The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Meta-analysis of Innovation and Organizational Size
Abstract
Findings regarding the direction and intensity of the relation between size and innovation in the literature are contradictory. In the journal Organization Studies in 1992, Damanpour proposed a meta-analytical study in an attempt to clarify the diversity of existing conclusions. The present article is a replica and an extension of that study using the same methodology. Our aim is to (1) bring the pool of accumulated knowledge up to date, examining the time span 1970–2001, and (2) review in greater depth the effects of alternative ways of measuring organizational size. The sample used was made up of 87 correlations drawn from 53 empirical studies published in the most important journals on business administration. The analysis enabled us to confirm the existence of a significant and positive correlation between size and innovation. It also provided evidence showing that the contradictory results obtained in previous studies are due to divergences in the methods used to operationalize one, or more, of the variables to be analysed. The main contribution made by our work stems from the fact that the empirical analysis performs a more thorough breakdown of the definitions of the size variable used in the literature. This may well be a first step toward justifying the differences in the results of the primary studies that analyse the relation under examination.
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
Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research
Rosenthal, R. (1991) · doi:10.4135/9781412984997 · Cited by 4,635
Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., & Kim, H. (1997) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256948 · Cited by 2,855
Atuahene-Gima, K., & Ko, A. (2001) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.12.1.54.10121 · Cited by 1,008
Modelling the innovation process: An empirical comparison of approaches
King, N. (1992) · Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1992.tb00487.x · Cited by 193
Communication as a determinant of organizational innovation
Kivimäki, M., Länsisalmi, H., Elovainio, M., Heikkilä, A., Lindström, K., Harisalo, R., Sipilä, K., & Puolimatka, L. (2000) · R&D Management · doi:10.1111/1467-9310.00155 · Cited by 138
Cited by
Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206314527128 · Cited by 3,103
Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2006) · British Journal of Management · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00498.x · Cited by 1,296
Drivers and barriers of eco‐innovation types for sustainable transitions: A quantitative perspective
Kiefer, C. P., Del Río González, P., & Carrillo‐Hermosilla, J. (2019) · Business Strategy and the Environment · doi:10.1002/bse.2246 · Cited by 379
Service innovation and performance in SMEs
McDermott, C. M., & Prajogo, D. I. (2012) · International Journal of Operations & Production Management · doi:10.1108/01443571211208632 · Cited by 226
Adopting and assimilating new non-pharmaceutical technologies into health care: A systematic review
Robert, G., Greenhalgh, T., Macfarlane, F., & Peacock, R. (2010) · Journal of Health Services Research & Policy · doi:10.1258/jhsrp.2010.009137 · Cited by 119
Adopting and Refining e-services—The Role of Organization Size
Jacobsen, D. I. (2018) · Public Organization Review · doi:10.1007/s11115-016-0364-0 · Cited by 18
How can nonprofit boards innovate for growth? An integrative‐systematic review
Richardson, S., Kelly, S. J., & Gillespie, N. (2023) · Nonprofit Management and Leadership · doi:10.1002/nml.21563 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- Camisón-Zornoza, C., Lapiedra-Alcamí, R., Segarra-Ciprés, M., & Boronat-Navarro, M.
- Venue
- Organization Studies
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2004-03
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 331-361
- ISSN
- 0170-8406 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-3044
- OpenAlex
- W2119840165
- Cited by
- 607
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 4.51
- 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
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.