Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,466

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

Damanpour, Fariborz·1996·Management Science

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1287/mnsc.42.5.693

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 1,466

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.