The Red Queen in organizational creation and development

By William P. Barnett, Olav Sorenson. 2002

173 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management of Technology and Innovation, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bb0070c17cbe9621fbeb8d6f799a12b5fbde1287

How researchers see this paper

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

In Management of Technology and Innovation

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Dynamic Capabilities and Entrepreneurial Management in Large Organizations: Toward a Theory of the (Entrepreneurial) Firm (2016, background): “When change is attempted, it can bring about unintended negative consequences inside the organization (Hannan et al., 2003) and trigger ruinous competitive responses from rivals (Barnett and Sorenson, 2002).”
The Nature of Entrepreneurial Opportunities: Understanding the Process Using the 4I Organizational Learning Framework (2005, methodology): “Barnett and Sorenson (2002) find that the processes of organizational creation and growth emerge from ecologies of learning organizations, which seems to suggest that the creation of new ventures based on opportunities (the focus of entrepreneurship) and on organizational learning are intricately co”
Discovery and Creation: Alternative Theories of Entrepreneurial Action (2007, background): “Learning paths can lead entrepreneurs into what have been called “competence traps”—intellectual dead ends that do not lead to real economic opportunity (Barnett and Sorenson, 2002).”
Competitive Crowding and Risk Taking in a Tournament: Evidence from NASCAR Racing (2007, background): “On the other hand, aspirations triggered by opportunities to outstrip competitors (cf. Burt, 1982; Barnett and Hansen, 1996; Barnett and Sorenson, 2002) may instead elicit temporary feelings of overconfidence.”
The geography of opportunity: spatial heterogeneity in founding rates and the performance of biotechnology firms (2003, background): “…models describe why some local areas gain additional firms while others do not, rather than why any particular zip code has a biotechnology firm (Barnett and Sorenson, 2002, adopt a similar approach in their study of Illinois banks); in other words, we examine the determinants of co-location of…”
The Liability of Good Reputation: A Study of Product Recalls in the U.S. Automobile Industry (2006, background): “We also control for competitive intensity, which has also been shown to affect an organization's growth rate and learning (Barnett and Hansen, 1996; Ingram and Baum, 1997; Barnett and Sorenson, 2002).”
Special Issue: Frontiers of Organization Science, Part 1 of 2: Designing Work Within and Between Organizations (2005, unknown): “A contemporary example of the hierarchical coordination of work is Motorola’s Six Sigma methodology for production of superior quality goods and services across multiple organizational levels (Barney 2002a, b).2 As part of its strategic planning process embedded in the Six Sigma methodology, Motorol”
Why are Some Organizations More Competitive than Others? Evidence from a Changing Global Market (2004, background): “…biologist Van Valen (1973), has been found to strongly affect rates of founding, growth, and failure among organizations (Barnett and Hansen, 1996; Barnett and Sorenson, 2002).1 Our aim here is to see how organizations shape this coevolutionary process in unintended ways as they become large…”
The Red Queen Effect: Competitive Actions And Firm Performance (2008, background): “coevolving system of Red Queen competition has been empirically shown to affect founding rates ( Barnett & Sorenson, 2002 ), failure rates (Barnett & Hansen, 1996), and competitiveness (Barnett & McKendrick, 2004).”