Imprinting: Toward a Multilevel Theory
Abstract
The concept of imprinting has attracted considerable interest in numerous fields—including organizational ecology, institutional theory, network analysis, and career research—and has been applied at several levels of analysis, from the industry to the individual. This article offers a critical review of this rich yet disparate literature and guides research toward a multilevel theory of imprinting. We start with a definition that captures the general features of imprinting across levels of analysis but is precise enough to remain distinct from seemingly similar concepts, such as path dependence and cohort effects. We then provide a framework to order and unite the splintered field of imprinting research at different levels of analysis. In doing so, we identify economic, technological, institutional, and individual influences that lead to imprints at the level of (a) organizational collectives, (b) single organizations, (c) organizational building blocks, and (d) individuals. Building on this framework, we develop a general model that points to major avenues for future research and charts new directions toward a multilevel theory of imprinting. This theory provides a distinct lens for organizational research that takes history seriously.
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?
Founding conditions leave durable marks long after these conditions pass, and extend to founding teams and the positions they create.
“It holds that founding conditions leave durable marks long after these conditions pass, and extend to founding teams and the positions they create [6,7,8,9].”
From Borrowed Competence: When AI-Driven HR Builds Startups’ People Capability and When It Hollows It Out (2026) · cites this paper as [7]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Borrowed Competence: When AI-Driven HR Builds Startups’ People Capability and When It Hollows It Out
Ben Oz, R., Granot, N., Tzabbar, D., & Tzafrir, S. (2026) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7489654
- Authors
- Marquis, C., & Tilcsik, A.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University
- University of Toronto
- Venue
- Academy of Management Annals
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 2013-06
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 195-245
- ISSN
- 1941-6520
- 1941-6067
- Cited by
- 1,556
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
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