Managerial discretion: A bridge between polar views of organizational outcomes.
Impact in
- Accounting 494
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w8455319 →Countries where authors are citing Managerial discretion: A bridge between polar views of organizational outcomes.
This map shows the geographic impact of Managerial discretion: A bridge between polar views of organizational outcomes.. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Managerial discretion: A bridge between polar views of organizational outcomes. with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Managerial discretion: A bridge between polar views of organizational outcomes. more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Managerial discretion: A bridge between polar views of organizational outcomes.
This network shows the impact of Managerial discretion: A bridge between polar views of organizational outcomes.. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Managerial discretion: A bridge between polar views of organizational outcomes..
About Managerial discretion: A bridge between polar views of organizational outcomes.
This paper, published in 1987, received 995 indexed citations . Written by Donald C. Hambrick and Sydney Finkelstein. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Accounting (494 citations), Strategy and Management (483 citations), Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management (372 citations), Management of Technology and Innovation (155 citations) and Economics and Econometrics (115 citations). Published in Research in Organizational Behavior.
Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.
This paper is also available at doi.org/w8455319.