Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,480

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Stakeholder Influence Strategies

Frooman, Jeff·1999·The Academy of Management Review
DOI 10.2307/259074
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

When seeking to influence firm decision making, what types of influence strategies do stakeholders have available, and what determines which type the stakeholders choose to use? In this article I use resource dependence theory to investigate these two questions. I propose that the resource relationship (who is dependent on whom) determines which of the four types of strategies identified in this article will be used: direct withholding, direct usage, indirect withholding, or indirect usage.

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 · 10.2307/259074

Cites

7 of 7 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

Cited by

See all 2,480

Metadata

Authors
Frooman, J.
Venue
The Academy of Management Review
Publisher
Academy of Management
Published
1999-04
Volume
24
Issue
2
Pages
191
ISSN
0363-7425 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2307/259074
OpenAlex
W2009664919
Cited by
2,480
References
7
FWCI
72.56
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.