The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Thinking about U : Theorizing and testing U ‐ and inverted U ‐shaped relationships in strategy research
Abstract
Research summary : U ‐ and inverted U ‐shaped relationships are increasingly explored in strategy research, with 11 percent of all articles published in S trategic M anagement J ournal ( SMJ ) in 2008–2012 investigating such quadratic relationships. Moreover, a movement towards introducing moderation to quadratic relationships has emerged. By reviewing 110 articles published in SMJ from 1980 to 2012, we identify several critical issues in theorizing and testing of these relationships for which current practice falls short. These include insufficient causal argumentation, incorrect testing, mixing up two different types of moderation, and not realizing that the curve can flip completely. For these and other issues, a guideline is provided which, when followed, may bring clarity to theoretical motivation and rigor to empirical testing . Managerial summary : Too much can be as bad as too little. Many relationships in strategic management follow an inverted U ‐shaped pattern, where moderate levels of a strategy lead to optimal performance. To gain deeper insights into the conventional wisdom that too much of a good thing can be harmful to performance, we discuss how such relationships can be better theorized and tested based on a review of articles exploring U ‐shaped relationships in S trategic M anagement J ournal during 1980–2012. We identify several critical issues that require close attention and provide a guideline to further develop and validate this important managerial intuition . Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning
March, J. G. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71 · Cited by 21,942
Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion
Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2009) · doi:10.1515/9781400829828 · Cited by 9,467
Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.507 · Cited by 6,324
Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion
Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2008) · doi:10.2307/j.ctvcm4j72 · Cited by 5,051
Cited by
Understanding AI adoption in manufacturing and production firms using an integrated TAM-TOE model
Chatterjee, S., Rana, N. P., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Baabdullah, A. M. (2021) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120880 · Cited by 825
Finding goldilocks influencers: How follower count drives social media engagement
Wies, S., Bleier, A., & Edeling, A. (2023) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/00222429221125131 · Cited by 326
A Blessing and a Curse: How CEOs’ Trait Empathy Affects Their Management of Organizational Crises
König, A., Graf-Vlachy, L., Bundy, J., & Little, L. M. (2020) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2017.0387 · Cited by 237
Ego-Network Stability and Innovation in Alliances
Kumar, P., & Zaheer, A. (2019) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2016.0819 · Cited by 171
Chuang, H. H., Oliva, R., & Heim, G. R. (2019) · Production and Operations Management · doi:10.1111/poms.13055 · Cited by 101
Metadata
- Authors
- Haans, R. F. J., Pieters, C., & He, Z.
- Venue
- Strategic Management Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-06-28
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1177-1195
- ISSN
- 0143-2095 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0266
- OpenAlex
- W1799410249
- Cited by
- 2,417
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 158.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Thinking about U : Theorizing and testing U ‐ and inverted U ‐shaped relationships in strategy research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/smj.2399
- The paper
- Haans, R. F. J., Pieters, C., & He, Z. (2016). Thinking about U : Theorizing and testing U ‐ and inverted U ‐shaped relationships in strategy research. Strategic Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2399
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.