Disaster Dynamics: Understanding the Role of Quantity in Organizational Collapse

By J. Rudolph, Nelson P. Repenning. 2002

427 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Civil and Structural Engineering, Management Science and Operations Research, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/31de9f72f0516cfd7ae7c7f30f1320a17f3ffbc5

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Civil and Structural Engineering

In Management Science and Operations Research

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Sensemaking and emotion in organizations (2013, background): “…literature, it is clear that sensemaking processes vary significantly and in a variety of ways (Barton & Sutcliffe, 2009; Drazin et al., 1999; Maitlis, 2005; Rouleau & Balogun, 2011; Rudolph & Repenning, 2002; Schulman, 1993; Starbuck & Farjoun, 2005; Wright, Manning, Farmer, & Gilbreath, 2000).”
Organizational resilience: Towards a theory and research agenda (2007, neutral): “We include both the sets of conditions (exogenous shocks and ongoing strain) because research has shown that the accumulation of small interruptions can compromise the safety of a system just as readily as a larger event (Rudolph and Repenning, 2002).”
Learning from experience in high-hazard organizations (2002, background): “Even in trying to respond to problems, constrained learning practices can be overwhelmed by the sheer number of exceptions, the need to rewrite and retrain routines, and the work necessary to assimilate learning from various sources (Rudolph & Repenning, 2002).”
Developing Theory Through Simulation Methods (2007, neutral): “System dynamics Sastry (1997), Sterman, Repenning, & Kofman (1997), Repenning (2002), Rudolph & Repenning (2002) Behavior of a system with complex causality and timing What conditions create system instability?”
Organizational errors: Directions for future research (2011, background): “Individual differences (e.g., stress tolerance; Raja & Johns, 2010) could interact with unit characteristics (e.g., high levels of interruptions; Rudolph & Repenning, 2002) to create organizational errors.”
Organizational response to adversity: Fusing crisis management and resilience research streams (2017, background): “These definitions include both the daily perturbations that must be overcome—strategic drift or gradual weakening over time—as well as the exceptional low-probability events that dominate traditional crisis management studies (Cobb et al., 2016; Rudolph & Repenning, 2002; Turner, 1976).”
Entrepreneurship responding to adversity: Equilibrating Adverse Events and Disequilibrating Persistent Adversity (2020, background): “For example, the organizational literature explains that actors face “daily perturbations” that, when combined, can result in organizational hardship and/or failure (Cobb, Wry, & Zhao, 2016; Rudolph & Repenning, 2002; Turner, 1976).”
Searching for resilience: the impact of employee-level and entrepreneur-level resilience on firm performance in small family firms (2020, neutral): “From one side, organisational resilience can be seen as an ability to rebound from unexpected, stressful and adverse situations (Kobasa et al. 1982; Horne 1997; Home and Orr 1997; Robb 2000; Dutton et al. 2002; Rudolph and Repenning 2002; Sutcliffe and Vogus 2003; Gittell et al. 2006).”
Optimal Structure, Market Dynamism, and the Strategy of Simple Rules (2009, methodology): “Simulation is also a particularly useful method for research such as ours when the focal phenomenon is nonlinear (Carroll and Burton, 2000; Rudolph and Repenning, 2002; Lenox, Rockart, and Lewin, 2006).”