The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Myopia of Selection: Does Organizational Adaptation Limit the Efficacy of Population Selection?
Open accessAbstract
This paper develops and tests a model of the effectiveness of selection processes in eliminating less fit organizations from a population when organizations are undergoing adaptive change. Stable organizational traits, such as a search strategy or routine, do not imply that an organization's performance will remain stable over time or that cross-sectional differences in performance will persist. These properties create the possibility that population-level selection processes will be inefficient in that organizations with potentially superior long-run performance will be selected out. We theorize that organizational-level adaptation often results in fluctuations in current performance across time. These fluctuations may attenuate the degree to which current performance differences among organizations are indicative of future performance. As a consequence, search strategies that generate systematically different performance trajectories, even if they share a common long-run outcome, will generate differing survival rates. These ideas are explored using a formal simulation model employing the framework of NK performance landscapes. Our central finding is that selection may be systematically prone to errors and that these selection errors are endogenous to, and differ markedly across, firms' search strategies.
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
Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning
March, J. G. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71 · Cited by 21,942
Blind variation and selective retentions in creative thought as in other knowledge processes
Campbell, D. T. (1960) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0040373 · Cited by 2,329
Siggelkow, N., & Levinthal, D. A. (2003) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.14.6.650.24870 · Cited by 953
Self-citationBalancing Search and Stability: Interdependencies Among Elements of Organizational Design
Rivkin, J. W., & Siggelkow, N. (2003) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.49.3.290.12740 · Cited by 900
Organizational Adaptation and Environmental Selection-Interrelated Processes of Change
Levinthal, D. A. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.140 · Cited by 401
Self-citation
Cited by
Combining Human and Artificial Intelligence: Hybrid Problem-Solving in Organizations
Raisch, S., & Fomina, K. (2025) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2021.0421 · Cited by 280
Sarta, A., Durand, R., & Vergne, J.-P. (2021) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206320929088 · Cited by 264
NK model as a representation of innovative search
Ganco, M. (2017) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2017.08.009 · Cited by 83
Search on Rugged Landscapes: An Experimental Study
Billinger, S., Stieglitz, N., & Schumacher, T. R. (2010) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1711743 · Cited by 54
Metadata
- Authors
- Levinthal, D., & Posen, H. E.
- Venue
- Administrative Science Quarterly
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2007-12
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 586-620
- ISSN
- 0001-8392 (ISSN-L)
- 1930-3815
- OpenAlex
- W2030659749
- Cited by
- 161
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 9.56
- 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: Myopia of Selection: Does Organizational Adaptation Limit the Efficacy of Population Selection? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2189/asqu.52.4.586
- The paper
- Levinthal, D., & Posen, H. E. (2007). Myopia of Selection: Does Organizational Adaptation Limit the Efficacy of Population Selection? Administrative Science Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.52.4.586
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.