Ideological homophily in board composition and interlock networks: Do liberal directors inhibit viewpoint diversity?

Abstract

Research issue: A consistent feature of social networks is homophily: the tendency for people to interact with similar others. Psychological and sociological research suggests that homophily is most pronounced along ideological lines, with conflicting evidence as to whether this tendency is higher among individuals who hold liberal or conservative beliefs. Based on this literature, we conduct the first study of ideological homophily in two key organizational networks: the intrafirm connections among directors on the board and the interfirm connections created by board interlocks.Research insights: In a panel of 408 U.S. firms between 2000 and 2020, we find that liberalism increases homophily both within and between boards. Furthermore, we find that homophily has decreased over time but that this has been driven by conservative boards while the effect of liberalism has strengthened in recent years. These findings provide the first evidence for an ideological component in the composition of intra-and interorganizational networks.Academic implications: Most research on director selection and interlock formation has focused on situational or demographic antecedents. Our findings contribute to the development of a broader theoretical framework that accounts for individual dispositional factors in these processes.Practitioner implications: Our findings bring attention to the issue of ideological homogeneity in firms. Given the growth of homophilic tendencies among liberal directors in recent years, we suggest that it may be increasingly important for directors to become aware, and mitigate the effects, of their ideological biases in order to maintain cognitive diversity in information networks and decision making.

Board diversity’s antecedents and consequences: A review and research agenda

“…Most of the previous studies focus on single dimensions of surface-level diversity (e.g., gender, age, ethnicity), measured through simple and easy to operationalize proxiessuch as dummies indicating the presence or the absence of a characteristic within the board (Gow, Wahid, & Yu, 2018), the number or proportion of directors with a characteristic (Chen & Guay, 2020;Iliev & Roth, 2018) or a combination of these proxies (Krishnan et al, 2011). Looking at the type of diversity, the aforementioned 'usual suspects' dominate the literature, but recently, new 'types', such a political or ideological diversity (e.g., Lee, Lee & Nagarajan, 2014;Hudson & Morgan, 2021), prestige (Tuggle et al, 2022) and linguistic diversity (Bazel-Shoham et al, 2020) have been analyzed.…”

The case for robust academic research on corporate governance

“…A study by Kerry Hudson and Robert Morgan is the Editor's Pick for issue 3. Hudson and Morgan (2022) investigate how a well-known feature of social networks, that is, the tendency of people to interact with similar others (homophily), affects viewpoint diversity on corporate boards. They find that liberalism increases homophily within and across boards, whereas conservative boards tend to decrease homophily.…”

Audit engagement partner ideology, ideological homophily, and audit quality

“…Additionally, Hudson and Morgan (2021) document differential preferences for ideological similarity between liberal board members and conservative board members. Specifically, these authors find that boards dominated by liberals (conservatives) tend to be more (less) ideologically homophilous, and this effect is increasing over time.…”