The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Organizational Life Cycles and Shifting Criteria of Effectiveness: Some Preliminary Evidence
Abstract
This paper discusses the relationships between stage of development in organizational life cycles and organizational effectiveness. We begin the paper by reviewing nine models of organizational life cycles that have been proposed in the literature. Each of these models identifies certain characteristics that typify organizations in different stages of development. A summary model of life cycle stages is derived that integrates each of these nine models. Next, a framework of organizational effectiveness developed by Quinn and Rohrbaugh is introduced. This framework organizes criteria of effectiveness into four models—rational goal, open systems, human relations, and internal processes models. We hypothesize that certain of the models are important in evaluating the effectiveness of organizations in particular life cycle stages but not in others. The analysis of a state agency's development over five years provides some evidence to support these hypothesized relationships between life cycle stages and criteria of effectiveness. We conclude that major criteria of effectiveness change in predictable ways as organizations develop through their life cycles. Some shifts in state of development are resisted by the organization much more than are others, and intervention into organizations may be needed to help make the transitions less painful and costly. We also discuss why the predictions of contingency theory often are not substantiated by research because the responses of organizations to the external environment vary in different life cycle stages.
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
Cited by
Clarifying the Entrepreneurial Orientation Construct and Linking It to Performance
Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1996.9602161568 · Cited by 10,159
Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: a configurational approach
Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. (2005) · Journal of Business Venturing · doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.01.001 · Cited by 3,196
Professional Learning Communities: A Review of the Literature
Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006) · Journal of Educational Change · doi:10.1007/s10833-006-0001-8 · Cited by 2,570
Actualizing organizational memory with information systems
Stein, E. W., & Zwass, V. (1995) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.6.2.85 · Cited by 843
Ensley, M. D., Hmieleski, K. M., & Pearce, C. L. (2006) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.002 · Cited by 820
Souto, J. E. (2015) · Tourism Management · doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2015.05.017 · Cited by 324
Technology-based, “adolescent” firm configurations
Bantel, K. A. (1998) · Journal of Business Venturing · doi:10.1016/s0883-9026(97)00033-5 · Cited by 176
Elsayed, K., & Wahba, H. (2016) · Future Business Journal · doi:10.1016/j.fbj.2016.05.001 · Cited by 58
Organizational Contexts and Contingent Leadership Roles: A Theoretical Exploration
Egglestonl, K. K., & Bhagat, R. S. (1993) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/001872679304601002 · Cited by 12
Academic Libraries and Toxic Leadership
Ortega, A. (2019) · doi:10.22371/05.2019.001 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Quinn, R. E., & Cameron, K.
- Venue
- Management Science
- Published
- 1983-01
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 33-51
- ISSN
- 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5501
- OpenAlex
- W1999318410
- Cited by
- 1,755
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 23.60
- 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.