Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,254

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Slack Resources and the Performance of Privately Held Firms

Open access
George, Gerard·2005·Academy of Management Journal

Abstract

Empirical findings from publicly traded firms and behavioral arguments suggest a positive influence of resource slack on financial performance. While this area has remained unexplored in privately held firms, conceptual arguments indicate that resource constraints may enhance performance. Longitudinal data on 900 privately held firms confirm the differing influences of forms of slack on performance. Results indicate that a combination of behavioral and resource constraints arguments are necessary to explain the slack-performance relationship in privately held firms. The implications of these findings for theories of resources and entrepreneurship are discussed.

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 · 10.5465/amj.2005.17843944

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
George, G.
Venue
Academy of Management Journal
Published
2005-08
Volume
48
Issue
4
Pages
661-676
ISSN
  • 0001-4273 (ISSN-L)
  • 1948-0989
OpenAlex
W2048517513
Cited by
1,254
References
0
FWCI
43.96
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.