When More Selection Is Worse

References

• Alchian A (1950) Uncertainty, evolution, and economic theory. J. Political Econom. 58(3):211–221.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arthur B (1989) Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. Econom. J. 99(394):116–131.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bagnoli M, Bergstrom T (2005) Log-concave probability and its applications. Econom. Theory 26(2):445–469.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barabasi A, Albert R (1999) Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286(5439):509–512.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barnett WP (1997) The dynamics of competitive intensity. Admin. Sci. Quart. 42(1):128–160.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barnett WP (2008) The Red Queen Among Organizations: How Competitiveness Evolves (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barnett WP, Hansen MT (1996) The red queen in organizational evolution. Strategic Management J. 17(S1):139–157.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barnett WP, Swanson AN, Sorenson O (2003) Asymmetric selection among organizations. Indust. Corporate Change 12(4):673–695.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blattberg RC, Gonedes NJ (1974) A comparison of the stable and student distributions as statistical models for stock prices. J. Business 47(2):244–280.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bottazzi G, Secchi A (2003) Why are distributions of firm growth rates tent-shaped? Econom. Lett. 80(3):415–420.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bottazzi G, Dosi G, Jacoby N, Secchi A, Tamagni F (2010) Corporate performances and market selection: Some comparative evidence. Indust. Corporate Change 19(6):1953–1996.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bottazzi G, Dosi G, Lippi M, Pammolli F, Riccaboni M (2001) Innovation and corporate growth in the evolution of the drug industry. Internat. J. Indust. Organ. 19(7):1161–1187.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carroll G, Hannan M (1989) Density delay in the evolution of organizational populations: A model and five empirical tests. Admin. Sci. Quart. 34(3):411–430.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carroll GR, Harrison JR (1994) On the historical efficiency of competition between organizational populations. Amer. J. Sociol. 100(3):720–749.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Coad A (2007) A closer look at serial growth rate correlation. Rev. Indust. Organ. 31(1):69–82.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen D (1966) Optimizing reproduction in a randomly varying environment. J. Theoret. Biol. 12(1):119–129.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cvijovic I, Good BH, Jerison ER, Desai MM (2015) Fate of a mutation in a fluctuating environment. Proc. National Acad. Sci. USA 112(36):5021–5028.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Denrell J (2004) Random walks and sustained competitive advantage. Management Sci. 50(7):922–934.Link, Google Scholar
• Denrell J, Liu C (2012) Top performers are not the most impressive when extreme performance indicates unreliability. Proc. National Acad. Sci. USA 109(24):9331–9336.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Denrell J, March JG (2001) Adaptation as information restriction: The hot stove effect. Organ. Sci. 12(5):523–538.Link, Google Scholar
• Elster J (1979) Ulysses and the Sirens: Studies in Rationality and Irrationality (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
• Foss S, Korshunov D, Zachary S (2013) An Introduction to Heavy-Tailed and Subexponential Distributions, Springer Series in Operations Research and Financial Engineering (Springer, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fu D, Pammolli F, Buldyrev SV, Riccaboni M, Matia K, Yamasaki K, Stanley HE (2005) The growth of business firms: Theoretical framework and empirical evidence. Proc. National Acad. Sci. USA 102(52):18801–18806.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Geroski PA (2005) Understanding the implications of empirical work on corporate growth rates. Managerial Decision Econom. 26(2):129–138.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gimeno J, Folta TB, Cooper AC, Woo CY (1997) Survival of the fittest? Entrepreneurial human capital and the persistence of underperforming firms. Admin. Sci. Quart. 42(4):750–783.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Glaser RE (1980) Bathtub and related failure rate characterizations. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 75(371):667–672.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Growiec J, Pammolli F, Riccaboni M, Stanley HE (2008) On the size distribution of business firms. Econom. Lett. 98(2):207–212.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Groysberg B (2010) Chasing Stars: The Myth of Talent and the Portability of Performance (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Groysberg B, Nanda A, Nohria N (2004) The risky business of hiring stars. Harvard Bus. Rev. 82(5):92–101.Google Scholar
• Groysberg B, Sant L, Abrahams R (2008) When stars migrate, do they still perform like stars? MIT Sloan Management Rev. 50(1):41–46.Google Scholar
• Hannan MT, Polos L, Carroll GR (2007) Logics of Organization Theory: Audiences, Codes, and Ecologies (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hill CWL, Rothaermel FT (2003) The Performance of incumbent firms in the face of radical technological innovation. Acad. Management Rev. 28(2):257–274.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hodgson GM, Knudsen T (2010) Darwin’s Conjecture: The Search for General Principles of Social and Economic Evolution (University of Chicago Press, Chicago).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holland JH (1975) Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems, Second ed. (University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI).Google Scholar
• Jovanovic B (1982) Selection and the evolution of industry. Econometrica 50(3):649–670.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karlin S, Rubin H (1956) Distributions possessing a monotone likelihood ratio. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 51(276):637–643.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Le Mens G, Hannan MT, Pólos L (2011) Founding conditions, learning, and organizational life chances: Age dependence revisited. Admin. Sci. Quart. 56(1):95–126.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Le Mens G, Hannan M, Pólos L (2015a) Age-related structural inertia: A distance-based approach. Organ. Sci. 26(3):756–773.Link, Google Scholar
• Le Mens G, Hannan M, Pólos L (2015b) Organizational obsolescence, drifting tastes, and age dependence in organizational life chances. Organ. Sci. 26(2):550–570.Link, Google Scholar
• Levins R (1968) Evolution in Changing Environments (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levinthal D, March JG (1981) A model of adaptive organizational search. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 2(4):307–333.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levinthal D, Marino A (2015) Three facets of organizational adaptation: Selection, variety, and plasticity. Organ. Sci. 26(3):743–755.Link, Google Scholar
• Levinthal D, Posen H (2007) Myopia of selection: Does organizational adaptation limit the efficacy of population selection? Admin. Sci. Quart. 52(4):586–620.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levinthal DA (1991) Random walks and organizational mortality. Admin. Sci. Quart. 36(3):397–420.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levinthal DA (1997) Adaptation on rugged landscapes. Management Sci. 43(7):934–950.Link, Google Scholar
• Levy M, Levy H (2003) Investment talent and the pareto wealth distribution: Theoretical and experimental analysis. Rev. Econom. Statist. 85(3):709–725.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luce RD (1986) Response Times: Their Role in Inferring Elementary Mental Organization (Oxford University Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Lynn FB, Podolny JM, Tao L (2009) A sociological (de) construction of the relationship between status and quality. Amer. J. Sociol. 115(3):755–804.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Maynard Smith J (1982) Evolution and the Theory of Games (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Merton RK (1968) The Matthew effect in science. Science 159(3810):56–63.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meyer MW, Zucker L (1989) Permanently Failing Organizations (Sage Publications, London).Google Scholar
• Nair J, Wierman A, Zwart B (2013) The fundamentals of heavy-tails: Properties, emergence, and identification. Proc. ACM SIGMETRICS 41(1):387–388.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nelson R, Winter S (2002) Evolutionary theorizing in economics. J. Econom. Perspect. 16(2):23–46.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nelson RR, Winter SG (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Perrow C (2002) Organizing America: Wealth, Power, and the Origins of Corporate Capitalism (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
• Radicchi F, Fortunato S, Castellano C (2008) Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact. Proc. National Acad. Sci. USA 105(45):17268–17272.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ross S (2000) An Introduction to Probability Models, Seventh Edition (Harcourt Academic Press, San Diego).Google Scholar
• Salganik M, Dodds P, Watts DJ (2006) Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market. Science 311(5762):854–856.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simon H (1955) On a class of skew distribution functions. Biometrika 42(3–4):425–440.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sorensen J, Stuart TE (2000) Aging, obsolescence, and organizational innovation. Admin. Sci. Quart. 45(1):81–112.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thomas E (1971) Sufficient conditions for monotone hazard rate: An application to latency-probability curves. J. Math. Psych. 8:303–332.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weibull JW, Mattsson LG, Voorneveld M (2007) Better may be worse: Some monotonicity results and paradoxes in discrete choice under uncertainty. Theory Decision 63(2):121–151.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Winter S (1964) Economic “natural selection” and the theory of the firm. Yale Econom. Essays 4(1):225–272.Google Scholar
• Winter S (1971) Satisficing, selection and the innovating remnant. Quart. J. Econom. 85(2):237–261.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wright S (1931) Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics 16:97–159.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yoshimura J, Clark CW (1993) Adaptation in Stochastic Environments (Springer-Verlag, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar