What's Past Is Prologue: A Framework, Review, and Future Directions for Organizational Research on Imprinting
Abstract
Organizational researchers have long used imprinting as a theoretical lens for a historically embedded understanding of diverse, significant phenomena for explanatory, evaluative, and managerial purposes. The intuitive appeal of imprinting has facilitated its widespread diffusion throughout numerous disciplines and research fields, but the growing fragmentation of associated theory and evidence has blurred our understanding of the nature, sources, and mechanisms of imprinting as well as the context in which imprinting shapes the behavior and outcomes of distinct entities. To address these issues, we begin by developing a framework for generalizing theoretical constructs, statements, and relationships across levels of analysis, contexts, and disciplinary boundaries. Using the core themes of this framework, we next provide a systematic review of 119 imprinting studies allowing for more definitive statements about what we know, do not know, and should know about imprinting. Finally, by building on the review, together with the proposed framework, we chart a focused course for future inquiry and applications for organizational research on imprinting.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Founding conditions leave durable marks long after these conditions pass, and extend to founding teams and the positions they create.
“It holds that founding conditions leave durable marks long after these conditions pass, and extend to founding teams and the positions they create [6,7,8,9].”
From Borrowed Competence: When AI-Driven HR Builds Startups’ People Capability and When It Hollows It Out (2026) · cites this paper as [9]
Cites
Explaining Development and Change in Organizations
van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1995.9508080329 · Cited by 3,762 · see citing works
Pre-Entry Knowledge, Learning, and the Survival of New Firms
Dencker, J. C., Gruber, M., & Shah, S. K. (2009) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1080.0387 · Cited by 369 · see citing works
Co-Evolution of Capabilities and Industry: The Evolution of Mutual Fund Processing
Levinthal, D., & Myatt, J. (1994) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250150905 · Cited by 343 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Chen, L., Tong, T. W., Tang, S., & Han, N. (2022) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/01492063211045023 · Cited by 345 · see citing works
Borrowed Competence: When AI-Driven HR Builds Startups’ People Capability and When It Hollows It Out
Ben Oz, R., Granot, N., Tzabbar, D., & Tzafrir, S. (2026) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7489654
- Authors
- Simsek, Z., Fox, B. C., & Heavey, C.
- Affiliations
- University of Connecticut
- University College Dublin
- Venue
- Journal of Management
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2014-10-03
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 288-317
- ISSN
- 0149-2063
- 1557-1211
- Cited by
- 304
- References
- 3
- Language
- en
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