Arthur Stinchcombe's "liability of newness": Contribution and impact of the construct
Journal of Management History, ISSN: 1758-7751, Vol: 18, Issue: 4, Page: 402-418
2012
- 84Citations
- 164Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
Purpose: This conceptual paper aims at providing the readers of the Journal of Management History with an evaluation of the overall impact of Arthur Stinchcombe's liability of newness construct on the management literature about organizational evolution over time. Design/methodology/approach: The paper adopts an historical approach for discussing the development of those theoretical and empirical trajectories which, drawing on Stinchcombe's seminal underpinnings, have been developed by scholars over the second half of the twentieth century. The most recent enhancements on this topic are also discussed. Findings: The analysis demonstrates that the impact of the liability of newness on the related literature is great and twofold. On the one hand, it emerges that this concept has directly inspired a number of subsequently formulated constructs, such as the liabilities of smallness, adolescence and aging. On the other hand, it is evidenced that Stinchcombe's seminal insights still constitute one of the most fascinating bases for directing and positioning scholarly efforts within the organizational evolution research domain to date. Originality/value: The value of this paper is that it adopts a unique way for examining the development of a number of theoretical frameworks and empirical inquiries variously associated with the liability of newness over time. Three time decades are historically identified and the links among them are deepened. © Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Bibliographic Details
Emerald
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know