The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Organizational Boundaries and Theories of Organization
Abstract
Organizational boundaries are a central phenomenon, yet despite their significance, research is dominated by transaction cost economics and related exchange-efficiency perspectives. While useful, it is time to engage in a broader view. Our purpose is to provide a deeper understanding of organizational boundaries. First, we develop four boundary conceptions (efficiency, power, competence, and identity) and their distinctive features including organizational and environmental assumptions, unique conception of boundaries, theoretical arguments, empirical validity, contributions, and limitations. Efficiency takes a legal-ownership view of atomistic boundary decisions. In contrast, the power conception emphasizes the sphere of influence of the organization, while competence focuses on the resource portfolio and its related configuration, and identity centers on the often unconscious mind-set by which organizational members understand “who we are.” We also indicate relationships, both coevolutionary and synergistic, among the conceptions. Second, we juxtapose these conceptions with the current literature to create a springboard for a renewed research agenda. This agenda includes greater focus on nonefficiency perspectives, relationships (not competition) among boundary conceptions, studies that take the normative implication of theories more seriously, and problem-driven research on contemporary boundary issues such as contract employment and business ecosystems.
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
Coase, R. H. (1937) · Economica · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0335.1937.tb00002.x · Cited by 23,972
Building Theories from Case Study Research
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258557 · Cited by 17,455
Self-citationKnowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.3.3.383 · Cited by 12,939
Strategic assets and organizational rent
Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1993) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250140105 · Cited by 8,425
Comparative Economic Organization: The Analysis of Discrete Structural Alternatives
Williamson, O. E. (1991) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393356 · Cited by 7,151
Grant, R. M. (1996) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.7.4.375 · Cited by 5,649
A Resource-Based Theory of the Firm: Knowledge Versus Opportunism
Conner, K. R., & Prahalad, C. K. (1996) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.7.5.477 · Cited by 3,146 · cited 1×
“A strand of the knowledge-based view of the firm suggests that idiosyncratic knowledge may be sufficient to create coordination costs in market exchanges, even when partners behave honestly (Conner and Prahalad 1996).”
BackgroundWhat Firms Do? Coordination, Identity, and Learning
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1996) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.7.5.502 · Cited by 3,078
Fading Memories: A Process Theory of Strategic Business Exit in Dynamic Environments
Burgelman, R. A. (1994) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393493 · Cited by 1,018
Cited by
Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework
Gawer, A. (2014) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2014.03.006 · Cited by 1,869
The fit between product market strategy and business model: implications for firm performance
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2008) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.642 · Cited by 1,731
The Emergence of Governance in an Open Source Community
O'Mahony, S., & Ferraro, F. (2007) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2007.27169153 · Cited by 909
Unpacking the innovation ecosystem construct: Evolution, gaps and trends
Gomes, L. A. D. V., Facin, A. L. F., Salerno, M. S., & Ikenami, R. K. (2018) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.009 · Cited by 836
1 Constitutional Amendments: “Materializing” Organizational Communication
Ashcraft, K. L., Kuhn, T. R., & Cooren, F. (2009) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520903047186 · Cited by 731
Metadata
- Authors
- Santos, F. M., & Eisenhardt, K. M.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2005-10
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 491-508
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2145208187
- Cited by
- 1,033
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 33.03
- 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.