The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Organizational Complexity and Innovation: Developing and Testing Multiple Contingency Models
Abstract
Current research in organizational innovation is extensive, yet, because of limitations in scope, most studies are not adequately encompassing. These studies typically relate organizational variables to innovation and control at most for the effect of one contingency factor. Because innovation depends upon a complex host of factors, such theories have limited predictive application. This study intends to develop and test theories that explain the variation in the organizational complexity-innovation relationship in greater detail. The study considers two major indicators of organizational complexity—structural complexity and organizational size. Hypotheses are proposed on the effects of 14 contingency factors on the relationships between structural complexity and innovation and organizational size and innovation. The contingency factors include environmental uncertainty, organizational size, industrial sectors, types of innovation, and stages of innovation adoption. Using a meta-analytic procedure for multivariate analysis, the hypotheses are then tested with data from published studies in organizational innovation during the last three decades. The effects of four methods variables—operational definitions of innovation, structural complexity and size, and similarity of data sources—are controlled for in testing the hypotheses. This process results in two powerful and encompassing models: (1) the association between structural complexity and innovation depends upon operational definition of complexity, environmental uncertainty, use of manufacturing organizations, use of service organizations, focus on technical innovations, focus on product innovations, and focus on implementation of innovation; and (2) the association between organizational size and innovation depends upon operational definition of size, environmental uncertainty, use of service organizations, use of for-profit organizations, focus on technical innovations, and focus on product innovations. These models suggest avenues for further theory development and research, which we discuss.
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
Hunter, J., & Schmidt, F. (2004) · doi:10.4135/9781412985031 · Cited by 3,023
Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms: Two models of strategic momentum
Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1982) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250030102 · Cited by 2,758
Cited by
Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organizations: Systematic Review and Recommendations
GREENHALGH, T., ROBERT, G., MACFARLANE, F., BATE, P., & KYRIAKIDOU, O. (2004) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.0887-378x.2004.00325.x · Cited by 7,448
Foss, N. J., & Saebi, T. (2017) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206316675927 · Cited by 1,907
Zhu, K., & Kraemer, K. L. (2005) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1050.0045 · Cited by 1,723
Zhu, K., Kraemer, K. L., & Xu, S. (2006) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1050.0487 · Cited by 1,440
Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2006) · British Journal of Management · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00498.x · Cited by 1,296
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Damanpour, F.
- Venue
- Management Science
- Published
- 1996-05
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 693-716
- ISSN
- 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5501
- OpenAlex
- W2125198632
- Cited by
- 1,466
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 14.69
- 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: Organizational Complexity and Innovation: Developing and Testing Multiple Contingency Models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/mnsc.42.5.693
- The paper
- Damanpour, F. (1996). Organizational Complexity and Innovation: Developing and Testing Multiple Contingency Models. Management Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.42.5.693
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.