> The conclusion of your article doesn't seem echo Doug's read ...
>
> "Conclusion
> The study of interlocking directors has been useful to power
> structure researchers in helping us to define the corporate community
> and to learn something about how boards function. These studies show
> that many corporate leaders don't just sit at their home corporation
> attending to their own business. Through meeting together on boards
> of directors, those who are interlocking directors develop social
> cohesion and shared perspectives to go with their economic power
> bases.
>
> I believe this is why such people are the core of the leadership
> group for the upper class and the corporate community, which I call
> the "power elite.""
Well, I was keying off Doug's comment: "...but I can say that these overlaps just don't seem all that significant." In the words of Domhoff's essay, I'd say that Doug found no "strategic intent" in the composition of corporate boards:
"This generates a community of directors who are not sitting on two or more boards for the purpose of cementing ties between the companies, i.e., with what is called "strategic intent" [...], but because they have experience with the kinds of issues that boards face."
I view the quote(s) you selected as a comment on the more general question of how social networks of the wealthy maintain ruling class power, and I'd assume that Doug would support that analysis, but let me not speak for him.
Best, Charles