Legitimacy Building in the Evolution of Small-Firm Multilateral Networks: A Comparative Study of Success and Demise
Abstract
This article reports a longitudinal examination and comparison of two multilateral networks of small and medium-sized firms in the U.S. wood-products manufacturing industry. The research focused on how each of these networks built legitimacy over the course of their early evolution, from the pre-network field, to initial formation and growth, and toward sustainment, culminating in the success of one and the demise of the other. Our findings demonstrate that despite differences in their early bases of support, which resulted in very different strategic emphases, the two networks ultimately had to address three conceptually distinct dimensions of legitimacy—the network as form, the network as entity, and the network as interaction. Based on the findings, we develop specific propositions and draw some tentative conclusions about how legitimacy is established in multilateral networks and how the failure to build legitimacy across the three dimensions may lead to network collapse.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Other research has identified significantly different relationship strategies in the same industry, although the use of similar technologies is also reported.
“Other research has identified significantly different relationship strategies in the same industry (Human and Provan, 2000), although the use of similar technologies is also reported (North, Leigh et al., 1992).”
From ‘Relationships Mean Everything’; A Typology of Small–Business Relationship Strategies in a Reflexive Context (2002) · cites this paper as Human and Provan, 2000
Cites
The Discovery of Grounded Theory; Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L., & Strutzel, E. (1968) · Nursing Research · doi:10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014 · Cited by 39,449 · see citing works
Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches
Suchman, M. C. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258788 · Cited by 19,903 · see citing works
Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology
Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393988 · Cited by 8,499 · see citing works
Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action.
Jick, T. D. (1979) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392366 · Cited by 7,103 · see citing works
Kilduff, M., & Krackhardt, D. (1994) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256771 · Cited by 689 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Modes of Network Governance: Structure, Management, and Effectiveness
Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2007) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/mum015 · Cited by 4,006 · see citing works
Self-citationPsychological Perspectives on Legitimacy and Legitimation
Tyler, T. R. (2006) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190038 · Cited by 2,381 · see citing works
Operationalising just sustainability: towards a model for place-based governance
George, C., & Reed, M. G. (2017) · Local Environment · doi:10.1080/13549839.2015.1101059 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
What drives the perceived legitimacy of collaborative governance? An experimental study
Lee, S., & Esteve, M. (2023) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2022.2026692 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Fuller, T., & Lewis, J. (2002) · British Journal of Management · doi:10.1111/1467-8551.00249 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
- Authors
- Human, S. E., & Provan, K. G.
- Affiliations
- Xavier University (US)
- University of Arizona (US)
- Venue
- Administrative Science Quarterly
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 2000-06
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 327-365
- ISSN
- 0001-8392 (ISSN-L)
- 1930-3815
- OpenAlex
- W2007803925
- Cited by
- 697
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 42 · 2017: 45 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 38 · 2013: 50 · 2012: 33
- FWCI
- 22.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Administrative Science Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Business Strategy and Innovation
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Innovation and Knowledge Management
- Keywords
- legitimacy building, small and medium-sized enterprises, network formation, network collapse, wood products industry, organizational networks
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