[Study] THE IRON CAGE REVISITED: INSTITUTIONAL ISOMORPHISM AND COLLECTIVE RATIONALITY IN ORGANIZATIONAL FIELDS

Once organizational field becomes well-established, there is an inexorable push towards homogenization not only for current organizations but also for new entrants.

Organizational field is the set of organizations that aggregate, constitute a recognized area of institutional life: key suppliers, resource and product consumers, regulatory agencies, and other organizations that produce similar services or products. Therefore, the field can comprehends the importance of both

1. Connectedness: existence of transactions tying organizations to one another: professional associations, labor union, BOD, ...
2. Structural equivalence:  have ties of the same kind to the same set of other org.

The process of institutional definition, or "structuration", consists of four parts:

1. an increase in the extent of interaction among organizations in the field;
2. the emergence of sharply defined interorganizational structures of domination and patterns of coalition;
3. increase in the information load with which organizaitons in  a field must contend;
4. develop mutual awareness among participants in a set of organizations that they are involved in a common enterprise.

Competition creates the power forces that lead organizations to become more similar to one another.

The diversity of organizational forms is isomorphic to environmental diversity.

There are 2 types of isomorphism: competitive and institutional. 3 mechanism through which institutional isomorphic change occurs:

1. coercive isomorphism:  political influence and the problem of legitimacy
• resulted from formal/informal pressures by other organizations upon which they are dependent and by cultural expectations in the society and by government mandate 
2. mimetic isomorphism: standard responses to uncertainty
• uncertainty is also a powerful force that encourages imitation and modelling is a response to uncertainty. 
• Models may be diffused unintentionally, indirectly through employee transfer or turnover or explicitly by organizations such as consulting firms or industry trade associations. 
• Innovation can also be accounted for modelling. 
3. normative isomorphism: professionalization.
• professionalization as collective struggle of members of an occupation to define the conditions and methods of their work, to control 'the production of producers' and to establish a cognitive base and legitimation for their occupational autonomy. 
• 2 aspects of professionalization are important sources of isomorphism:
• resting of formal education and of legitimation in a cognitive base produced by university specialists
• growth and elaboration of professional networks that span organizations and across which new models diffuse rapidly. 
• Filtering of personnel: occurs through the hiring of individuals from firms within the same industry; through the recruitment of fast-track staff from a narrow range of training institutions 

These types are not always empirically distinct.

It is important to note that each of the institutional isomophic processes can be expected to proceed in the absence of evidence that they increase internal organizational efficiency. To the extent that organizational effectiveness is enhanced, the reason will often be that organizations are rewarded for being similar to other organizations in their fields.

None of this, insures that conformist organizations do what they do more efficiently than do their more deviant peers.

Predictors of isomorphic change: to predict empirically which organizational fields will be most homogeneous in structure, process and behavior.

A. Organizational-level predictors: 

A-1: The greater the dependence of an organization on another organization, the more similar it will become to that organization in structure, climate, and behavioral focus.
A-2: The greater the centralization of organization A's resource supply, the greater the extent to which organization A will change isomorphically to resemble the organizations on which it depends for resources.
=> Stronger party to the transaction can coerce the weaker party to adopt its practices in other to accommodate the stronger party's needs.

A-3: The more uncertain the relationship between means and ends the greater the extent to which an organization will model itself after organizations it perceives to be successful.
A-3: The more ambiguous the goals of an organization, the greater the extent to which the organization will model itself after organizations that it perceives to be successful.
A-4: The greater the reliance on academic credentials in choosing managerial and staff personnel, the greater the extent to which an organization will become like other organizations in its field.
A-5: The greater the participation of organizational managers in trade and professional associations, the more likely the organization will be, or will become, like other organizations in its field.

B. Field-level predictors:

B-1: The greater the extent to which an organizational field is dependent upon a single (or several similar) source of support for vital resources, the higher the level of isomorphism.
B-2: The greater the extent to which the organizations in a field transact with agencies of the state, the greater the extent of isomorphism in the field as a whole.

B-3: The fewer number of visible alternative organizational models in a field, the faster the rate of isomorphism in that field.
B-4: The greater the extent to which technologies are uncertain or goals are ambiguous within a field, the greater the rate of isomorphic change.
B-5: The greater the extent of professionalization in a field, the greater amount of institutional isomophic change.
B-6: The greater the extent of structuration of a field, the greater the degree of isomophic.