Organizational Boundaries and Theories of Organization

References

• Ahuja G., Lampert C. M. Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal study of how established firms create. Strategic Management J. (2001) 22(6/7):521–543Crossref, Google Scholar
• Albert S., Whetten D., Staw B. M. Organizational identity. Research in Organizational Behavior (1985) 7(JAI Press, Greenwich, CT) 263–295Google Scholar
• Alchian A., Demsetz H. Production, information costs, and economic organization. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1972) 62:777–795Google Scholar
• Aldrich H. E., Fiol C. M. Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Acad. Management Rev. (1994) 19(4):645–670Crossref, Google Scholar
• Amit R., Schoemaker P. J. H. Strategic assets and organizational rents. Strategic Management J. (1993) 14:33–46Crossref, Google Scholar
• Argyres N. Evidence on the role of firm capabilities in vertical integration decisions. Strategic Management J. (1996) 17:129–150Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arthur W. B. Increasing returns and the new world of business. Harvard Bus. Rev. (1996) 74(4):100–109Google Scholar
• Balakrishnan S., Wernerfelt B. Technical change, competition and vertical integration. Strategic Management J. (1986) 7(4):347–359Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barney J. B. Introduction to the special issue on the resource-based view of the firm. J. Management (1991) 17:97–99Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baron J. N., Burton M. D., Hannan M. T. Engineering bureaucracy: The genesis of formal policies, positions, and structures in high-technology firms. J. Law Econom. Organ. (1999) 15(1):1–41Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bettis R. A., Prahalad C. K. The dominant logic: Retrospective and extension. Strategic Management J. (1995) 16(1):5–14Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bogner W. C., Barr P. S. Making sense of hypercompetitive environments: A cognitive explanation for the persistence of high velocity competition. Organ. Sci. (2000) 11(2):212–226Link, Google Scholar
• Brown A. D., Starkey K. Organizational identity and learning: A psychodynamic perspective. Acad. Management Rev. (2000) 25(1):102–120Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brown S. L., Eisenhardt K.Competing on the Edge—Strategy as Structured Chaos (1998) (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA) Google Scholar
• Brusoni S., Prencipe A., Pavitt K. Knowledge specialization, organizational coupling, and the boundaries of the firm: Why do firms know more than they make? Admin. Sci. Quart. (2001) 46:597–621Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burgelman R. A. Fading memories: A process theory of strategic business exit in dynamic environments. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1994) 39:24–56Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burgelman R. A. Strategy as vector and the inertia of coevolutionary lock-in. Admin. Sci. Quart. (2002) 47(2):325–357Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt R. S. The contingent value of social capital. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1997) 42:339–365Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cacciatori E., Jacobides M. The limits of the market: Vertical re-integration explained. (2004) (London Business School, London, UK) . Working paperGoogle Scholar
• Caves R., Markham J. W., Papnek G. F. Uncertainty, market structure and performance: Galbraith as conventional wisdom. Industrial Organization and Economic Development (1970) (Houghton-Mifflin Co, Boston, MA) 283–302Google Scholar
• Chandler A. D.Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise (1962) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Chandler A. D.The Visible Hand : The Managerial Revolution in American Business (1977) (Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Coase R. The nature of the firm. Economica (1937) 4:386–405Crossref, Google Scholar
• Coase R. H., Williamson O. E., Winter S. G. The nature of the firm: Influence. The Nature of the Firm (1993) (Oxford University Press, New York) 61–74Google Scholar
• Conner K. R., Prahalad C. K. A resource-based theory of the firm: Knowledge vs. opportunism. Organ. Sci. (1996) 7(5):477–501Link, Google Scholar
• Daft R. L., Weick K. E. Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Acad. Management Rev. (1984) 9(2):284–295Crossref, Google Scholar
• D’Aveni R.Strategic Supremacy (2001) (The Free Press, New York) Google Scholar
• David R. J., Han S.-K. A systematic assessment of the empirical support for transaction cost economics. Strategic Management J. (2004) 25(1):39–58Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis G. F., Powell W. W., Dunnette M. D., Hough L. M.Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (1992) (Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., Palo Alto, CA) . Chapter 6: Organization-environment relationsGoogle Scholar
• Davis J. P., Bingham C. B., Eisenhardt K. M. Developing theory through simulation methods. Acad. Management Rev. (2005a) . ForthcomingGoogle Scholar
• Davis J. P., Eisenhardt K. M., Bingham C. B. Complexity theory, market dynamism and the strategy of simple rules. (2005b) . Working paper, Stanford Technology Ventures ProgramGoogle Scholar
• Demsetz H. The theory of the firm revisited. J. Law, Econom. Organ. (1988) 4:141–161Google Scholar
• DiMaggio P. J., Powell W. W. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Amer. Sociological Rev. (1983) 48:147–160Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dutton J. E., Dukerich J. M. Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in organizational adaptation. Acad. Management J. (1991) 34(3):517–554Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dutton J. E., Dukerich et al J. M. Organizational images and member identification. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1994) 39(2):239–263Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dyer J. H. Does governance matter: Keiretsu alliances and asset specificity as sources of Japanese competitive advantage. Organ. Sci. (1996) 7(6):649–666Link, Google Scholar
• Economist, The (2002) February 7). Struggling with a supertankerGoogle Scholar
• Eisenhardt K. Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Acad. Management J. (1989a) 32(3):543–576Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt K. M. Building theories from case study research. Acad. Management Rev. (1989b) 14:532–550Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt K. M., Bingham C. Disentangling resources from the resource based view: A typology of strategic logics and competitive advantage. Managerial Decision Econom. (2005) . ForthcomingGoogle Scholar
• Eisenhardt K. M., Martin J. Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management J. (2000) 21(10–11):1105–1121Crossref, Google Scholar
• Elsbach K. D., Kramer R. M. Member’s responses to organizational indentity threats: Encountering and countering Business Week ratings. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1996) 41:442–476Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fiol C. M. A semiotic analysis of corporate language: Organizational boundaries and joint venturing. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1989) 34(2):277–303Crossref, Google Scholar
• Foss N. J. Knowledge-based approaches to the theory of the firm: Some critical comments. Organ. Sci. (1996) 7(5):470–476Link, Google Scholar
• Galunic D. C., Eisenhardt K. M. The evolution of intracorporate domains: Divisional charter losses in high-technology, multidivisional corporations. Organ. Sci. (1996) 7(3):255–282Link, Google Scholar
• Galunic D. C., Eisenhardt K. M. Architectural innovation and modular corporate forms. Acad. Management J. (2001) 44(6):1229–1249Crossref, Google Scholar
• Galunic D. C., Rodan S. Resource recombinations in the firm: Knowledge structures and the potential for Schumpeterian innovation. Strategic Management J. (1998) 19:1193–1201Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gawer A., Cusumano M. A.Platform Leadership (2002) (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA) Google Scholar
• Gilbert C. Change in the presence of residual fit: Can competing frames coexist? Organ. Sci. (2005) . ForthcomingGoogle Scholar
• Gioia D. A., Thomas J. B. Identity, image, and issue interpretation: Sensemaking during strategic change in academia. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1996) 41(3):370–403Crossref, Google Scholar
• Graebner M. Momentum and serendipity: How acquired leaders create value in the integration of high-tech firms. Strategic Management J. (2004) 25(8/9):751–777Crossref, Google Scholar
• Granovetter M. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. Amer. J. Sociology (1985) 91:481–510Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grant R. M. Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: Organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organ. Sci. (1996) 7(4):375–387Link, Google Scholar
• Hart O., Moore J. Property rights and the nature of the firm. J. Political Econom. (1990) 98(6):1119–1158Crossref, Google Scholar
• Helfat C. E. Know-how and asset complementarity and dynamic capability accumulation: The case of R&D. Strategic Management J. (1997) 18(5):339–360Crossref, Google Scholar
• Helfat C. E., Eisenhardt K. M. Inter-temporal economies of scope, organizational modularity, and the dynamics of diversification. Strategic Management J. (2004) 25(13):1217–1232Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holmstrom B. The firm as a subeconomy. J. Law, Econom. Organ. (1999) 15(1):74–106Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ingram P., Roberts P. W. Friendships among competitors in the Sydney hotel industry. Amer. J. Sociology (2000) 106(2):387–423Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jacobides M. Industry change through vertical disintegration: How and why markets emerged in mortgage banking. Acad. Management J. (2005) 48(3):465–498Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jacobides M. G., Hitt L. M. Losing sight of the forest for the trees? Strategic Management J. (2005) 26ForthcomingGoogle Scholar
• Karim S., Mitchell W. Path-dependent and path-breaking change: Reconfiguring business resources following acquisitions in the U.S. medical sector, 1978–1995. Strategic Management J. (2000) 21(11):1061–1081Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kimberly J. R. Issues in the creation of organizations: Initiation, innovation, and institutionalization. Acad. Management J. (1979) 22(3):437–457Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klein B. Vertical integration as organizational ownership: The Fisher-Body-General Motors relationship revisited. J. Law, Econom. Organ. (1988) 4:199–213Google Scholar
• Kogut B. The network as knowledge: Generative rules and the emergence of structure. Strategic Management J. (2000) 21:405–425Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kogut B., Kulatilaka N. Capabilities as real options. Organ. Sci. (2001) 12(6):744–758Link, Google Scholar
• Kogut B., Zander U. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organ. Sci. (1992) 3(3):383–397Link, Google Scholar
• Kogut B., Zander U. What firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning. Organ. Sci. (1996) 7(5):502–523Link, Google Scholar
• Louis M. R., Sutton R. I. Switching cognitive gears: From habits of mind to active thinking. Human Relations (1991) 44(1):55–76Crossref, Google Scholar
• Madhok A. The organization of economic activity: Transaction costs, firm capabilities and the nature of governance. Organ. Sci. (1996) 7(5):577–590Link, Google Scholar
• Martin J. A., Eisenhardt K. M. Cross-business synergy: Recombination, modularity, and the multi-business team. Acad. Management Best Paper Proc. (2003) P1–Crossref, Google Scholar
• Martin J. A., Eisenhardt K. M. Cross-business collaborations. (2005) (University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX) . Working paperGoogle Scholar
• Masten S. E., Williamson O. E., Winter S. G. A legal basis for the firm. The Nature of the Firm: Origins, Evolution and Development (1991) (Oxford University Press, New York) 196–212Google Scholar
• Mayer K. Contracting hazards, capabilities and governance: Subcontracting decisions in information technology. (2002) . Working paperGoogle Scholar
• Mayer K. J., Nickerson J. A. Antecedents and performance implications of contracting for knowledge workers: Evidence from information technology services. Organ. Sci. (2005) 16(3):225–242Link, Google Scholar
• Meyer M. W., Lu X. Managing indefinite boundaries: The strategy and structure of a Chinese business firm. Management Organ. Rev. (2004) 1(1):57–86Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miller D., Shamsie J. The resource-based view of the firm in two environments: The Hollywood film studios from 1936 to 1965. Acad. Management J. (1996) 39(3):519–543Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nickerson J. A., Silverman B. S. Why firms want to organize efficiently and what keeps them from doing so: Inappropriate governance, performance, and adaptation in a deregulated industry. Admin. Sci. Quart. (2003) 48(3):433–465Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nickerson J. A., Zenger T. R. A knowledge-based theory of the firm: The problem-solving perspective. Organ. Sci. (2004) 15(6):617–632Link, Google Scholar
• O’Mahony S. The role of boundary institutions in mediating convergent and divergent interests. American Sociological Association (2005) (Philadelphia, PA)Google Scholar
• Ozcan P., Eisenhardt K. M. New firms in an emergent market: Building a strong alliance portfolio from a low-power position. (2005) . Working paper, IESEGoogle Scholar
• Penrose E.The Theory of the Growth of the Firm (1959) (Basil Blackwell, Oxford, UK) Google Scholar
• Pfeffer J., Salancik G.The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective (1978) (Harper & Row Publishers, New York) Google Scholar
• Poppo L., Zenger T. Testing alternative theories of the firm: Transaction cost, knowledge-based, and measurement explanations for make-or-buy decisions in information services. Strategic Management J. (1998) 19(9):853–877Crossref, Google Scholar
• Porac J., Thomas H., Wilson F., Paton D., Kanfer A. Rivalry and the industry model of Scottish knitwear producers. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1995) 40:203–227Crossref, Google Scholar
• Porter M. E.Competitive Strategy (1980) (Free Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Porter M. E.Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance (1985) (Free Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Prahalad C. K., Bettis R. A. The dominant logic: A new linkage between diversity and performance. Strategic Management J. (1986) 7:485–501Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pralahad C. K., Hamel G. The core competence of the organization. Harvard Bus. Rev. (1990) 68(3):79–90Google Scholar
• Rangan V. K., Corey E. R., Cespedes F. Transaction cost theory: Inferences from clinical field research on downstream vertical integration. Organ. Sci. (1993) 4(3):454–477Link, Google Scholar
• Richardson J. Vertical integration and rapid response in fashion apparel. Organ. Sci. (1996) 7(4):400–412Link, Google Scholar
• Ridfleisch A., Heide J. B. Transaction cost analysis: Past, present, and future applications. J. Marketing (1997) 61(October):30–54Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rindova V. P., Fombrun C. J., Schoonhoven C. B., Romanelli E. Entrepreneurial action in the creation of the specialty coffee niche. The Entrepreneurship Dynamic (2001) (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA) 236–261Google Scholar
• Rindova V., Kotha S. Continuous “morphing”: Competing through dynamic capabilities, form and function. Acad. Management J. (2001) 44(6):1263–1280Crossref, Google Scholar
• Santos F. M. Constructing niches and shaping boundaries: Entrepreneurial action in nascent fields. (2003) (Stanford University, Stanford, CA) . Unpublished dissertation, Department of Management Science and EngineeringGoogle Scholar
• Santos F. M., Eisenhardt K. M. Constructing markets and organizing boundaries: Entrepreneurial action in nascent fields. Acad. Management Proc. (2004) J1–Crossref, Google Scholar
• Santos F. M., Eisenhardt K. M. Constructing markets and organizing boundaries: Entrepreneurial action in nascent fields. (2005) . Working paper, INSEADGoogle Scholar
• Shelanski H. A., Klein P. Empirical research in transaction costs economics: A review and assessment. J. Law, Econom. Organ. (1995) 11(2):335–361Google Scholar
• Siggelkow N. Change in the presence of fit: The rise, the fall and the renascence of Liz Claiborne. Acad. Management J. (2001) 44(4):838–857Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stinchcombe A. L., March J. G. Social structure and organizations. Handbook of Organizations (1965) (Rand McNally &, Company, Chicago, IL) 142–193Google Scholar
• Sull D. N. The dynamics of standing still: Firestone Tire & Rubber and the radial revolution. Bus. Hist. Rev. (1999) 73(Autumn):430–464Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sutcliffe K. M., Zaheer A. Uncertainty in the transaction environment: An empirical test. Strategic Management J. (1998) 19(1):1–23Crossref, Google Scholar
• Teece D. J. Towards an economic theory of the multiproduct firm. J. Econom. Behavior Organ. (1982) 3:39–63Crossref, Google Scholar
• Teece D. J., Pisano et al G. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management J. (1997) 18(7):509–533Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thompson J. D.Organizations in Action (1967) (McGraw Hill, New York) Google Scholar
• Thornton P. The rise of the corporation in a craft industry: Conflict and conformity in institutional logics. Acad. Management J. (2002) 45(1):81–101Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tripsas M., Gavetti G. Capabilities, cognition and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Management J. (2000) 21:1147–1161Crossref, Google Scholar
• Walker G. Asset choice and supplier performance in two organizations—US and Japanese. Strategic Management J. (1994) 5(4):583–593Google Scholar
• Walker G., Weber D. A transaction cost approach to make-or-buy decisions. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1984) 29(3):373–391Crossref, Google Scholar
• Walsh J. P. Managerial and organizational cognition: Notes from a trip down memory lane. Organ. Sci. (1995) 6(3):280–321Link, Google Scholar
• Weick K.Sensemaking in Organizations (1995) (Sage Publications, London, UK) Google Scholar
• Wernerfelt B. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management J. (1984) 5:171–180Crossref, Google Scholar
• Williamson O. E.Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications (1975) (Free Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Williamson O. E. The economics of organizations: The transaction cost approach. Amer. J. Sociology (1981) 87(3):548–577Crossref, Google Scholar
• Williamson O. E.The Economic Institutions of Capitalism (1985) (Free Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Williamson O. E. Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1991) 36(2):269–296Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zuckerman E. Focusing the corporate product: Securities analysts and de-diversification. Admin. Sci. Quart. (2000) 45(3):591–619Crossref, Google Scholar