Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,321

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Organizational Legitimacy and the Liability of Newness

Open access
Singh, Jitendra V., Tucker, David J., House, Robert J.·1986·Administrative Science Quarterly
DOI 10.2307/2392787
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Investigates the processes in organizations that underlie the liability of newness--i.e., the higher propensity of younger organizations to die. Whether the liability of newness is due primarily to external factors or internal processes is examined by analyzing the event histories of organizational death. The theoretical arguments underlying this study are developed using data gathered from 389 voluntary social service organizations that came into existence in Toronto, Canada during 1970 to 1980; activity data was gathered through 1982. Results suggest that the acquisition of external legitimacy, including the establishment of supportive exchange relationships with external stakeholders, is related to a significant reduction in the hazard of death. In addition, it is shown that organizations that are not externally legitimated have either a constant hazard of death that does not decline with firm age or an increasing probability. Finally, it is demonstrated that most internal organizational changes are unrelated to the death rate. (SFL)

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/2392787

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Singh, J. V., Tucker, D. J., & House, R. J.
Venue
Administrative Science Quarterly
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
1986-06
Volume
31
Issue
2
Pages
171
ISSN
0001-8392 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2307/2392787
OpenAlex
W2020885086
Cited by
1,321
References
0
FWCI
21.35
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.