The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Dynamics of Interorganizational Attachments: Auditor-Client Relationships
Abstract
The order of authorship is randomly assigned. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the TIMS/ORSA meetings, May 1987, Academy of Management, August 1987, and the Law, Economics and Organization Workshop at Yale University. We gratefully acknowledge support from a Faculty Development Grant from Carnegie-Mellon. We have benefited from conversations with Bill Baber, Robert Kaplan, Jody Magliolo, and Jim Noel and appreciate their help in understanding the nature of the audit relationship. We also thank Linda Argote, Alison Davis-Blake, Jack Brittain, John Freeman, Jerry Ross, Jerry Salancik, Mark Seabright, Kathryn Shaw, and three anonymous ASQ reviewers for their comments on a prior draft. We used the techniques of event-history analysis to examine empirically the duration of dyadic interorganizational attachments through a study of auditor-client relationships. These attachments were found to have positive duration dependence. In the early stages of these attachments the rate at which these interorganizational relationships ended increased with time. After this early honeymoon period, the rate at which relationships ended decreased with time, consistent with notions that assets specific to the relationship develop over time. Furthermore, we found that relationships in which the task was more complex tended to be of longer duration.'
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
The Dynamics of Interorganizational Coordination
de Ven, A. H. V., & Walker, G. (1984) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392941 · Cited by 532
Cited by
Factors affecting trust in market research relationships
Moorman, C., Deshpandé, R., & Zaltman, G. (1993) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/002224299305700106 · Cited by 3,659
Many are Called, but Few are Chosen: An Evolutionary Perspective for the Study of Entrepreneurship
Aldrich, H. E., & Martinez, M. A. (2001) · Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice · doi:10.1177/104225870102500404 · Cited by 596
Co-Evolution of Capabilities and Industry: The Evolution of Mutual Fund Processing
Levinthal, D., & Myatt, J. (1994) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250150905 · Cited by 343
Self-citationPil, F. K., & Leana, C. (2009) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2009.47084647 · Cited by 280
Better with Age? Tie Longevity and the Performance Implications of Bridging and Closure
Baum, J. A. C., McEvily, B., & Rowley, T. J. (2012) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0566 · Cited by 133
Metadata
- Authors
- Levinthal, D. A., & Fichman, M.
- Venue
- Administrative Science Quarterly
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1988-09
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 345
- ISSN
- 0001-8392 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3122797000
- Cited by
- 533
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 15.03
- 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.