Developing a scale to measure liabilities and assets of newness after start-up

  • Brian G. Nagy
  • Eden S. Blair
  • Franz T. Lohrke


New ventures can simultaneously face survival challenges and benefit from distinct advantages based on their newness. Despite the importance of these issues, extant entrepreneurship studies, with limited exception, have often employed only rudimentary measures (e.g., venture age) to investigate important issues related to organizational newness. Accordingly, we develop and refine a scale to measure critical dimensions of newness that stakeholders perceive after NV start-up. We first discuss the theoretical background and previous research related to various newness dimensions. We then introduce a new construct, organizational energy, that heretofore has received scant attention in NV research. Next, we present results from an inductive study conducted to generate various dimensions of newness as well as two empirical investigations that further refine these dimensions into a reliable scale for measuring different newness dimensions. We conclude by discussing our empirical findings, the study’s limitations, and potential future research directions.


Liabilities of newness Assets of newness New ventures Scale development 


  1. Akgün, A. E., Lynn, G. S., & Byrne, J. C. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of unlearning in new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23, 73–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldrich, H., & Auster, E. (1986). Even dwarfs started small: liabilities of age and size and their strategic implications. Research in Organizational Behavior, 8(2), 165–198.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arrindell, W. A., & van der Ende, J. (1985). An empirical test of the utility of the observations-to-variables ratio in factor and component analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9(2), 165–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990). The double-edge of organizational legitimization. Organization Science, 1, 177–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barr, S. H., & Hitt, M. A. (1986). A comparison of selection decision models in manager versus student samples. Personnel Psychology, 39, 599–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barron, D. N., West, E., & Hannan, M. T. (1994). A time to grow and a time to die: growth and mortality of credit unions in New York City, 1914–1990. American Journal of Sociology, 100, 381–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barrett, P. T., & Kline, P. (1981). The observation to variable ratio in factor analysis. Personality Study and Group Behavior, 1, 23–33.Google Scholar
  9. Baum, J. R., Locke, E. A., & Smith, K. G. (2001). A multidimensional model of venture growth. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 292–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bitektine, A. (2011). Toward a theory of social judgments of organizations: a case of legitimacy, reputation, and status. Academy of Management Review, 36, 151–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Briscoe, J. A., Fawcett, S. E., & Todd, R. H. (2005). The implementation and impact of ISO 9000 among small manufacturing enterprises. Journal of Small Business Management, 43, 309–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brown, A. D. (1997). Narcissism, identity, and legitimacy. Academy of Management Review, 22(3), 643–686.Google Scholar
  13. Brüderl, J., & Schüssler, R. (1990). Organizational mortality: the liabilities of newness and adolescence. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 530–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carayannopoulos, S. (2009). How technology-based new firms leverage newness and smallness to commercialize disruptive technologies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33, 419–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cardon, M. S., Zietsma, C., Saparito, P., Matherne, B. P., & Davis, C. (2005). A tale of passion: new insights into entrepreneurship from a parenthood metaphor. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carroll, G., & Delacroix, J. (1982). Organizational mortality in the newspaper industries of Argentina and Ireland: an ecological approach. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 169–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Choi, Y. R., & Shepherd, D. A. (2005). Stakeholder perceptions of age and other dimensions of newness. Journal of Management, 31, 573–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Covin, T. J., & Brush, C. C. (1993). A comparison of student and human resource professional attitudes toward work and family issues. Group and Organization Management, 18(1), 29–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cross, R., Baker, W., & Parker, A. (2003). What creates energy in organizations? MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(4), 51–57.Google Scholar
  20. Delmar, F., & Shane, S. (2004). Legitimating first: organizing activities and the survival of new ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(3), 385–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  22. DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dobbins, G. H., Lane, I. M., & Steiner, D. D. (1988). A further examination of student babies and laboratory bath water: a response to Slade and Gordon. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9(4), 377–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dobrev, S., & Gotsopoulos, A. (2010). Legitimacy vacuum, structural imprinting, and first mover disadvantage. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 1153–1174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fichman, M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1991). Honeymoons and the liability of adolescence: a new perspective on duration dependence in social and organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 16, 442–468.Google Scholar
  27. Fischer, E., & Reuber, A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unfamiliar: the challenges of reputation formation facing new firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(1), 53–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Freeman, J., Carroll, G. R., & Hannan, M. T. (1983). The liability of newness: age dependence in organizational death rates. American Sociological Review, 48(5), 692–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gaski, J. F., & Nevin, J. R. (1985). The differential effects of exercised and unexercised power sources in a marketing channel. Journal of Marketing Research, 22(2), 130–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Glickburg, D. (2010). Paramus walking tour revisited: The grand opening [Video file]. Retrieved from Accessed on April 13, 2010; July 12, 2010.
  31. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  32. Hair, J., Black, B., Babin, B., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  33. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 929–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49, 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hannan, M. T., & Carroll, G. R. (1995). An introduction to organizational ecology. In G. R. Carroll & M. T. Hannan (Eds.), Organizations in industry: Strategy, structure, and selection. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Henderson, A. (1999). Firm strategy and age dependence: a contingent view of the liabilities of newness, adolescence, and obsolescence. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 281–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., & Harrison, J. S. (1991). Strategic competitiveness in the 1990s: challenges and opportunities for U.S. executives. The Executive, 5(2), 7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Journal of Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Illouz, E. (2009). Emotions, imagination and consumption. Journal of Consumer Culture, 9(3), 377–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2001). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  41. Katz, J., & Gartner, W. B. (1988). Properties of emerging organizations. Academy of Management Review, 13, 429–441.Google Scholar
  42. Le Mens, G., Hannan, M. T., & Pólos, L. (2011). Founding conditions, learning, and organizational life changes: age dependence revisited. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56, 95–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lei, D., Hitt, M. A., & Goldhar, J. D. (1996). Advanced manufacturing technology: Organizational design and strategic flexibility. Organizational Studies, 501–523.Google Scholar
  44. Levinthal, D. A. (1991). Random walks and organizational mortality. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 397–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. MacCallum, R. (1986). Specification searches in covariance structure modeling. Psychological Bulletin, 100(1), 107–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Miner, J. B. (1980). Limited domain theories of organizational energy. In C. C. Pinder & L. F. Moore (Eds.), Middle range theory and the study of organizations. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishing.Google Scholar
  47. Mishina, Y., Pollock, T., & Porac, J. (2004). Are more resources always better for growth? Resource stickiness in market and product expansion. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 1179–1197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nadkarni, S., & Herrmann, P. (2010). CEO personality, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: the case of the Indian business process outsourcing industry. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 1050–1073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  50. O’Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: a profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 487–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Penrose, E. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  52. Preisendorfer, P., & Voss, T. (1990). Organizational mortality of small firms: the effects of entrepreneurial age and human capital. Organization Studies, 11, 107–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ranger-Moore, J. (1997). Bigger may be better, but is older wiser? Organizational age and size in the New York life insurance industry. American Sociological Review, 62, 903–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Remus, W. (1986). Graduate students as surrogates for managers in experiments on business decision making. Journal of Business Research, 14(1), 19–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ruef, M., & Scott, W. R. (1998). A multi-dimensional model of organizational legitimacy: hospital survival in changing institutional environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 877–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sanchez, R. (2007). Strategic flexibility in product competition. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 135–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Scitovsky, T. (1992). The joyless economy: The psychology of human satisfaction. United States: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Shepherd, D. A., Douglas, E. J., & Shanley, M. (2000). New venture survival: ignorance, external shocks, and risk reduction strategies. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5–6), 393–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Shepherd, D. A., & Zacharakis, A. (2003). A new venture’s cognitive legitimacy: an assessment by customers. Journal of Small Business Management, 41, 148–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Singh, J. V., Tucker, D. J., & House, R. J. (1986). Organizational legitimacy and the liability of newness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 171–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Slade, L. A., & Gordon, M. E. (1988). On the virtues of laboratory babies and student bath water: a reply to Dobbins, Lane, and Steiner. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9, 373–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sparks, G. G. (2006a). Comments concerning the claim that mass media research is prescientific: a response to Potter, Cooper, and Dupagne. Communication Theory, 5(3), 273–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sparks, G. G. (2006b). A final reply to Potter, Cooper, and Dupagne. Communication Theory, 5(3), 286–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Stearns, T. M., Carter, N. M., Reynolds, P. D., & Williams, M. L. (1995). New firm survival: industry, strategy, and location. Journal of Business Venturing, 10, 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Stinchcombe, A. L. (1965). Social structure and organizations. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 142–193). Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  66. Strotmann, H. (2007). Entrepreneurial survival. Small Business Economics, 28, 84–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20, 571–610.Google Scholar
  68. Thornhill, S., & Amit, R. (2003). Learning about failure: bankruptcy, firm age, and the resource-based view. Organization Science, 14, 497–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wiklund, J., Baker, T., & Shepherd, D. A. (2010). The age-effect of financial indicators as buffers against the liability of newness. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 423–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 341–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zimmerman, M. A., & Zeitz, G. J. (2002). Beyond survival: achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review, 27, 414–431.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian G. Nagy
    • 1
  • Eden S. Blair
    • 1
  • Franz T. Lohrke
    • 2
  1. 1.Foster College of BusinessBradley UniversityPeoriaUSA
  2. 2.Brock School of BusinessSamford UniversityBirminghamUSA

Personalised recommendations