The DOI matches its Crossref record; 99 of the 99 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Entrepreneurial Storytelling, Future Expectations, and the Paradox of Legitimacy
Open accessAbstract
Prior research highlights storytelling as a means for entrepreneurs to establish venture legitimacy and gain stakeholder support. We extend this line of research by examining the role that projective stories play in setting expectations and the dynamics that ensue. Such attention highlights a paradox—the very expectations that are set through projective stories to gain venture legitimacy can also serve as the source of future disappointments. Because of inherent uncertainties that projective stories mask, ventures will likely deviate from their early projections, thereby disappointing stakeholders. This, in turn, can result in a loss of legitimacy. Recognizing that entrepreneurship is an ongoing process, we examine the constraints and possibilities of maintaining or regaining legitimacy through revised storytelling. We conclude the paper with implications for research on entrepreneurial storytelling as an ongoing process.
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
Austin, J. L. (1975) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245537.001.0001 · Cited by 21,496
Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches
Suchman, M. C. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258788 · Cited by 19,903
Gioia, D. A., Mehra, A., & Weick, K. E. (1996) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259169 · Cited by 15,614
Fee, D., & Fairclough, N. (1993) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2074659 · Cited by 11,611
Bruner, J. (1986) · doi:10.4159/9780674029019 · Cited by 8,657
Actual Minds, Possible Worlds.
Mergler, N., Schleifer, R., & Bruner, J. (1986) · MLN · doi:10.2307/2905728 · Cited by 6,609
Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/231294 · Cited by 6,165
Corporate Social Performance Revisited
Wood, D. J. (1991) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258977 · Cited by 5,093
Narrative knowing and the human sciences
(1988) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.26-0378 · Cited by 4,882
Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1984) · Social Studies of Science · doi:10.1177/030631284014003004 · Cited by 3,890
Cited by
The disruptor's dilemma: TiVo and the U.S. television ecosystem
Ansari, S. (., Garud, R., & Kumaraswamy, A. (2016) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2442 · Cited by 556
Self-citationThe Role of Artificial Intelligence and Data Network Effects for Creating User Value
Gregory, R. W., Henfridsson, O., Kaganer, E., & Kyriakou, H. (2021) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2019.0178 · Cited by 540
Liminal movement by digital platform‐based sharing economy ventures: The case of Uber Technologies
Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A., Roberts, A., & Xu, L. (2022) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.3148 · Cited by 274
Self-citationHaftor, D. M., Costa Climent, R., & Lundström, J. E. (2021) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.015 · Cited by 60
Metadata
- Authors
- Garud, R., Schildt, H. A., & Lant, T. K.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2014-10
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1479-1492
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2096277470
- Cited by
- 555
- References
- 99
- FWCI
- 38.71
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Entrepreneurial Storytelling, Future Expectations, and the Paradox of Legitimacy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/orsc.2014.0915
- The paper
- Garud, R., Schildt, H. A., & Lant, T. K. (2014). Entrepreneurial Storytelling, Future Expectations, and the Paradox of Legitimacy. Organization Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0915
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.
