In Search of Identity and Legitimation: Bridging Organizational Culture and Neoinstitutionalism (original) (raw)
Related papers
American Behavioral Scientist, 2006
T hirty years ago, new institutional theory challenged the then dominant functionalist explanations of organizational behavior by pointing to the role of meaning in the production and reproduction of organizational practices . But new institutional theory was soon subject to both internal and external criticism for having, among other things, replaced the invisible hand of the market with the invisible hand of culture. In effect, it was difficult for the theory to explain how institutions change and develop in different directions because actors were subjugated to institutions (Powell & DiMaggio, 1991). The result was an oversocialized conception of humanity, in terms, in which institutions shaped all behavior and, thus, seemed to arise and evolve on their own accord. The criticism has led to various attempts to introduce a theory of action compatible with the main precepts of the new institutionalism . One approach has been to argue for a rational actor in a constructed world (e.g., . A second approach has been to combine the theory of organizations with the theory of individuals by developing a middle-range theory of how processes of interest articulation and organizational decision making have been institutionalized (e.g., Fligstein, 1996). A third approach has been to develop a constructionist view in which actors themselves are historically created and variable, with different notions of self, of identity, and of connection to the group over time (e.g., .
Conversation at the Border Between Organizational Culture Theory and Institutional Theory
Journal of Management Inquiry, 2012
This paper reflects our conversation at the border-a dividing line but also a potential meeting place-of organizational culture theory and institutional theory. First, we discuss the border between institutional theory and organizational culture theory by exploring two notions central to both-taken for grantedness and meanings. We ask what is taken for granted about institutions and organizational culture and how institutions and organizational cultures materialize? Our conversation reveals that although the notion of the taken for granted is important to institutional theory and organizational culture theory, what this means and implies is quite different for each. We also found that even though institutions and cultures involve meaning and evolve through meaning making, the two are understood and hence explored methodologically in quite different ways. So what seemed to be similar in these two theoretical frameworks actually differentiates them. Nevertheless, and still optimistically, we move on to suggest possible ways to bridge organizational culture theory and institutional theory, specifically through the notion of identity-both individual, organizational and interorganizational.
The Concept of Organisational Culture Versus Organisational Identity
The Concept of Organisational Culture versus Organisational Identity, 2018
Several models of organizational culture have been adapted from Schein's (1985) model and Albert & Whetten (1985) model of collectivism and/or organizational identity which has seen many scholars view and use these terms interchangeably. Various organizational, anthropologist and sociologist psychologists researching the field of organizational culture and organizational identity assigned organizational identity to be the aspect of organizational culture which is implied in the artefacts of the organization (such as the organization's logo/colour, its staff, furniture, and its layout of its structure, that is unique and enduring and how the organization members view and see them. In that, every organization has a culture and every organization has an identity. The significant existence of an organization is present in its identity. Organizational psychology research has looked at organizational culture in a different light. In that, organizational culture originates from two major disciplines (Anthropology and Sociology). The essay will look at organizational culture in these two fields and see how these disciplines perceive organizational culture. Furthermore, the essay will focus on Hatch & Schultz's model of organizational identity, culture and image, and how from the authors view related and differentiated these two terms 'organizational culture' and 'organizational identity', and how organizational identity interlinks to organizational culture-while also, extensively reviewing different organizational culture, identity and change process theorists who have referenced this model.
Responding to Organizational Identity Threats: Exploring the Role of Organizational Culture
Academy of Management Journal, 2006
In this paper, we present a longitudinal study of organizational responses to environmental changes that induce members to question aspects of their organization's identity. Our findings highlight the role of organizational culture as a source of cues supporting "sensemaking" action carried out by leaders as they reevaluate their conceptualization of their organization, and as a platform for "sensegiving" actions aimed at affecting internal perceptions. Building on evidence from our research, we develop a theoretical framework for understanding how the interplay of construed images and organizational culture shapes changes in institutional claims and shared understandings about the identity of an organization. To maintain our identity we have to renew it.
Organization Theory, 2024
We build a comprehensive and coherent understanding of organizational purity as an organization's steadfast adherence to a single institutional logic. This logic becomes the core tenet of its identity, an end in itself rather than a means toward survival. Instead of responding to institutional pressures, pure organizations may self-categorize vis-à-vis a potentially threatening 'other' through their own identity work. They mark and pursue their distinction from others, structure themselves to preserve their purity, and favor strategies that express the logic they embody. In so doing they may fail more often than organizations that are more responsive to institutional pressures. When pure organizations enter new institutional fields they can act as change agents, but where their logic dominates, they may block change. Different audiences, in turn, affect the success and survival of pure organizations by conferring authenticity, legitimacy or contempt, depending on their alignment with the pure organization's logic. Further examining purity will enable organizational theorists to better account for non-rational action and extend work on institutional logics.
Institutionalizing identity: Symbolic isomorphism and organizational names
The Academy of Management Journal, 2002
An organization's identity, symbolized by its corporate name, is rooted in institutional fíelds. We advance the construct of symbolic isomorphism, or the resemblance of an organization's symbolic attributes to those of others within its institutional field, and examine its effects on the homogenization of names and legitimacy. We review historical naming patterns and present two studies that examine the antecedents and outcomes of name conformity: The first analyzes 1,600 name changes to demonstrate how institutional conformity shapes organizational identities, and the second surveys public audiences and delineates how symholic isomorphism serves as a touchstone for legitimacy.
THE CONCEPT OF ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE VS ORGANISATIONAL IDENTITY
Organizational psychology research has looked at organizational culture in a different light. In that, organizational culture originates from two major disciplines (Anthropology and Sociology). The essay will look at organizational culture in this two field and see how these disciplines perceive organizational culture. Furthermore, the essay will focus on Hatch & Schultz's model of organizational identity, culture and image, and how from the authors view related and differentiated these two terms 'organizational culture' and 'organizational identity', and how organizational identity interlinks to organizational culture -while also, extensively reviewing different organizational culture, identity and change process theorists who have referenced this model.
This paper presents the results of a data research on the issue of organizational identity, the aim of which was to explore the current state of the discussion on organizational identity based on the analysis of papers published in 10 of the world's leading organizational and management journals between 2000 and 2011, in order to identify paradigms, subjects, and trends. After a first selection of 5509 papers, 92 articles dealing with the specific issue of organizational identity were classified for analysis. Identity is not only an important perspective of study within the organizational field, but it has also become a relevant reference to bear in mind in order to understand phenomena related to organizations. The concept of identity is not new in the human and social sciences. Philosophy has approached it from different perspectives and in different historical contexts. Identity seems to be the result of a certain line of reasoning that reduces what is real to what is identical, that is, to sacrifice the multiplicity of identity in order to explain it and to use it as a base for any theorization on the human condition. Additionally, during the last century, psychology and psychoanalysis gave identity a crucial role in the study of individual processes, and it became a key element in understanding the development of personality. Anthropology has had to produce a body of theory regarding the issue of social identity. Of course, it is also important to consider the contributions of other disciplines such as sociology, political science, and linguistics. Identity has played an important role in the theorizing of the social and human sciences, which contribute to and have an effect on organizational studies (Corley et al., 2006), the field of knowledge of this paper. Notwithstanding the academic interest the term arouses, its study in the organizational field is relatively recent (Hatch & Schultz, 2004). The conceptualization proposed by Albert and Whetten (1985), who claimed that organizational identity (OI) implied organizational aspects meeting the criteria of centrality, distinctive character, and continuity in time, has given way to new approaches. This influential work has inspired a wave of research and theorizing continuing to the present. Nevertheless, a little more than a quarter of century after its conceptualization, the definition of the term OI is not complete, and the discussion on its scope and proposed models is far from finished. Within the organizational field, definitions have abounded, ranging from the individual level to perceptions of what an organization actually is, based on institutionalist or essentialist perspectives aimed at identifying the features
An integrative Theory of Organizational Legitimacy
The concept of legitimation has been used in the organizational analysis literature to refer either to processes by which power relations are mystified through the manipulation of symbols or to processes by which organizations conform to consensually defined standards of evaluation. This article traces the intellectual lineage of these approaches in the management literature and current and classic literature of the social sciences, and demonstrates the complementarity of their strengths and weaknesses. An integrative theory of legitimation, based on semiotics, is then presented which identifies the articulation of these approaches and allows a richer basis for the analysis of legitimation phenomena.