Legitimacy Building in the Evolution of Small-Firm Multilateral Networks: A Comparative Study of Success and Demise

By S. Human, Keith G. Provan. 2000

724 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/920be7d8af7443c8222920b664c0c50fd8bb21c1

How researchers see this paper

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

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

A Framework for the Initiation of Networked Improvement Communities (2017, background): “These entities are variously referred to as network entrepreneurs (Burt, 2000), hubs (Dhanaraj & Parkhe, 2006), lead organizations (Provan & Kenis, 2008), or network administrative organizations (Human & Provan, 2000), just to name a few.”
The governance of supply networks: a systematic literature review (2012, background): “Those networks built on prior relationships, often because of a defined interorganizational structure, are more durable (Human and Provan, 2000) drawing on shared norms and values.”
Institutional Entrepreneurship in Emerging Fields: HIV/AIDS Treatment Advocacy in Canada (2004, background): “New practices also have to be perceived as legitimate by key stakeholders if they are to be institutionalized ( Human & Provan, 2000; Palmer, Jennings, & Zhou, 1993).”
Legitimacy‐as‐Feeling: How Affect Leads to Vertical Legitimacy Spillovers in Transnational Governance (2014, neutral): “…pervasiveness of TGSs (Vogel, 2008; Waddock, 2008), past research is largely silent on the conditions underlying the legitimation of such entities (Quack, 2010) and there has been few attempts to explain how inter-organizational networks such as TGSs establish legitimacy (Human and Provan, 2000).”
Does size matter?: A study of firm behavior and outcomes in strategic SME networks (2005, background): “Despite the potential to improve firm performance when participating in an SME network, membership firms face external challenges, such as free riding, opportunism, and uncertainty of outcomes, when operating with partly independent members that can be competitors ( Human and Provan, 2000”
Network board continuity and effectiveness of open innovation in Swedish strategic small‐firm networks (2009, positive): “Prior literature has suggested several potential benefits of a network board, including coordination, organization, mitigation of short-term orientations among members in resource exchange, and avoidance of opportunism (Human and Provan, 2000), to mention a few.”
Rotating Leadership and Collaborative Innovation (2011, background): “…the convergence of communications and computing created multiple opportunities for innovation that required technological collaboration across sector boundaries between organizations like semiconductor, hardware, and software firms (Mowery and Rosenberg, 1998; Bresnahan and Greenstein, 1999).”