Managing diversity becomes one of the most important factors in ensuring company competitiveness. This paper explores the theory about diversity management and compares it with the practices in organizations and then examines the organizations’ diversity programs through their employees’ perceptions. The findings illustrate that there is a gap between managing diversity theories and practices in organizations and some barriers in implementing divManaging diversity becomes one of the most important factors in ensuring company competitiveness. This paper explores the theory about diversity management and compares it with the practices in organizations and then examines the organizations’ diversity programs through their employees’ perceptions. The findings illustrate that there is a gap between managing diversity theories and practices in organizations and some barriers in implementing diversity program, especially in the hospitality industry.ersity program, especially in the hospitality industry.
Today stakeholders becomes more and more aware of the ecological and social footprints adopted by multinational companies (MNCs) worldwide, accountability, transparency and governance issues are considered to be main stream agenda in the corporate boardroom discussion. Sustainability reporting evaluates the performance of company’s based on three distinct parameters such as economic, environmental and societal. Triple Bottom Line Reporting (subsequently refer to as TBLR) goes beyond the traditional way of reporting mechanism and encourages businesses to give closer attention to the whole impact of their commercial activities, over &above their financial performance. John Elkington strove to measure sustainability during the mid-1990s by encompassing a new framework to measure performance in corporate America. This accounting framework, called the triple bottom line (TBL), went beyond the traditional measures of profits, return on investment, and shareholder value to include environmental and social dimensions. The Corporate Triple Bottom Line (subsequently refer to as CTBL) Reporting is based on three pillars-(i) environmental, (ii) social, (iii) social causes. Corporate Triple Bottom Line (CTBL) disclosure items are handpicked from the annual reports/corporate social responsibility reports of the sample units after a thorough examination of the contents of annual reports/corporate social responsibility reports.
The level of Triple Bottom Line reporting in India is in its infancy and still evolving. The three dimensions for TBL Reporting in India are people, planet and profit, which lead to sustainable development. Present study highlights the CTBL Reporting indicators, CTBL Reporting indictors in India and the limitations of CTBL Reporting.
Managing diversity becomes one of the most important factors in ensuring company competitiveness. This paper explores the theory about diversity management and compares it with the practices in organizations and then examines the organizations’ diversity programs through their employees’ perceptions. The findings illustrate that there is a gap between managing diversity theories and practices in organizations and some barriers in implementing divManaging diversity becomes one of the most important factors in ensuring company competitiveness. This paper explores the theory about diversity management and compares it with the practices in organizations and then examines the organizations’ diversity programs through their employees’ perceptions. The findings illustrate that there is a gap between managing diversity theories and practices in organizations and some barriers in implementing diversity program, especially in the hospitality industry.ersity program, especially in the hospitality industry.
Today stakeholders becomes more and more aware of the ecological and social footprints adopted by multinational companies (MNCs) worldwide, accountability, transparency and governance issues are considered to be main stream agenda in the corporate boardroom discussion. Sustainability reporting evaluates the performance of company’s based on three distinct parameters such as economic, environmental and societal. Triple Bottom Line Reporting (subsequently refer to as TBLR) goes beyond the traditional way of reporting mechanism and encourages businesses to give closer attention to the whole impact of their commercial activities, over &above their financial performance. John Elkington strove to measure sustainability during the mid-1990s by encompassing a new framework to measure performance in corporate America. This accounting framework, called the triple bottom line (TBL), went beyond the traditional measures of profits, return on investment, and shareholder value to include environmental and social dimensions. The Corporate Triple Bottom Line (subsequently refer to as CTBL) Reporting is based on three pillars-(i) environmental, (ii) social, (iii) social causes. Corporate Triple Bottom Line (CTBL) disclosure items are handpicked from the annual reports/corporate social responsibility reports of the sample units after a thorough examination of the contents of annual reports/corporate social responsibility reports.
The level of Triple Bottom Line reporting in India is in its infancy and still evolving. The three dimensions for TBL Reporting in India are people, planet and profit, which lead to sustainable development. Present study highlights the CTBL Reporting indicators, CTBL Reporting indictors in India and the limitations of CTBL Reporting.
httpnvs.sagepub.comNonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarte.docxadampcarr67227
http://nvs.sagepub.com/
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly
http://nvs.sagepub.com/content/32/4/521
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0899764003257463
2003 32: 521Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly
Judith L. Miller-Millesen
Understanding the Behavior of Nonprofit Boards of Directors: A Theory-Based Approach
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action
can be found at:Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector QuarterlyAdditional services and information for
http://nvs.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://nvs.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://nvs.sagepub.com/content/32/4/521.refs.htmlCitations:
What is This?
- Dec 1, 2003Version of Record >>
by guest on September 7, 2014nvs.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on September 7, 2014nvs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
10.1177/0899764003257463 ARTICLEUnderstanding Nonprofit Boards of DirectorsMiller-Millesen
Understanding the Behavior of Nonprofit
Boards of Directors: A Theory-Based Approach
Judith L. Miller-Millesen
Ohio University
The literature on nonprofit boards of directors is rich with prescriptive advice about the
kinds of activities that should occupy the board’s time and attention. Using organiza-
tional theory that has dominated the empirical investigation of private sector board
behavior (agency, resource dependence, and institutional), this article contributes to the
literature on nonprofit board governance in three important ways. First, it provides a
link between theory and practice by identifying the theoretical assumptions that have
served as the foundation for the “best practice” literature. Second, the article presents a
theory-based framework of board behavior that identifies the environmental conditions
and board/organizational considerations that are likely to affect board behavior. And
finally, it offers a set of hypotheses that can be used in future empirical investigations that
seeks to understand the conditions under which a nonprofit board might assume certain
roles and responsibilities over others.
Keywords: nonprofit governance, boards of directors, organization theory
In a recent comprehensive review of the literature on nonprofit governance,
Ostrower & Stone (2001, p. 1) argued that there are “major gaps in our theoreti-
cal and empirical knowledge” regarding nonprofit boards of directors. The
authors acknowledged a small but growing body of research suggesting an
increase in scholarly attention to and interest in “understanding rather than
describing” board governance. However, they concluded that future research
must address the contextual and contingent elements of governance and
make explicit the implications of these considerations. I address this gap in the
literatu.
A theoretical framework oforganizational changeGabriele .docxstandfordabbot
A theoretical framework of
organizational change
Gabriele Jacobs
Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam,
The Netherlands
Arjen van Witteloostuijn
University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium, Tilburg University, Tilburg,
The Netherlands, and Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands, and
Jochen Christe-Zeyse
Fachhochschule der Polizei Brandenburg, Brandenburg, Germany
Abstract
Purpose – Organizational change is a risky endeavour. Most change initiatives fall short on their
goals and produce high opportunity and process costs, which at times outweigh the content benefits of
organizational change. This paper seeks to develop a framework, offering a theoretical toolbox to
analyze context-dependent barriers and enablers of organizational change. Starting from an
organizational identity perspective, it aims to link contingency-based approaches, such as
environmental scan, SWOT and stakeholder analysis, with insights from organizational behaviour
research, such as knowledge sharing and leadership.
Design/methodology/approach – The framework is informed by long-lasting field research into
organizational change in an international policing environment. The theories in the framework are
selected from the perspective of field validity in two ways; they were chosen because the topics
covered by these theories emerged as relevant during the field research and therefore it can be
expected they have applicability to the field. The authors’ insights and suggestions are summarised in
13 propositions throughout the text.
Findings – The analysis provides a clear warning that organizational change is more risky and
multifaceted than change initiators typically assume. It is stressed that the external environment and
the internal dynamics of organizations co-determine the meaning of managerial practices. This implies
that cure-all recipes to organizational change are bound to fail.
Originality/value – This paper makes an ambitious attempt to cross disciplinary boundaries in the
field of organizational change research to contribute to a more comprehensive and holistic
understanding of change processes by integrating perspectives that focus on the internal context and
the external environment of organizations.
Keywords Organizational change, Contingency analysis, Culture, Leadership, Environmental scan,
Police, Public security, Public management, International environment, Costs of change, Policing
Paper type Research paper
Organizational change as a risky strategy
Organizational change is omnipresent, being the raison d’être of the consultancy
industry (Sorge and van Witteloostuijn, 2004). Modern organization sciences have
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0953-4814.htm
The authors would like to thank the project partners for their contribution to this work. This
research is partially funded by the European Commission in the context of the COMPOSITE
projec.
Macro Environment and Organisational Structure A Reviewijtsrd
This piece of work theoretically or descriptively considered the impact of the external environment on the structure of organizations. The key variables being organizational structure the dependent variable and the external environment of the organization as the independent variable . Dimensions of organizational structure adopted were centralization, formalization, standardization, specialization and configuration while the measures of external environment applied were level of uncertainty or changeability, intolerance or xenophobia and complexity. The theoretical foundation was hinged on social identity theory and contingency theory. Meaning, types and factors affecting organizational structure were considered alongside environmental factors. It was observed that the external environment has great impact on the organization and is largely responsible for the dynamic nature of the business world. It was therefore recommended that an adequate environmental scanning be carried out to ascertain the stability or otherwise of the environment to be able to know which structural type to adopt at every point in time. Hannah Chika, Anyanwu | Dr. Justin Mgbechi. O. Gabriel "Macro Environment and Organisational Structure: A Review" Published in International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (ijtsrd), ISSN: 2456-6470, Volume-5 | Issue-1 , December 2020, URL: https://www.ijtsrd.com/papers/ijtsrd35834.pdf Paper URL : https://www.ijtsrd.com/management/organizational-behaviour/35834/macro-environment-and-organisational-structure-a-review/hannah-chika-anyanwu
A Comparative Analysis of Organizational Structure and Effectiveness between ...inventionjournals
The nature of services in institutions of higher learning requires that all stakeholders play
positive roles in the sustainability of the institution’s survival and effectiveness in giving quality teaching,
research and learning. Structure and processes are core requirements for understanding organizational
effectiveness. The actual scenario in the field, however, raises concerns as to whether cases of pending work,
inefficiency, conflicts among others can be arrested by having proper structures and processes. The purpose of
the study was to assess the effect of organizational structure on organizational effectiveness, in public and
private universities in Kenya, using the case of Moi University and University of East Africa (UEA)-Baraton.
Based on the study, this paper undertakes a comparative analyisis of organizational structure and
organizational effectiveness between UEA-Baraton and Moi University and the extent to which the nature of
formalization and level of horizontal integration are antecedents to level of communication and locus of
decision-making. The study utilized a cross-sectional survey design that was descripto-explanatory in nature to
identify attributes of the study population using a small sample of individuals. Independent samples t-test was
used to test whether there was any significant difference in organizational structure and organizational
effectiveness between public and private universities. Further, the study used hierarchical regression analysis to
test the hypotheses. Based on the sample of 365 participants (300 from Moi University and 65 from UEABaraton),
the independent samples t-test confirmed that there were significant differences in organizational
structure and organizational effectiveness between public and private universities. The regression results
indicated that the locus of decision-making had positive and significant effects on productivity, stability,
resource acquisition and human resource satisfaction and development. The results highlight the need to
improve organizational structure which has positive impacts on organizational effectiveness under the
moderation of organizational processes. This move is necessitated by the accelerated pace of business
complexity today.
Running Head FOUR-FRAME MODEL 1FOUR-FRAME MODEL7Fou.docxcowinhelen
Running Head: FOUR-FRAME MODEL
1
FOUR-FRAME MODEL
7
Four Frame Model
Rubin Wilkins
Module 5 Assignment 2
Argosy University Los Angeles
Professor: Dale Mancini
February 15, 2017
Four-frame Model
Introduction
Bolman and Deal synthesized the foregoing leadership theory into four contemporary cognitive perspectives which they further organized into frames to assist leaders in the decision-making process in relation to each individual situation. It was their understanding that the use of such frames would assist leaders in analyzing respective events in a different manner and perspective. In essence, they provide ‘windows’ that enhance the leaders’ to have a broader understanding of the challenges being faced by the organization and solutions that are potentially available. This insightful piece therefore proceeds to help in understanding the frames.
The Four-Frame Model of leadership is a creation stemming from the meshing of various organizational theories to form a wide-encompassing one. These consolidated theories include; the trait theory, power and influence theory, situational and contingency theory, and the behavioral theory (Bateman, 2007). They have been developed over a span of many years. The multiple perspectives emanating from the various theoretical underpinnings are the ones termed as frames by the two theorists; through which an organization is viewed by the leaders and other related persons. These ‘windows’ further operate to bring an organization into focus and subsequently serve as filters which offer the leaders order and assist them in making decisions. Furthermore, the frames comprise of the structural frame, human resource frame, political frame and the symbolic frame. Each individual frame represents a perspective
accompanied by its own assumptions and attributes.
The structural frame is used in viewing the world from an orderly point of view furnished with a multiplicity of rules and procedures. The human resource frame then comes in to assume that goals are best achieved through the meeting of organization members’ needs and fully appreciating the workforce as fundamental part of the organization. The political frame appertains to the conflicts, alliances and bartering of respective parties to properly use and allocate the scares resources owned by and charged to the organization. Finally, symbolic frame relates to the issues of culture, symbols and rituals of an organization as opposed to the established rules and procedures.
Theme among articles
Song, Kim and Kolb (2009) set out to research on the effect of learning an organization’s culture and the established linkage between interpersonal trust and the general commitment to an organization. The sample used in this study was primarily obtained from various employees working to conglomerate entities of Korea. Resultantly, it was established that learning an organization’s culture worked as a mediating factor in the explanation of associations betwe ...
,QVWLWXWLRQDOL]HG�2UJDQL]DWLRQV��)RUPDO�6WUXFWXUH�DV�0\WK�DQG�&HUHPRQ\
$XWKRU�V���-RKQ�:��0H\HU�DQG�%ULDQ�5RZDQ
5HYLHZHG�ZRUN�V��
6RXUFH��$PHULFDQ�-RXUQDO�RI�6RFLRORJ\��9RO������1R�����6HS����������SS���������
3XEOLVKHG�E\��The University of Chicago Press
6WDEOH�85/��http://www.jstor.org/stable/2778293 .
$FFHVVHG������������������
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]
.
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Journal of Sociology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.71 on Wed, 28 Nov 2012 00:55:59 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2778293?origin=JSTOR-pdf
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure
as Myth and Ceremonyl
John W. Meyer and Brian Rowan
Stanford University
Many formal organizational structures arise as reflections of ratio-
nalized institutional rules. The elaboration of such rules in modern
states and societies accounts in part for the expansion and increased
complexity of formal organizational structures. Institutional rules
function as myths which organizations incorporate, gaining legitimacy,
resources, stability, and enhanced survival prospects. Organizations
whose structures become isomorphic with the myths of the institu-
tional environment-in contrast with those primarily structured by
the demands of technical production and exchange-decrease internal
coordination and control in order to maintain legitimacy. Structures
are decoupled from each other and from ongoing activities. In place of
coordination, inspection, and evaluation, a logic of confidence and
good faith is employed.
Formal organizations are generally understood to be systems of coordinated
and controlled activities that arise when work is embedded in complex
networks of technical relations and boundary-spanning exchanges. But in
modern societies formal organizational structures arise in highly institu-
tionalized contexts. Professions, policies, and programs are created along
with the products and services that they are understood to produce rational-
ly. This permits many new organizations to spring up and forces existing
ones to incorporate new practices and procedures. That is, organizations are
driven to incorporate the prac ...
Organizational culture has a powerful effect on the performance and the long-term effectiveness of organizations. Organizational culture has the power to influence employee behaviors and increase employee commitment and productivity. Therefore, a clear understanding of organizational culture and how to effect its change is important for business leaders because it influences the way that organizations react to the changing demands of the business environment. The goal of this paper is to explore what is meant by organizational culture, why it is important, and how to change an established culture so that it is better aligned with the organization’s strategy.
Chapter 3 Frameworks for Diagnosing Organizations What” to ChangeWilheminaRossi174
Chapter 3 Frameworks for Diagnosing Organizations “What” to Change in an Organization
There is nothing as practical as a good theory.
—Kurt Lewin
Chapter Overview
· Change leaders need to understand both the process of making organizational modifications (the how to change as outlined in Chapter 2) and the ability to diagnose organizational problems and take actions to change an organization.
· Determining what needs changing requires clear organizational frameworks. Change leaders need to comprehend the complexity and interrelatedness of organizational components: how analysis needs to occur at different organizational levels, and how organizations and their environments will shift over time, requiring further analysis and action.
· This chapter outlines several frameworks that one can use to analyze organizational dynamics:
1. Nadler and Tushman’s Congruence Model balances the complexity needed for organizational analysis, and the simplicity needed for action planning and communication, and provides the over-arching structure for this book;
2. Sterman’s Systems Dynamics Model views the nonlinear and interactive nature of organizations;
3. Quinn’s Competing Values Model provides a framework that bridges individual and organizational levels of analysis;
4. Greiner’s Phases of Organizational Growth Model highlights organizational changes that will—inevitably—occur over time in organizations, from their infancy to maturity; this model is particularly useful for entrepreneurs who sometimes need to be reminded that change needs to occur, even in their small start-up organizations; and
5. Stacey’s Complexity Theory is introduced to highlight the interactive, time-dependent nature of organizations and their evolutionary processes.
• Each framework aids a change agent in diagnosing a particular kind of organizational issue and suggests remedies for what ails an institution.
In Chapter 2, we considered the process of change (the Change Path). In this chapter, we deal with what aspects of an organization to change. Differentiating the process from the content is sometimes confusing, but the rather unusual example below will highlight the difference.
Bloodletting is a procedure that was performed to help alleviate the ills of mankind. . . . In the early 19th century, adults with good health from the country districts of England were bled as regularly as they went to market; this was considered to be preventive medicine.1
The practice of bloodletting was based on a set of assumptions about how the body worked—bloodletting would diminish the quantity of blood in the system and thus lessen the redness, heat, and swelling that was occurring. As a result, people seemed to get better after this treatment—but only in the short term. The reality was that they were weakened by the loss of blood. As we know today, the so-called science of bloodletting was based on an inaccurate understanding of the body. It is likely that bloodletting professionals worked to imp ...
Similar to A Study of the Form of Organizations (20)
India Orthopedic Devices Market: Unlocking Growth Secrets, Trends and Develop...Kumar Satyam
According to TechSci Research report, “India Orthopedic Devices Market -Industry Size, Share, Trends, Competition Forecast & Opportunities, 2030”, the India Orthopedic Devices Market stood at USD 1,280.54 Million in 2024 and is anticipated to grow with a CAGR of 7.84% in the forecast period, 2026-2030F. The India Orthopedic Devices Market is being driven by several factors. The most prominent ones include an increase in the elderly population, who are more prone to orthopedic conditions such as osteoporosis and arthritis. Moreover, the rise in sports injuries and road accidents are also contributing to the demand for orthopedic devices. Advances in technology and the introduction of innovative implants and prosthetics have further propelled the market growth. Additionally, government initiatives aimed at improving healthcare infrastructure and the increasing prevalence of lifestyle diseases have led to an upward trend in orthopedic surgeries, thereby fueling the market demand for these devices.
Memorandum Of Association Constitution of Company.pptseri bangash
www.seribangash.com
A Memorandum of Association (MOA) is a legal document that outlines the fundamental principles and objectives upon which a company operates. It serves as the company's charter or constitution and defines the scope of its activities. Here's a detailed note on the MOA:
Contents of Memorandum of Association:
Name Clause: This clause states the name of the company, which should end with words like "Limited" or "Ltd." for a public limited company and "Private Limited" or "Pvt. Ltd." for a private limited company.
https://seribangash.com/article-of-association-is-legal-doc-of-company/
Registered Office Clause: It specifies the location where the company's registered office is situated. This office is where all official communications and notices are sent.
Objective Clause: This clause delineates the main objectives for which the company is formed. It's important to define these objectives clearly, as the company cannot undertake activities beyond those mentioned in this clause.
www.seribangash.com
Liability Clause: It outlines the extent of liability of the company's members. In the case of companies limited by shares, the liability of members is limited to the amount unpaid on their shares. For companies limited by guarantee, members' liability is limited to the amount they undertake to contribute if the company is wound up.
https://seribangash.com/promotors-is-person-conceived-formation-company/
Capital Clause: This clause specifies the authorized capital of the company, i.e., the maximum amount of share capital the company is authorized to issue. It also mentions the division of this capital into shares and their respective nominal value.
Association Clause: It simply states that the subscribers wish to form a company and agree to become members of it, in accordance with the terms of the MOA.
Importance of Memorandum of Association:
Legal Requirement: The MOA is a legal requirement for the formation of a company. It must be filed with the Registrar of Companies during the incorporation process.
Constitutional Document: It serves as the company's constitutional document, defining its scope, powers, and limitations.
Protection of Members: It protects the interests of the company's members by clearly defining the objectives and limiting their liability.
External Communication: It provides clarity to external parties, such as investors, creditors, and regulatory authorities, regarding the company's objectives and powers.
https://seribangash.com/difference-public-and-private-company-law/
Binding Authority: The company and its members are bound by the provisions of the MOA. Any action taken beyond its scope may be considered ultra vires (beyond the powers) of the company and therefore void.
Amendment of MOA:
While the MOA lays down the company's fundamental principles, it is not entirely immutable. It can be amended, but only under specific circumstances and in compliance with legal procedures. Amendments typically require shareholder
Taurus Zodiac Sign_ Personality Traits and Sign Dates.pptxmy Pandit
Explore the world of the Taurus zodiac sign. Learn about their stability, determination, and appreciation for beauty. Discover how Taureans' grounded nature and hardworking mindset define their unique personality.
Skye Residences | Extended Stay Residences Near Toronto Airportmarketingjdass
Experience unparalleled EXTENDED STAY and comfort at Skye Residences located just minutes from Toronto Airport. Discover sophisticated accommodations tailored for discerning travelers.
Website Link :
https://skyeresidences.com/
https://skyeresidences.com/about-us/
https://skyeresidences.com/gallery/
https://skyeresidences.com/rooms/
https://skyeresidences.com/near-by-attractions/
https://skyeresidences.com/commute/
https://skyeresidences.com/contact/
https://skyeresidences.com/queen-suite-with-sofa-bed/
https://skyeresidences.com/queen-suite-with-sofa-bed-and-balcony/
https://skyeresidences.com/queen-suite-with-sofa-bed-accessible/
https://skyeresidences.com/2-bedroom-deluxe-queen-suite-with-sofa-bed/
https://skyeresidences.com/2-bedroom-deluxe-king-queen-suite-with-sofa-bed/
https://skyeresidences.com/2-bedroom-deluxe-queen-suite-with-sofa-bed-accessible/
#Skye Residences Etobicoke, #Skye Residences Near Toronto Airport, #Skye Residences Toronto, #Skye Hotel Toronto, #Skye Hotel Near Toronto Airport, #Hotel Near Toronto Airport, #Near Toronto Airport Accommodation, #Suites Near Toronto Airport, #Etobicoke Suites Near Airport, #Hotel Near Toronto Pearson International Airport, #Toronto Airport Suite Rentals, #Pearson Airport Hotel Suites
Enterprise Excellence is Inclusive Excellence.pdfKaiNexus
Enterprise excellence and inclusive excellence are closely linked, and real-world challenges have shown that both are essential to the success of any organization. To achieve enterprise excellence, organizations must focus on improving their operations and processes while creating an inclusive environment that engages everyone. In this interactive session, the facilitator will highlight commonly established business practices and how they limit our ability to engage everyone every day. More importantly, though, participants will likely gain increased awareness of what we can do differently to maximize enterprise excellence through deliberate inclusion.
What is Enterprise Excellence?
Enterprise Excellence is a holistic approach that's aimed at achieving world-class performance across all aspects of the organization.
What might I learn?
A way to engage all in creating Inclusive Excellence. Lessons from the US military and their parallels to the story of Harry Potter. How belt systems and CI teams can destroy inclusive practices. How leadership language invites people to the party. There are three things leaders can do to engage everyone every day: maximizing psychological safety to create environments where folks learn, contribute, and challenge the status quo.
Who might benefit? Anyone and everyone leading folks from the shop floor to top floor.
Dr. William Harvey is a seasoned Operations Leader with extensive experience in chemical processing, manufacturing, and operations management. At Michelman, he currently oversees multiple sites, leading teams in strategic planning and coaching/practicing continuous improvement. William is set to start his eighth year of teaching at the University of Cincinnati where he teaches marketing, finance, and management. William holds various certifications in change management, quality, leadership, operational excellence, team building, and DiSC, among others.
As a business owner in Delaware, staying on top of your tax obligations is paramount, especially with the annual deadline for Delaware Franchise Tax looming on March 1. One such obligation is the annual Delaware Franchise Tax, which serves as a crucial requirement for maintaining your company’s legal standing within the state. While the prospect of handling tax matters may seem daunting, rest assured that the process can be straightforward with the right guidance. In this comprehensive guide, we’ll walk you through the steps of filing your Delaware Franchise Tax and provide insights to help you navigate the process effectively.
Accpac to QuickBooks Conversion Navigating the Transition with Online Account...PaulBryant58
This article provides a comprehensive guide on how to
effectively manage the convert Accpac to QuickBooks , with a particular focus on utilizing online accounting services to streamline the process.
Explore our most comprehensive guide on lookback analysis at SafePaaS, covering access governance and how it can transform modern ERP audits. Browse now!
Business Valuation Principles for EntrepreneursBen Wann
This insightful presentation is designed to equip entrepreneurs with the essential knowledge and tools needed to accurately value their businesses. Understanding business valuation is crucial for making informed decisions, whether you're seeking investment, planning to sell, or simply want to gauge your company's worth.
Personal Brand Statement:
As an Army veteran dedicated to lifelong learning, I bring a disciplined, strategic mindset to my pursuits. I am constantly expanding my knowledge to innovate and lead effectively. My journey is driven by a commitment to excellence, and to make a meaningful impact in the world.
Affordable Stationery Printing Services in Jaipur | Navpack n PrintNavpack & Print
Looking for professional printing services in Jaipur? Navpack n Print offers high-quality and affordable stationery printing for all your business needs. Stand out with custom stationery designs and fast turnaround times. Contact us today for a quote!
RMD24 | Debunking the non-endemic revenue myth Marvin Vacquier Droop | First ...BBPMedia1
Marvin neemt je in deze presentatie mee in de voordelen van non-endemic advertising op retail media netwerken. Hij brengt ook de uitdagingen in beeld die de markt op dit moment heeft op het gebied van retail media voor niet-leveranciers.
Retail media wordt gezien als het nieuwe advertising-medium en ook mediabureaus richten massaal retail media-afdelingen op. Merken die niet in de betreffende winkel liggen staan ook nog niet in de rij om op de retail media netwerken te adverteren. Marvin belicht de uitdagingen die er zijn om echt aansluiting te vinden op die markt van non-endemic advertising.
RMD24 | Debunking the non-endemic revenue myth Marvin Vacquier Droop | First ...
A Study of the Form of Organizations
1. www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 7, No. 10; May 2012
108 ISSN 1833-3850 E-ISSN 1833-8119
A Study of the Form of Organizations: Toward an Integrative
Framework of Population Ecology and Institutionalism
Sheng-Hsien Lee1
1 Department of Business Administration, Yu Da University,
Taiwan
Correspondence: Sheng-Hsien Lee, Department of Business Administration, Yu Da University, No. 168,
Hsueh-fu Rd., Miao-li County, 36143, Taiwan. Tel: 886-37-651-188-6028. E-mail: stephen@ydu.edu.tw
Received: January 18, 2012 Accepted: March 1, 2012 Online Published: May 16, 2012
doi:10.5539/ijbm.v7n10p108 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v7n10p108
Abstract
Does the form of organizations tend to show diversity or homogeneity? This paper begins with two contrasting
questions:‘Why are there many organizational forms?’ and ‘Why are organizations similar?’ Population ecology
and institutional theory represent different lenses through which theorists use forinterpreting these organizational
phenomena. Each paradigm offers compelling concepts and arguments forsupporting theirown perspectives even
though they seem to lead to contradictory results. This conceptualpaper is an attempt to clarify the fundamental
divergence of ecological and institutional approaches and proposes an integrated perspective for future empirical
studies.
Keywords: organizational ecology, institutional theory, isomorphism
1. Introduction
There has been a proliferation of organization theory since AdamSmith brought about the notable principle of the
division of labor. Among numerous academic quests, the question of ‘Why does a firm exist?’ raised by Nobel
laureate, Ronald Coarse, has inspired researchers to look seriously at the very nature of the firm. Until the mid
1970s, the prominent approach in organization theory focused on adaptive change in organizations. On the other
hand,inspired by the fundamental question:‘Where do organizational forms come from?’ (Hannan and Freeman,
1977), organizational ecologists have attempted to explain how environmental conditions affect the relative
abundance and diversity oforganizations. Organizational ecologists seekexplanations for organizational diversity
at population and community levels of organizations and emphasize the rates of organizational founding and
failure, and the creation and death of organizational populations as sources ofincreasing and decreasing diversity.
The emergence of population ecology in organization theory represents the disposition ofcontingency theory from
its hegemonic position.
The development of institutional theory is a reaction against the behavioral revolution of recent decades, which
viewed collective political and economic behavior as the aggregate consequence of individual choice. The
institutional approach tends to focus on a broad perspective: organizational structures and processes that are
industry-wide, national or international scope. A common theme running through institutional theory is that of
environmental influence over organizations. The starting point of new institutionalism in organizational analysis
is the striking homogeneity of practices and arrangements found in corporations (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983).
The persistent characteristics of organizations exemplify in the structures that are to some extent self-sustaining.
The concept that best captures the process of homogenization is isomorphism, which occurs through three
mechanisms: coercive, mimetic and normative isomorphism. The mechanisms of isomorphism offered by
institutionalists provide a basis for legitimacy that reflects cultural alignment, normative support,or consonance
with relevant rules of law.
A sharp contrast results from the different arguments about the pattern of organizations: diversity or homogeneity?
DiMaggio and Powell (1983) deal with this controversy by introducing organization life cycle to reconcile the
problem of diversity and homogeneity. They argue that organizational fields display considerable diversity in
practice and form in the early stage of their life cycle. Once a field becomes well established,there is a relentless
push toward homogenization. However, this line of argument fails to address the fundamental differences between
institutional theory and an ecological approach in the level of analysis and dynamics of organization p opulation.
2. www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 7, No. 10; May 2012
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 109
This paper addresses this seemingly contradictory issue by briefly reviewing some important concepts of these
theories while formulating integrative analytical frameworks for future empirical tests.
2. Organizational Ecology
For any social system, actors discoverbetterways of doing things primarily through trial-and-error learning. Trials
are variations on the existing ways of doing things. In addition, a distinguishing feature of human systems is that
actors within them may observe the characteristics and practices of othersocial systems,evaluate their relationship
to effective outcomes and try them within their own systems. In short, actors in social systems can imitate the
characteristics of other systems. Variations that improve a system’s fit to its environment or to achieve its ends
more efficiently will be selected and retained in the system. Selection and retention ensure the identification and
preservation of forms or processes that improve a system’s fit, whether internally or with environments. Selection
does not operate by comparing any one variation to a hypothetical best routine of excellence. What is understood
as ‘best’ is only a relative construct,reflecting the emergence of one variation as betterimproving the system’s fit.
Selection can identify the variation that best improves the system’s fit, and this variation can be retained and
diffused over othersimilar systems.The concepts ofvariation, selection and retention as the major means of social
evolution are well known and accepted in modern organization theory (Romanelli, 1999).
Variation is a source of heterogeneity of alterations on an existing form. Campbell (1974) proposed three
characteristics of variations that are necessary for development or improvement of a social system.First, variations
must be blind, in which the outcome of a variation must not be known in advance. Second, variations must be
multiple. Lastly, most variations must fail to improve or distract the system’s ability to survive. In other words,
there exists a mechanism of selection that systematically eliminates variations which are less able to improve it.
Since the 1970s, organizational ecologists have been developing conceptual tools and analytical techniques for
studying organization/environment relationships by focusing on organizational populations. Ecological research
typically begins with three observations:(1) diversity is a property of aggregates oforganization, (2) organizations
often have difficulty divesting and executing changes fast enough to meet the demands of uncertain environments,
and (3) the community of organizations is rarely stable,that is, organizations arise and disappearcontinually. Here,
community refers to a combination of interacted populations and is equivalent to organizational field by definition
(DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Organizations, populations and communities of organizations constitute the basic
elements of an ecological analysis. The study of population dynamics focuses on the life events of organizations –
their births and deaths.Several fundamental concepts of the ecological approach are reviewed briefly below.
2.1 Organizational Form
A form is a set of stable routines for accomplishing organizational action and the organizational form represents a
formula for doing business.Organizations display inertia to the extent that variables describing their strategic and
structural features change at relatively slow rates. Organizational managers often face a wide variety of constraints
that limit their ability to make changes of various kinds that occur as relatively abrupt modifications in the
organization’s mode of operating. These changes are likely to be abrupt because strategy,structure,and patterns of
human behavior are linked. Resistance to piecemeal adaptation is likely to occur (Freeman and Boeker, 1984).
2.2 Organizational Population
The form is observable in structure,in distinctive operating characteristics and in marketing and technical strategies.
The collection of firms corresponding to each form is a population. The expansion or contraction of populations
provides important contextual information for strategists and they often survey the market or industry they are
entering in order to identify what kind of firms operate there, those which are flourishing, and those which are
failing.
2.3 Niche
An organizational form’s niche is a mix of the social, economic and political conditions that can sustain the
functioning of organizations that embody a particular form (Hannan and Carroll, 1995). The organizational form
represents a combination of resources and ranges of resources that can be employed by organizations. Form and
niche are therefore defined with reference to each other. Hannan and Freeman (1977) use niche-width theory to
formulate a model of the differential survival capabilities of specialist organizations, which concentrate on ways to
exploit a narrow range of potential customers, and generalist organizations, which seek to appeal to the average
consumers who demonstrate adaptive tolerance for more widely varying environmental conditions.
Potential competition for each organization is measured using overlap density, the aggregate overlap of an
organization’s resource requirements with those of all others in the population (Baum, 1999).
3. www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 7, No. 10; May 2012
110 ISSN 1833-3850 E-ISSN 1833-8119
2.4 Entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurship implies strategies.Most entrepreneurs seemto imitate existing models of successfulexamples for
organizing, rather than starting a completely new firm because it reduces the risk of death at founding by increasing
the reliability of the performance of the organization. Moreover, following an established form makes the new
organization more accountable to other organizations with which it carries out transactions.Organizations using a
successful strategic formula tend to become more numerous, which leads to the expansion of the associated
population.
Changes in organizational populations involve four critical processes: variation, selection, retention, and
competition (Aldrich, 1979). Variations are human behaviors including any kind of intentional or blind change.
Individuals generate variations in technical and management competencies in their efforts to adjust their
organization’s relation to the environment. Some variations prove more beneficial than others in acquiring
resources and are hence are selected positively by managers inside organizations, and by investors,customers and
government regulators in the external environment (McKelvey, 1994; Meyer, 1994). Successful variations are
retained as surviving organizations come to be characterized by them. In contrast to adaptation approaches,which
explain changes in organizational diversity via cumulative strategic choices and changes to existing organizations,
ecological approaches highlight the creation of new organizations and the demise of old ones.
3. Diversity or Homogeneity: Environment
A common theme running through institutional theory is environmental influence over organizations. Most of the
verbs used to describe organization-environment relations have explicit implications in which environments
‘dominate’ or ‘overpower’ organizations and in this respect, institutional theory resembles population ecology
(Aldrich, 1999). Organizations only change when external contingencies change.This aspect ofinstitutional theory
turns organizations into ‘passive collection points’ for the rules and agendas institutionalized at higher levels of
societies (Hirsch, 1983). In this light, institutionaltheory concentrates more on the reproduction than on the creation
or transformation of organizations.
Institutional theorists have taken variation primarily as external in origin, generated as organizations are forced to
respond to, adapt to, or imitate the normative and regulatory currents in their environments. For some analysts,
variation arises from organizations responding to events at higher levels of analysis, such as population and
community changes (Zucker, 1987). When environments are treated as institutions, theorists have typically taken
a reproductive theme focusing on how systemor sector-wide social facts are copied on the organizational level. As
a consequence of adopting externally-generated facts in pursuit of legitimacy, the technical core of an organization
is decoupled from directed evaluation on the grounds of efficiency. On the other hand, when organizations have
been treated as institutions, theorists have adopted a generative theme, examining the creation of new cultural
elements by organizations. Small groups and managers often acquire new facts by copying other organizations.
Organizations adapt their structures to conform to an institutionalized pattern supported by powerful legitimating
forces outside themselves (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Furthermore, when an organizational form falls out of
favor and loses legitimacy, actors cease adopting that form and move on to others. Therefore, one outcome of
successfulimitation is enhanced organizational stability. Success comes from imitating others, rather than from an
organization’s own technical achievements (Aldrich, 1999).
Institutional theorists emphasize the forces that create and maintain organizations as coherent, integral units,
focusing on large, long-lived organizations. They are forces such as socialization and characteristic leadership that
promote the diffusion of shared meaning, increasing the successfulreproduction ofan organization (Aldrich, 1999).
Institutional theory emphasizes that organizations must conform to institutionalized rules and requirements if they
are to receive support and be perceived as legitimate. However, the detrimental convergence on a particular set of
socially agreed-upon practices will engender some low-probability trials that will dramatically demonstrate a new
and betterpractice.
How is it possible that isomorphism and diversity are compatible concepts? DiMaggio and Powell (1983) deal with
this controversy by introducing organization life cycle to reconcile the problem of diversity and homogeneity.They
argue that organizational fields display considerable diversity in practice and form in the early stage of their life
cycle. Once a field becomes well established,there is a relentless push toward homogenization. Here, organizational
field refers to those organizations that include key suppliers, resource and product cons umers, regulatory agencies,
and otherorganizations that produce similar products orservices.
DiMaggio and Powell (1983) also emphasize that the level of analysis exhibits the totality of relevant actors and
comprehends the importance of connectedness and structural equivalence. Organizations may try to change
4. www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 7, No. 10; May 2012
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 111
frequently, but when reaching a certain extent in the structuration of an organizational field, the aggregate effect of
organizational change will lessen the extent of diversity within the field. The concepts of diversity initially asked
by population ecologists,and the homogeneity proposed by institutional theorists, seemto find their convergence
through life cycle perspective (see Figure 1).
Approach
Institutionalism Homogeneity
Population Ecology Diversity
Early Mature
Figure 1. DiMaggio and Powell’s (1983) Conceptual Model
However, the population ecologists’natural environment is exogenous, in that the selection process is relentlessly
operated. The diversity of environment manifested by the various niches and its carrying capacity projects the
diversity of organizational forms. For the institutionalists,the environment is constructed by collective actions and
is, therefore, institutionalized for imposing constraints on actors as a whole. Since the perspective of environment
differs drastically, a point of divergence thus arises.Although DiMaggio and Powell’s (1983) acclaimed efforts in
integrating ecological and institutionalapproaches exhibit some face-value connection,the fundamentaldivergence
remains to be reconciled. Unless one can develop the bridging logic for the generation of an isomorphic
environment, the eventual homogeneity of populations will still be open to the debate. Figure 2 illustrates a
juxtaposition of ecological and institutional approaches.
Approach Level Pattern
Population
Ecology
Institutional
Theory
Community
Organizational
Field
Diversity
Diversity Population dynamics
Adaptation
Diversity
Homogeneity
Early Mature
Figure 2. A Juxtaposition of Ecological and Institutional Approaches
4. Diversity or Homogeneity: Organization
4.1 Adaptation
The 1960s saw a development of contingency perspective. Environmental uncertainty pulls organizations in
different directions as different parts of the organization seek to adjust to their own sub-environment. Such
differentiated adaptation creates problems of integration which in turn lead to the development of new structures
(Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967). According to this view, organizations are not regarded as passive actors and the
behaviors of their managers are seen as largely reactive. Some major branches of organizational theory in this
period stress the proactive behavior of organizations, for example, the resource dependence theory which explains
organizational structures as a result of the strategic actions taken by managers to lessen dependence on other
organizations that provide key resources (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978).
5. www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 7, No. 10; May 2012
112 ISSN 1833-3850 E-ISSN 1833-8119
During the 1960s and 1970s, many leading organizational theorists began to view organizations as merely the tools
used by managers in taking strategic action to advance their interests (Hannan and Freeman, 1989). When
organizational structures are treated as simple tools, organizations become less relevant in the processes of social
change; with the rise of a managerial emphasis, the role given to unplanned and unconscious behavior dwindled.
Therefore, organizations are depicted by organization and strategy researchers as consciously designed for the
pursuit of explicit goals. This line of literature views strategy as the willful choice of top managers while if
organizations are plastic, only the intentions of organizational elites matter.
4.2 Imitation
Why reinvent the wheel? Past literature shows a pervasive belief that successfulchange in one organization can be
achieved through copying the attributes orpractices ofanotherorganization.Organizational theorists have observed
a profound similarity of organizational routines and structures overa large number of organizations. It is imitation
processes, including direct learning and imitation by organizations, that contribute to much of this homogeneity
within organizational forms (Hannan and Freeman, 1984).
In the popular organizational literature, a similar concept of copying is found in the idea of ‘benchmarking’,
deriving from total quality management. It refers to processes by which managers in one organization analyze
systems and routines of another organization for potential adoption in the first organization. Moreover, best
practices are being sought in search of excellence. This line of thought treats imitation as an effective route to
improved organizational performance. Therefore, copying represents a potentially efficient means for introducing
new practices, or variations, into an organization’s activities and routines. Imitation may avoid some of the costs
of trial-and-error learning and may also expand an organization’s repertoire ofpotentially effective variations which
might not have been discovered through the operation of their own systems and processes.Copying is a potentially
effective means for introducing variation into an organizational system. The potential benefits of copying are
simply evident. The dynamics of imitation are shown graphically in Figure 3.
Figure 3. The Dynamics of Imitation
Imitation is important in retaining or sustaining existing routines, practices, and divisions against the forces of
change in the dynamics of population level change. Critics of institutional theory claim that its emphasis on
imitation limited its ability to account for variation and change. Institutional theorists emphasize that inter-
organizational imitation produces homogeneity among practices (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Meyer and Rowan,
1977). However, Miner and Raghavan (1999) argue that repeated inter-organizational imitation acts as a selection
mechanism to change the nature and mix of routines enacted in a population of organizations. They found factors
which moderate the impact of imitation and hence in some cases generate new mixes of routines in populations of
organizations. The moderating factors include the features of (1) the imitator, (2) the practice imitated, (3) the exact
sequence ofsteps involved in imitation, and (4) features of the imitation context. There are many ways that imitation
can produce new mixtures of routines.
Analysts seemto assume that competition represents the most important force for selection over organizations and
routines.The most fundamental principle of modern capitalism is that organizations compete, with some s urviving
and some failing. Therefore, a powerful determinant of the mix of routines in a population will be the competitive
forces, which underlies the ecological approach. Organizations may observe their competitors and try to imitate
their successful routines as a part of the competitive process; however, competition does not necessarily involve
imitation at all. A group of organizations can sense the effects of new entrants through reduced demand without
even knowing the nature of that competition. The focal organizations may change their own behavior in response
to the reduced demand but base their actions on their own experience. In this light, competitive interaction does not
necessarily involve imitation. Likewise, imitation does not necessarily involve competition. For example, a group
of organizations free from competition may engage in imitation of various kinds. Imitation thus represents a distinct
potential engine of selection (Miner and Raghavan, 1999).
Imitation
Variation
Isomorphism Homogeneity
Diversity
6. www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 7, No. 10; May 2012
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 113
Miner and Raghavan (1999) further propose three specific modes of learning through copying at the population
level: (1) frequency imitation: copying the most common organizational routine, (2) trait imitation: copying the
routine of some organizations based on a trait, such as size, prestige or s imilarity, (3) outcome imitation: copying
routines that appear to have good consequences for other organizations. In effect, organizations may imitate the
practices of other organizations because they are prevalent in the population, which implies effectiv eness, or
because they are associated with positive outcomes, or because they exhibit desirable characteristics independent
of any relationship to performance. The imitating organization acquires the trial-and-error experience of another
organization without investing resources in its own trials and the copied routines or practices have exhibited their
ability to improve an organization’s environmental fit. However, internally generated variations will not gain the
kind of legitimacy held by variations that are socially validated in the external environment.
Imitation is not the only way that novel variations can be introduced, and it may not be always good for
organizational development. Imitation provides a ready-made rationale for expending resources on certain trials
rather than others, which constrains an organization’s search for other trials (Romanelli, 1999). Variations that
could have been developed within the organization’s own idiosyncratic systemofknowledge and which could have
proved more efficient may be neglected. Furthermore, when imitation has become an important source of
legitimacy, the chances for an organization to introduce and try new variations may be seriously constrained.
Conversely, structuralinertia theory proposed by population ecologists emphasizes that existing organizations often
have difficulty changing strategy and structure quickly enough to meet the demands of an uncertain environment.
The structures and routines of existing organizations represent vested interest and power structures, whereby the
self-interested individuals may tend to resist any potential structuralchange which might put their privileges at risk.
Major organizational innovations occur early in the life-histories of organizations and populations where
structuration is at the initial stage.Therefore, organizational change and variability reflect primarily relatively inert
organizations replacing each other. Table 1 summarizes the fundamental differences of the ecological and
institutional approaches.The effect of imitation diverges according to whether it generates more variations across
organizational forms through benchmark or spillover, or reduces variations via isomorphic tendency. The
assumption of the extent of organizational flexibility underlies the controversy:diversity or homogeneity.
Table 1. The Characteristics of Ecological and Institutional Approaches
Level Population Ecology Institutional Theory
Community/Field Diversity Homogeneity
Population/Form Variation Isomorphism
Organization Structural Inertia Adaptation
5. Conclusion
This paper began with two contrasting questions: ‘Why are there many organizational forms?’ and ‘Why are
organizations similar?’ Population ecology and institutional theory represent different lenses through which
theorists interprets these organizationalphenomena. Each offers compelling concepts and arguments forsupporting
their perspectives even though they seem to lead to quite contradictory results, hence the quest of this paper:
Diversity or Homogeneity?
Some theorists treat the relationship between ecological and institutional theory as complementary, and propose
their synthesis into a single explanatory framework (Hannan and Carroll, 1992). Others conceive that the
relationship between them is not only complementary but also hierarchical by treating institutional theory as
contextual to ecological research (Tucker et al., 1992). The institutional environment may prescribe the
environmental selection criteria. Ecological literature in institutional processes typically compares founding and
failure rates across organizational populations or over time as the institutional environment of a particular
population changes. Organizational structures may be imposed by a higher authority as a result of the coercive
power of government, or authorized by a higher authority when seeking its approval. Moreover, structures may be
induced when a higher authority offers incentives for recipients of funding, or acquired when organizations
deliberately choose a structural model via imitative or normative isomorphism (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983).
Isomorphism is a constraining process that forces one unit in a population to resemble other units facing the same
set of environmental conditions.In otherwords, it is the process of homogeneity.
7. www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 7, No. 10; May 2012
114 ISSN 1833-3850 E-ISSN 1833-8119
In this paper, attempts have been made to clarify the fundamental divergence of ecological and institutional
approaches.First, the concepts formulated by these approaches are inevitably restricted in their use as they refer to
different levels of analysis (for a summary, see Table 1). Second, the relationship of organization/environment
requires careful attention before any attempts to reconcile these two approaches. For example, the contrasting
perspectives of natural environment and constructed environment undoubtedly lead to the development of
incompatible theoretical backbones.Third, the assumption ofstructural inertia seriously restrains an organization’s
adaptability in response to environmental change.As a result, the expansion or contraction of a population reflects
the birth or death of a certain organizational form. To reconcile the ecological and institutional approaches,the life
cycle perspective offered by DiMaggio and Powell (1983) is obviously in need of more fine-grained theoretical
developments. Figure 2 represents an attempt to advance DiMaggio and Powell’s theory. In asking ‘where do
organizational forms come from?’ Hannan and Freeman (1986) modified their earlier concept of population based
in biological ecology in favor of social construction. Furthermore, Hannan’s (1986) model of population growth
includes new populations’ needs for material resource mobilization as well as their dependence on institutional
processes that legitimate them. Obviously, the broad reach of the institutional approach has opened up poss ibilities
for collaboration with population ecology.
References
Aldrich, H. (1979). Environment and organization.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Aldrich, H. (1999). Organizationsevolving.Sage Publications.
Baum, J. A. C. (1999). Organizational ecology. In Stewart R. Clegg and Cynthia Hardy (eds.), The studying
organization.Sage Publications.
Campbell, D. T. (1974). Unjustified variation and selective retention in scientific discovery. In F. J. Ayala and T.
Dobzhansky (eds.), Studiesin the philosophy ofbiology.London: Macmillan.
DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutionalisomorphism and collective rationality in
organizational field. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2095101
Freeman, J., & Boeker, W. (1984). The ecological analysis of business strategy.In Glenn Carroll, & David Vogel
(1984), Strategy and organization.The Regents of the University of California.
Hannan, M. T. (1986). A model of competitive and institutional processes in organizational ecology. Technical
Report No. 86-13. Department of Sociology, Cornell University.
Hannan, M. T., & Carroll, G. (1992). Dynamics of organizational populations:Density,legitimation and
competition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology,
82(5), 929-964. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/226424
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review,
49(2), 149-164. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2095567
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1986). Where do organizational forms come from? Sociological Forum 1(1), 50-
72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01115073
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1989). Organizational Ecology.The President and Fellows of Harvard College.
Hirsch, P. M.(1997). Sociology without social structure:Neo-institutionaltheory meets brave new world. American
Journal of Sociology, 102(6), 1702-1723. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/231132
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organizations and environments: Managing differentiation and
integration. Boston,MA: Harvard Business School Press.
McKelvey, B. (1994). Evolution and organizational science.In Joel A. C. Baum and J. V. Singh (eds.), Evolutionary
dynamics of organizations.New York: Oxford University Press.
Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1977). Formal structure of organizations as myths and ceremony. American Journal of
Sociology,83(2), 340-363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/226550
Meyer, M. W. (1994). Turning evolution inside the organization. In Joel A. C. Baum and J. V. Singh (eds.),
Evolutionary dynamicsof organizations.New York: Oxford University Press.
Miner, A. S., & Raghavan, Sri V. (1999). Interorganizational imitation: a hidden engine of selection. In Joel A. C.
Baum and Bill MeKelvey (eds.), Variations in organization science.Sage Publications.
8. www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 7, No. 10; May 2012
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 115
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations.New York: Harper and Row.
Romanelli, E. (1999). Blind (but not unconditioned)variation: Problems of copying in sociocultural evolution. In
Joel A. C. Baum, & Bill MeKelvey (eds.), Variations in organization science.Sage Publications.
Tucker, D. J., Baum, J. A. C., & Singh, J. V. (1992). The institutional ecology of human service organizations. In
Y. Hasenfeld (eds.), Human service organizations.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Zucker, Lynne G. (1987). Institutional theories of organizations. Annual Review of Sociology,13,443-464.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.13.080187.002303