Liabilities of newness and smallness as well as other issues (e.g., “imprinting”) that affect nascent firms represent foundational entrepreneurship issues. The articles in this Special Issue examine if and how these critical issues have changed over time, especially given recent innovations (e.g., crowdfunding) and other trends in society. We believe that a special issue devoted to these topics is especially timely not only because this research can inform current management theory, policy, and practice, but also because it has now been five and three decades, respectively, since the publication of Stinchcombe’s and Aldrich and Auster’s seminal works on these issues. These anniversaries, thus, provide an ideal time to reflect on findings, to date, and plot potential future research avenues.
AldrichH.AusterE. (1986). Even dwarfs started small: Liabilities of age and size and their strategic implications. Research in Organizational Behavior, 8, 165-198.
2.
AudretschD. (1995). Innovation, growth and survival. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 13, 441-457.
3.
BaronJ.HannanM.BurtonM. (1999). Building the iron cage: Determinants of managerial intensity in the early years of organizations. American Sociological Review, 64, 527-548.
4.
BeckT.Demirgüç-KuntA.MaksimovicV. (2008). Financing patterns around the world: Are small firms different?Journal of Financial Economics, 89, 467-487.
5.
BelleflammeP.LambertT.SchwienbacherA. (2014). Crowdfunding: Tapping the right crowd. Journal of Business Venturing, 29, 585-609.
6.
BitektineA. (2011). Toward a theory of social judgments of organizations: The case of legitimacy, reputation, and status. Academy of Management Review, 36, 151-179.
7.
BoekerW. (1989). The development and institutionalization of subunit power in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 388-410.
8.
CarayannopoulosS. (2009). How technology-based new firms leverage newness and smallness to commercialize disruptive technologies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33, 419-438.
9.
CarrollG.DelacroixJ. (1982). Organizational mortality in the newspaper industries of Argentina and Ireland: An ecological approach. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 169-198.
10.
ChenM.-J.HambrickD. (1995). Speed, stealth, and selective attack: How small firms differ from large firms in competitive behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 453-482.
11.
ChoiY.ShepherdD. A. (2005). Stakeholder perceptions of age and other dimensions of newness. Journal of Management, 31, 573-596.
12.
ConnellyB.CertoS.IrelandR.ReutzelC. (2011). Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37, 39-67.
13.
DeephouseD. (1999). To be different, or to be the same? It’s a question (and theory) of strategic balance. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 147-166.
14.
DeephouseD.CarterS. (2005). An examination of differences between organizational legitimacy and organizational reputation. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 329-360.
15.
AlbertL.DeTienneD. (2016). Founding resources and intentional exit sales strategies: An imprinting perspective. Group & Organization Management, 41, 823-846.
16.
DobrevS.GotsopoulosA. (2010). Legitimacy vacuum, structural imprinting, and the first mover disadvantage. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 1153-1174.
17.
FischerE.ReuberR. (2011). Social interaction via new social media: (How) can interactions on Twitter affect effectual thinking and behavior?Journal of Business Venturing, 26, 1-18.
18.
FischerE.ReuberR. (2014). Online entrepreneurial communication: Mitigating uncertainty and increasing differentiation via Twitter. Journal of Business Venturing, 29, 565-583.
19.
FisherG.KothaS.LahiriA. (2016). Changing with the times: An integrated view of identity, legitimacy, and new venture life cycles. Academy of Management Review, 41, 383-409.
20.
FreemanJ.CarrollG.HannanM. (1983). The liability of newness: Age dependence in organizational death rates. American Sociological Review, 48, 692-710.
21.
GarudR.SchildtH.LantT. (2014). Entrepreneurial storytelling, future expectations, and the paradox of legitimacy. Organization Science, 25, 1479-1492.
22.
GrégoireD.NoëlM.DéryR.BéchardJ.-P. (2006). Is there conceptual convergence in entrepreneurship research? A co-citation analysis of frontiers of entrepreneurship research, 1981–2004. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16, 333-373.
23.
GuentherC.OertelS.WalgenbachP. (2016). It’s all about timing: Age-dependent consequences of founder exits and new member additions. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 40, 843-865.
24.
KimP.BuffartM.CroidieuG. (2016). TMI: Signaling credible claims in crowdfunding campaign narratives. Group & Organization Management, 41, 717-750.
25.
LandströmH.PerssonO. (2010). Entrepreneurship research: Research communities and knowledge platforms. In LandströmH.LohrkeF. (Eds.), Historical foundations of entrepreneurship research (pp. 46-76). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
26.
LarsonA. (1992). Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings: A study of the governance of exchange relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 76-104.
27.
LohrkeF.NagyB.BirdB.FischerE.ReuberR. (2009, June). Are new ventures illegitimate, disreputable, untrustworthy, or routineless? A liability of newness review and research agenda. Paper presented at the Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference, Wellesley, MA.
MarquisC.HuangZ. (2010). Acquisitions as exaptation: The legacy of founding institutions in the U.S. commercial banking industry. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 1441-1473.
30.
MarquisC.TilcsikA. (2013). Imprinting: Toward a multilevel theory. Academy of Management Annals, 7, 195-245.
31.
MuellerS.StegmaierJ. (2015). Economic failure and the role of plant age and size. Small Business Economics, 44, 621-638.
32.
NagyB.LohrkeF. (2010). Only the good die young? A review of liability of newness and related new venture mortality research. In LandströmH.LohrkeF. (Eds.), Historical foundations of entrepreneurship research (pp. 185-204). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
33.
Ni SullivanB.TangY.MarquisC. (2014). Persistently learning: How small-world network imprints affect subsequent firm learning. Strategic Organization, 12, 180-199.
34.
OviattB.McDougallP. (1994). Toward a theory of international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 25, 45-64.
35.
RenkoM.KunduS.ShraderR.CarsrudA.ParhankangasA. (2016). Liabilities, advantages, and buffers of newness: How young age makes internationalization possible. Group & Organization Management, 41, 786-822.
36.
RosarioA.SotgiuF.De ValckK.BijmoltT. (2016). The effect of electronic word of mouth on sales: A meta-analytic review of platform, product, and metric factors. Journal of Marketing Research, 53, 297-318.
37.
RutherfordM.TocherN.PollackJ.CoombesS. (2016). Proposing a financial legitimacy threshold in emerging ventures: A multi-method investigation. Group & Organization Management, 41, 751-785.
38.
ShepherdD.DouglasE.ShanleyM. (2000). New venture survival: Ignorance, external shocks, and risk reduction strategies. Journal of Business Venturing, 15, 393-410.
39.
SinghJ.TuckerD.HouseR. (1986). Organizational legitimacy and the liability of newness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 171-193.
40.
StinchcombeA. (1965). Organizations and social structure. In MarchJ. G.(Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 142–193). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
41.
StrotmannH. (2007). Entrepreneurial survival. Small Business Economics, 28, 84-101.
42.
SuchmanM. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20, 571-610.
43.
ThornhillS.AmitR. (2003). Learning about failure: Bankruptcy, firm age, and the resource-based view. Organizational Science, 14, 497-509.
44.
ZaheerS. (1995). Overcoming the liability of foreignness. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 341-363.
45.
ZimmermanM.ZeitzG. (2002). Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review, 27, 414-431.
