferris, S. P., Jagannathan, M., & Pritchard, A. C. (2003). Too busy to mind the business? Journal of Finance, 58(3), 1087–1111. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Fich, Eliezer M. & Shivdasani, Anil. (2006). Are Busy Boards Effective Monitors? The Journal of Finance, 61(2), 689–724. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Flatten, T. C., Engelen, A., Zahra, S. A., & Brettel, M. (2011). Absorptive capacity measure. European Management Journal, 29(2), 98–116. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks. Social Networks, 1(3), 215–239. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Ghazali, N., Ahmad, A., & Othman, S. (2022). Board networks and institutional environments in Malaysia: The role of political and family ties. Journal of Asian Business and Economic Studies, 29(2), 145–163. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Gómez, E. T. (2004). Paradoxes of Governance: Ownership and Control of Corporate Malaysia. In The Governance of East Asian Corporations (pp. 117–137). Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380 22. Gulati, R., & Westphal, J. D. (1999). Dark side of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 62–95. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Harjoto, M. A., & Wang, J. (2020). Board diversity and CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(1), 1–23. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Harjoto, M. A., & Wang, Y. (2024). Board network centrality and financial performance: The mediating role of sustainability performance. International Journal of Accounting & Information Management, 32(2), 245–271. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. He, L., & Huang, Z. (2023). Director networks, strategic decisions, and firm performance: A social capital perspective. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 31(2), 114–132. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. 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] [Crossref]

26. Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2005). Managing absorptive capacity. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 999–1015. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Johnson, S. G., Schnatterly, K., & Hill, A. D. (2013). Board composition beyond independence: Social capital, human capital, and demographics. Journal of Management, 39(1), 232–262. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. (2000). Group affiliation profitability. Journal of Finance, 55(2), 867–891. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. (1997). Why focused strategies may be wrong for emerging markets. Harvard Business Review, 75(4), 41–51. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Khatib, S. F. A., Abdullah, D. F., Elamer, A., & Hazaea, S. A. (2022). The development of corporate governance literature in Malaysia: a systematic literature review and research agenda. Corporate Governance, 22(5), 1026–1053. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Kim, W., Kim, W., & Park, K. S. (2022). A survey of research on the corporate governance of Korean firms. Asian Review of Financial Research, 35(1), 151–213. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Kirchmaier, T., & Stathopoulos, K. (2008). Corporate ownership and control: New evidence from Europe (ECGI Finance Working Paper No. 197/2008). European Corporate Governance Institute. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Larcker, D. F., So, E. C., & Wang, C. C. Y. (2013). Boardroom centrality and firm performance. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 55(2–3), 225–250. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Liu, C., Liao, Z., & Zhang, Y. (2023). Do interlocking directorates improve CSR performance or just reputation? Journal of Corporate Finance, 80, 102367. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Lin, X., Liu, M., & Ni, Y. (2022). Director networks and corporate outcomes: A review. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 30(2), 123–145. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Liu, J., Sun, W., & Zhang, T. (2023). Interlocking directorates and firm innovation. Research Policy, 52(1), 103–117. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Liu, Y., Miletkov, M. K., Wei, Z., & Yang, T. (2015). Board independence and firm performance in China. Journal of Corporate Finance, 30, 223–244. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Ministry of Finance Malaysia. (2017). Laporan Ekonomi 2017/2018. Putrajaya, Malaysia: Ministry of Finance Malaysia. Retrieved from https://www.mof.gov.my [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Munir, R., & Baird, K. (2020). Institutional influences and the adoption of corporate governance practices in Malaysia. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 33(4), 437–454. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Nezami, M., Chisam, N., & Palmatier, R. W. (2024). Network centrality and firm performance: A metaanalysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 52(2), 522–555. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Omer, T. C., Shelley, M. K., & Tice, F. M. (2014). Do director networks matter for financial reporting quality? Contemporary Accounting Research, 31(2), 518–550. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Ozili, P. K., & Arun, T. G. (2020). Corporate governance and financial stability. Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, 28(3), 375–399. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Park, K. M., & Oh, W.-Y. (2023). Network centrality, board interlocks, and market returns: Evidence from strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 44(6), 1113–1132. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Peng, M. W., Sun, S. L., Pinkham, B., & Chen, H. (2009). The institution-based view as a third leg for a strategy tripod. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(3), 63–81. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Plecher, H. (2020). Indonesia: Unemployment rate from 1999 to 2020. Statista. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Rao, H., & Greve, H. R. (2018). Disasters and community resilience: Spanish flu and the evolution of organizational capabilities in U.S. cities. Academy of Management Journal, 61(6), 2020–2046. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Reagans, R., & Zuckerman, E. W. (2011). Productivity: The Networks, Diversity, and of Corporate R & D Teams Capital. Organization. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Renneboog, L., & Zhao, Y. (2011). Director networks and takeover performance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 17(5), 1136–1157. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Rumokoy, D. F. D., Liu, W., & Chung, C. N. (2024). The effect of board interlock centrality on corporate cash holdings: Evidence from the ASX. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 84, 102349. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Shi, W., Connelly, B. L., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2021). External knowledge search, interlocking director networks, and firm innovation. Research Policy, 50(1), 104119. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Shipilov, A. V., & Li, S. X. (2008). The missing link: The effect of customers on the formation of interorganizational ties. Organization Science, 19(4), 389–406. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Shipilov, A., Greve, H. R., & Rowley, T. (2014). Network advantage: How to unlock value from your alliances and partnerships. Harvard Business Review Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Shipilov, A., Li, S., Bothner, M., & Truong, N. (2023). Network advantage: Uncontested structural holes and organizational performance in market crises. Strategic Management Journal, 44(13), 3122–3154. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Shipilov, A. V., & Li, S. X. (2012). The missing link: The effect of customers on the formation of relationships among producers in the multiplex triads. Organization Science, 23(2), 472–491 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. Silva, F., Majluf, N., & Paredes, R. D. (2006). Family ties, interlocking directors and performance of business groups in emerging countries: The case of Chile. Journal of Business Research, 59(3), 315–321. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355–374. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. Stahl, F., Brewster, C., Collings, D. G., & Hajro, A. (2021). Enhancing innovation through external knowledge sourcing: The moderating role of board interlocks. Industrial Marketing Management, 93, 263– 275. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. Stephenson, K., & Zelen, M. (1989). Rethinking centrality: Methods and applications. Social Networks, 11(1), 1–37. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and micro foundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. Tian, J., Haleblian, J., & Rajagopalan, N. (2011). The effects of board human and social capital on investor reactions to new CEO selection. Strategic Management Journal, 32(7), 735–754. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. Tian, J. J., Haleblian, J., & Rajagopalan, N. (2021). The effects of board ties on firm performance: A metaanalysis. Strategic Organization, 19(2), 239–272. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. Zaheer, A., & Bell, G. G. (2005). Benefiting from network position: Firm capabilities, structural holes, and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26(9), 809–825. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

66. Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

67. Zhang, X., Zhang, T., & Zhao, Y. (2023). The core of board networks and firm value. Frontiers in Physics, 11, 1205626. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

68. Zona, F., Gomez-Mejia, L.R. & Withers, M.C. (2018). Board Interlocks and Firm Performance: Toward a Combined Agency–Resource Dependence Perspective. Journal of Management. 44(2), 589–618. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Role of Value and Growth Stocks in Portfolio Returns: Insights From the Nigerian Stock Market
• The Impact of Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG) and Profitability on Firm Value Moderated by Firm Size
• Assessment of the Impact of Environmental Operating Costs on Return on Assets: Evidence from Listed Breweries in Nigeria
• Mobile Money and Digital Financial Services Ecosystem in Adamawa State
• A Quantitative Approach of Professional Skepticism and Fraud Detection among Malaysian Internal Auditors