CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,716Management and Organizational StudiesBusiness Strategies and Management ResearchManagement Theory and Practice

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 73 of the 73 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Typologies as a Unique Form of Theory Building: Toward Improved Understanding and Modeling

Doty, D. Harold, Glick, William H.·1994·The Academy of Management Review
DOI 10.5465/amr.1994.9410210748
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Organizational typologies have proved to be a popular approach for thinking about organizational structures and strategies. Authors developing typologies, however, have been criticized for developing simplistic classification systems instead of theories. Contrary to these criticisms, we argue that typologies meet the criteria of a theory. When typologies are properly developed and fully specified, they are complex theories that can be subjected to rigorous empirical testing using the quantitative models we develop. We conclude by discussing the advantages of typological theories and presenting guidelines to improve the development of typologies.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/258704

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 1,716

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H.
Affiliations
  • University of Arkansas at Fayetteville (US)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
ORCID
Doty, D. Harold
Venue
The Academy of Management Review
Publisher
Academy of Management
Published
1994-04
Volume
19
Issue
2
Pages
230
ISSN
0363-7425 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.5465/amr.1994.9410210748
OpenAlex
W2024380716
Cited by
1,716
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 94 · 2025: 55 · 2024: 60 · 2023: 121 · 2022: 130 · 2021: 87 · 2020: 111 · 2019: 81 · 2018: 85 · 2017: 59 · 2016: 69 · 2015: 88 · 2014: 96 · 2013: 61 · 2012: 67
FWCI
12.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Academy of Management Review (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • 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 › Business Strategies and Management Research
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management Theory and Practice
Keywords
organizational typology, theory development, typology development, classification systems, organizational structure, organizational strategy, theory testing, quantitative modeling, typological theory

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