Mimetic Isomorphism: A Tool for Organizational Legitimacy

Authors

  • Gurwinder Kaur Dua Research Scholar Chitkara Business School Chitkara University, Chandigarh
  • CMA (Dr.) Shivani Inder Associate Professor Chitkara Business School Chitkara University, Chandigarh

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33516/maj.v57i11.79-82p

Abstract

Institutional theory offers a basic framework for explicating different forms of isomorphism. Firms struggle to strike a balance between imitation and differentiation, so as to gain legitimacy in the eyes of the stakeholders. Mimetic isomorphism is the result of interactions of firms in an industry and shift firms towards acceptable behaviors, following presupposed norms and ultimately gain legitimacy in the eyes of the stakeholders, with avoidance of negative consequences.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2022-11-01

How to Cite

Dua, G. K., & Inder, C. (Dr.) S. (2022). Mimetic Isomorphism: A Tool for Organizational Legitimacy. The Management Accountant Journal, 57(11), 79–82. https://doi.org/10.33516/maj.v57i11.79-82p

Issue

Volume 57, Issue 11, November 2022

Section

Organizational Legitimacy
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

Barreto, I., & Baden‐Fuller, C. (2006). To conform or to perform? Mimetic behaviour, legitimacy‐based groups and performance consequences. Journal of management studies, 43(7), 1559-1581.

Biesenthal, C., Clegg, S., Mahalingam, A., & Sankaran, S. (2018). Applying institutional theories to managing megaprojects. International Journal of Project Management, 36(1), 43-54.

Brown, A. D. (1998). ‘Narrative, politics and legitimacy in an IT implementation’. Journal of Management Studies, 35, 35–58.

Brunninge, O. (2005). Organisational self-understanding and the strategy process: Strategy dynamics in Scania and Handelsbanken (Doctoral dissertation, Internationella Handelshögskolan).

Carroll, G. R. and Hannan, M. T. (1989). ‘Density dependence in the evolution of populations of newspaper organizations’. American Sociological Review, 54, 524–41.

Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm (Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 169-187).

Dacin, M. T. (1997). ‘Isomorphism in context: the power and prescription of institutional norms’. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 46–81.

Deephouse, D. L. (1996). ‘Does isomorphism legitimate?’. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1024–39.

DiMaggio, P. J. and Powell, W. W. (1983). ‘The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields’. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–60.

Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative science quarterly, 239-263.

Edelman, L. B. (1992). ‘Legal ambiguity and symbolic structures: organizational mediation of civil rights law’. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 6, 1531–76.

Edwards, J. R., Mason, D. S., & Washington, M. (2009). Institutional pressures, government funding and provincial sport organisations. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 6(2), 128-149.

Fiegenbaum, A., Hart, S. and Schendel, D. (1996). ‘Strategic reference point theory’. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 219–35.

George, C. E., Castro, E. L., & Rincon, B. (2018). Investigating the origins of STEM intervention programs: An isomorphic analysis. Studies in Higher Education, 44(9), 1645-1661.

Haunschild, P. R. (1993). Interorganizational imitation: The impact of interlocks on corporate acquisition activity. Administrative science quarterly, 564-592.

Haveman, H. A. (1993). ‘Follow the leader: mimetic isomorphism and entry into new markets’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 593–627.

Hirsch, P. M. and Andrews, J. A. Y. (1984). ‘Administrators’ response to performance and value challenges: stance, symbols, and behavior’. In Sergiovanni, T. J. and Corbally, J. E. (Eds), Leadership and Organizational Culture. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 170–85.

Hüther, O., & Krücken, G. (2016). Nested organizational fields: Isomorphism and differentiation among European universities. In The university under pressure. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Janićijević, N. (2014). The role of national culture in choosing a change strategy in organizations. Ekonomski horizonti, 16(1), 3-15.

Knoke, D. (2019). Organizing for collective action: The political economies of associations. Routledge.

Kostova, T., Roth, K., & Dacin, M. T. (2008). Institutional theory in the study of multinational corporations: A critique and new directions. Academy of management review, 33(4), 994-1006.

Kraatz, M. S. (1998). ‘Learning association? Interorganizational networks and adaptation to environmental change’. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 6, 621–43.

Lamb, A. J., & Weiner, J. M. (2018). Institutional factors in iPad rollout, adoption, and implementation: Isomorphism and the case of the Los Angeles Unified School District’s iPad initiative. International Journal Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 6(2), 136-154.

Mizruchi, M. S., & Fein, L. C. (1999). The social construction of organizational knowledge: A study of the uses of coercive, mimetic, and normative isomorphism. Administrative science quarterly, 44(4), 653-683.

Palmer, D. A., & Biggart, N. W. (2002). Organizational institutions. In J. A. C. Baum (Ed.), The blackwell companion organizations. Oxford: Blackwell.

Rendtorff, J. D. (2019). The concept of business legitimacy: Corporate social responsibility, corporate citizenship, corporate governance as essential elements of ethical business legitimacy. In Responsibility and Governance (pp. 45-60). Springer, Singapore.

Scott, J. W. (1991). The evidence experience. Critical inquiry, 17( 773-797.

Steele, C. W., & King, B. G. (2011). Collective intentionality organizations: A meta-ethnography of identity and strategizing. In Advances in group processes. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Suchman, M. C. (1995). ‘Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches’. Academy of Management Review, 20, 571–610.