Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 556

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Measuring Organizational Strategies: Some Theoretical and Methodological Problems

Snow, Charles C., Hambrick, Donald C.·1980·The Academy of Management Review

Abstract

In this article we address the major theoretical and methodological problems encountered in attempts to arrive at valid and reliable measures of organizational strategy. Our discussion is based on a series of empirical studies of the strategic behaviors of nearly 200 organizations in ten industries. In these studies, four different approaches for measuring strategy have been employed. We describe each approach and discuss its advantages and disadvantages.

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 · 10.2307/257458

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 556

Metadata

Authors
Snow, C. C., & Hambrick, D. C.
Venue
The Academy of Management Review
Published
1980-10
Volume
5
Issue
4
Pages
527
ISSN
0363-7425 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2145811199
Cited by
556
References
2
FWCI
8.23
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Measuring Organizational Strategies: Some Theoretical and Methodological Problems. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/257458
The paper
Snow, C. C., & Hambrick, D. C. (1980). Measuring Organizational Strategies: Some Theoretical and Methodological Problems. The Academy of Management Review. https://doi.org/10.2307/257458

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.