The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Organizing Far from Equilibrium: Nonlinear Change in Organizational Fields
Open accessAbstract
Organizational fields undergo upheavals. Shifting industry boundaries, new network forms, emerging sectors, and volatile ecosystems have become the stuff of everyday organizational life. Curiously, profound changes of this sort receive scant attention in organization theory and research. Researchers acknowledge fieldwide flux, emergence, convergence, and collapse, but sidestep direct investigations of the causes and dynamic processes, leaving these efforts to political scientists and institutional economists. We attribute this neglect to our field’s philosophical, theoretical, and methodological fealty to the precepts of equilibrium and linearity. We argue that ingrained assumptions and habituated methodologies dissuade organizational scientists from grappling with problems to which these ideas and tools do not apply. Nevertheless, equilibrium and linearity are assumptions of social theory, not facts of social life. Drawing on four empirical studies of organizational fields in flux, we suggest new intellectual perspectives and methodological heuristics that may facilitate investigation of fields that are far from equilibrium. We urge our colleagues to transcend the general linear model, and embrace ideas like field configuration, complex adaptive systems, self-organizing networks, and autocatalytic feedback. We recommend conducting natural histories of organizational fields, and paying especially close attention to turning points when fields are away from equilibrium and discontinuous changes are afoot.
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
Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks
Barabási, A.-L., & Albert, R. (1999) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.286.5439.509 · Cited by 36,135
Building Theories from Case Study Research
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258557 · Cited by 17,455
Burt, R. S. (1992) · doi:10.4159/9780674029095 · Cited by 9,093
Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process
Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Meyer, A. D., & Coleman, H. J. (1978) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1978.4305755 · Cited by 4,527
Self-citationSocial Networks and Organizations
Kilduff, M., & Tsai, W. (2003) · doi:10.4135/9781849209915 · Cited by 1,581
Cited by
Digital Business Strategy: Toward a Next Generation of Insights
Bharadwaj, A., El Sawy, O. A., Pavlou, P. A., & Venkatraman, N. (2013) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2013/37:2.3 · Cited by 4,392
Institutional Work: Refocusing Institutional Studies of Organization
Lawrence, T., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2011) · Journal of Management Inquiry · doi:10.1177/1056492610387222 · Cited by 1,355
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
Capturing causal complexity: Heuristics for configurational theorizing
Furnari, S., Crilly, D., Misangyi, V. F., Greckhamer, T., Fiss, P. C., & Aguilera, R. V. (2021) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2019.0298 · Cited by 861
The Resilience Architecture Framework: Four organizational archetypes
Mamouni Limnios, E. A., Mazzarol, T., Ghadouani, A., & Schilizzi, S. G. M. (2014) · European Management Journal · doi:10.1016/j.emj.2012.11.007 · Cited by 319
Metadata
- Authors
- Meyer, A. D., Gaba, V., & Colwell, K. A.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2005-10
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 456-473
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2170541770
- Cited by
- 484
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 32.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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.