The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Legitimacy
Abstract
Legitimacy has emerged as a pivotal but often confusing construct in management research. The popularity of the concept and its widespread application to so many theoretical and empirical contexts has layered the construct of legitimacy with considerable surplus meaning. The object of this paper is to bring clarity and theoretical discipline to an important but misunderstood construct. We demonstrate through a description of the historical evolution of the construct that legitimacy has evolved in three distinct ways; from a focus on the property elements of legitimacy, to a focus on the process of legitimacy construction and finally to a focus on the cognitive practices by which legitimacy is negotiated.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches
Suchman, M. C. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258788 · Cited by 19,903
The social construction of reality : a treatise in the sociology of knowledge
Simpson, G., Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2091739 · Cited by 16,462
Searle, J. R. (1969) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139173438 · Cited by 11,718
Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data
Langley, A. (1999) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1999.2553248 · Cited by 7,008
Psychological 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
The Double-Edge of Organizational Legitimation
Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1.2.177 · Cited by 2,228
Institutional conditions for diffusion
Strang, D., & Meyer, J. W. (1993) · Theory and Society · doi:10.1007/bf00993595 · Cited by 2,114
Social Influence Bias: A Randomized Experiment
Muchnik, L., Aral, S., & Taylor, S. J. (2013) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1240466 · Cited by 892
The perpetuation of an arbitrary tradition through several generations of a laboratory microculture.
Jacobs, R. C., & Campbell, D. T. (1961) · The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0044182 · Cited by 264
Social categorization as a function of latitude of acceptance and series range.
Sherif, C. W. (1963) · The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0043022 · Cited by 199
Cited by
Algorithmic control and gig workers: a legitimacy perspective of Uber drivers
Wiener, M., Cram, W. A., & Benlian, A. (2023) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1080/0960085x.2021.1977729 · Cited by 251
Schoon, E. W. (2022) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/00031224221081379 · Cited by 143
Cooke, F. L. (2025) · Human Resource Management · doi:10.1002/hrm.22318 · Cited by 50
Value–Based Guiding Principles for Managing Cognitive Computing Systems in the Public Sector
Makasi, T., Tate, M., Desouza, K. C., & Nili, A. (2021) · Public Performance & Management Review · doi:10.1080/15309576.2021.1879883 · Cited by 17
Metadata
- Authors
- Suddaby, R., Bitektine, A., & Haack, P.
- Venue
- Academy of Management Annals
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 2017-01
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 451-478
- ISSN
- 1941-6067 (ISSN-L)
- 1941-6520
- OpenAlex
- W4240547422
- Cited by
- 1,082
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 98.17
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Legitimacy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5465/annals.2015.0101
- The paper
- Suddaby, R., Bitektine, A., & Haack, P. (2017). Legitimacy. Academy of Management Annals. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0101
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.