Cosmetic, Speculative, and Adaptive Organizational Change in the Wine Industry: A Longitudinal Study

Framing Interorganizational Network Change: A Network Inertia Perspective

“…From a network perspective, this means that the ways people and units interact with one another become stable or even rigid. Previous research has shown that organizations are less likely to change as they age (e.g., Amburgey, Kelly, & Barnett, 1993;Delacroix & Swaminathan, 1991;Miller & Chen, 1994).…”

“…A larger number of units and longer chains of hierarchical relationships reduce the speed with which an organization can reorganize in response to environmental changes (Hannan & Freeman, 1984;Hannan et al, 2002b). Several studies have shown that larger organizations are less likely to change (e.g., Delacroix & Swaminathan, 1991), while other studies have shown that midsize organizations are the most likely to change (e.g., Haveman, 1993). Taken together, these studies suggest that organizational inertia makes organizations less likely to undertake architectural change that results in long cascades of change, and such architectural change damages organizational performance, at least for a short period of time (Hannan et al, 2002b,c).…”

The Old and the Stubborn? Firm Characteristics and Relocation in the Netherlands

“…The inertia of firms is also generated by sunk costs, existing networks and investments in location and durable goods (RangerMoore, 1997; Rosenbaum and Lamort, 1992). Furthermore, firms invested over time in visual reliability, such as location and premises: changes in these can undermine the legitimation of a firm (Delacroix and Swaminathan, 1991). Therefore, it is expected that the spatial environment (or surroundings) of the firm partly determines the survival (getting older) of firms.…”

When is more better? The impact of business scale and scope on long‐term business survival, while controlling for profitability

“…Instead, most survival analyses have focused on the impact of size, using various measures of size including sales, assets, capacity, and employment, consistently finding that larger firms and businesses are less likely to exit. These studies include Star and Massel (1981), Small Business Administration (1983), Aldrich and Auster (1986), Evans (1987), Barnett (1990), Delacroix and Swaminathan (1991), Baum and Oliver (1991), Baum and Mezias (1992), Carroll and Swaminathan (1992), Barron, West, andHannan (1994), andMitchell (1994). Although many of these studies pool dissolutions and acquisitions as forms of exit, which creates some ambiguity in interpreting the results, the basic size-survival relationship appears to be robust at both the corporate and business level.…”