The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Change and Complementarities in the New Competitive Landscape: A European Panel Study, 1992–1996
Abstract
This paper addresses three weaknesses in the literature on new organizational forms: the limited mapping of the extent of contemporary organizational change; confusion about how contemporary changes link together; and the lack of systematic testing of the performance consequences of this kind of change. Drawing on a large-scale survey of organizational innovation in European firms, the paper finds widespread but not revolutionary change in terms of organization structure, processes, and boundaries. Using the economics notion of complementarities, the paper develops contingency and configurational approaches to suggest that organizational innovations will tend to cluster in particular ways and that the performance benefits of these innovations depend on their clustering. Complementarities in performance are explored from both inductive and deductive perspectives. Consistent with the expectations of complementarity theory, high-performing firms appeared to be innovating more and differently than low-performing firms. Again consistent with complementarities, piecemeal changes—with the exception of IT—were found to deliver little performance benefit, while exploitation of the full set of innovations was associated with high performance. Though few European firms were found to exploit the complementarities of new organizational practices, those that did enjoyed high-performance premia.
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
Dess, G. G., & Robinson, R. B. (1984) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250050306 · Cited by 3,337
MANAGERIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH COMPANY PERFORMANCE PART I
Child, J. (1974) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.1974.tb00693.x · Cited by 536
Cited by
A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations
Fiss, P. C. (2007) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2007.26586092 · Cited by 2,225
STUDYING ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT: CHALLENGES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH.
Pettigrew, A. M., Woodman, R. W., & Cameron, K. S. (2001) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/3069411 · Cited by 1,582
Self-citationORGANIZATIONAL RESTRUCTURING AND MIDDLE MANAGER SENSEMAKING.
Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2004) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/20159600 · Cited by 1,255
Embracing Causal Complexity: The Emergence of a Neo-Configurational Perspective
Misangyi, V. F., Greckhamer, T., Furnari, S., Fiss, P. C., Crilly, D., & Aguilera, R. (2017) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206316679252 · Cited by 1,099
Speed and Search: Designing Organizations for Turbulence and Complexity
Siggelkow, N., & Rivkin, J. W. (2005) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0116 · Cited by 734
Metadata
- Authors
- Whittington, R., Pettigrew, A., Peck, S., Fenton, E., & Conyon, M.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 1999-10
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 583-600
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W1584875895
- Cited by
- 525
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 53.31
- 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: Change and Complementarities in the New Competitive Landscape: A European Panel Study, 1992–1996. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/orsc.10.5.583
- The paper
- Whittington, R., Pettigrew, A., Peck, S., Fenton, E., & Conyon, M. (1999). Change and Complementarities in the New Competitive Landscape: A European Panel Study, 1992–1996. Organization Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.5.583
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.