[ad_1]
Keywords: Institutional theory, institutional field theory, organizational field theory
In simple terms, general theories of organization seem to treat organizations or institutions (used interchangeably) as the core components of society, as its important constructs, and study how social behavior and action occur.
Since the 19th century, there has been an endless stream of theoretical discussions and proposals on field theory. Max Weber studied bureaucratization, the main organizational form, and its changes, and analyzed various causal factors, among which “competition between capitalist enterprises” was the most important. However, some people believe that the causal factors of bureaucratization implicit in the “rationalization engine” have changed and believe that the organizational form is the same (highly bureaucratic, like an iron cage). Theorists believe that more than 80 years after the birth of Max Weber’s institutional field theory, the three causal aspects “imitation, coercion and norms” are also called “isomorphic processes” and are still the main characteristics of organizational fields in the contemporary context (late 20th century). In contrast to what Max Weber called “competition between capitalist enterprises”, DiMaggio and Powell believe that the state and specialization should attribute changes in the organizational field to “organizational ‘homogeneity’ rather than diversity”. These isomorphic change processes are caused by the powerful forces of the state and specialization, making existing organizations and new entrants to the competitive market follow the same organizational rationalization process (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983).
Mazza and Pedersen (2004) found that national pressure (EU integration) and financial shocks (oil crisis, economic recession) were transformational factors that led to “patterned behavioral changes” in media publishing organizations in two European countries, Italy and Denmark.
Some searchers, Woodward, Child, and Kieser, were interested in “Why are there so many organizations?”, “Why are the types of organizations so different?”, while DiMaggio and Powell were interested in “Why do organizations show so many similarities in terms of structure, culture, etc?”
Citing examples from different organizational studies (hospitals, public schools, legal education systems, the broadcasting industry, high culture in the late 19th century, civil service reform in the United States), DiMaggio and Powell ask why these organizations, despite their different activities and definitions, ultimately did not develop a dominant form, structure, or organizational model or “homogeneity”? (DiMaggio and Powell 1983), thus highlighting that connectivity and structural equivalence are the primary forms of interaction between organizations that give rise to recognized spheres of institutional life. Organizational spheres, which only come into existence through empirical or empirical research in their initial lives (rather than being defined a priori based on theory), can be understood in terms of four factors, namely 1) the increase in the degree of interaction between organizations within the sphere 2) the emergence of sharply defined inter-organizational domination structures and alliance patterns 3) the increase in the information load that organizations within the sphere must cope with; and 4) the development of a mutual awareness among participants in the organization that they are involved in a common cause.
DiMaggio and Powell debate which factor has a greater influence in isomorphism? Is it “competition” or “state” or “profession”? One researcher (DiMaggio and Powell 1983) points out that isomorphism between organizations produces a field of similar organizations by selecting competitive and strong existing organizations and not selecting weaker “non-optimal” organizations, as Hawley puts it. According to them, “isomorphism theory is not about the psychological states of actors, but about the structural determinants of the range of choices that actors consider reasonable or prudent”. The concept of institutional isomorphism is a useful tool for understanding the politics and rituals that are prevalent in modern organizational life. They imply that public service policymakers should consider organizational forms, diversification and homogenization trends rather than the plans of individual organizations when formulating policies that favor diversity.
Some (Davis and Marquis 2005) have discussed organizational field theory or “the phrenology of the social sciences” in the context of the 21st century as a tool to study the natural history of organizations in the context of contemporary capitalism (globalization, emphasis on services over manufacturing). Davis and Marquis (2005) argue that the types of interactions between organizations or organizational fields (which have changed in the context of the 21st century) can provide a better framework for studying social change more appropriately, rather than just studying trends in the “death and birth rates of companies” in any particular sector during the 20th century.
The theoretical stance of organizational theory has changed over the past two centuries. In the 20th century, research focused on studying the patterned behavior of multinational corporations and their impact on contemporary social behavior and action, but with the advent of post-industrial society, the number and type of industries have grown dramatically, and institutional fields (such as health, finance, education, etc.) have become the unit of analysis for studying organizational theory, because only by studying the interactions and relationships between institutional fields can we better outline the process of social change. At the end of the 20th century, another institutional theorist Scott (1991) claimed that “functional institutional fields” or social sectors are relevant terms that can be used as units of analysis, rather than DiMaggio’s “organizational fields” (DiMaggio and Powell 1983), because the boundaries of the organizational fields theorized by DiMaggio are unclear and dynamic. Therefore, he proposed a new framework for organizational field theory, which can take similar and interdependent organizations (but technically and institutionally defined) as fields (functional organizational fields) as units of analysis.
(Davis and Marquis 2005) also advocate a problem-driven approach to organizational theory research, rather than a theory-driven approach, for three reasons: the nature of the industry has changed, especially with the advent of the Internet, financial rationalization as the rule of the game, and the increasing cross-border jurisdiction of organizations. According to Davis and Marquis, problem-driven research refers to inquiry based on explanations of current world events, rather than testing hypotheses derived from theory and applied to specific situations.
bibliography
Davis, G. F. and C. Marquis (2005). “The Promise of Organization Theory in the Early 21st Century: Institutional Fields and Mechanisms.” Organizational Science 16(4): 332-343.
DiMaggio, P. and W. W. Powell (1983). “The iron cage revisited: Collective rationality and institutional isomorphism in organizational fields.” American Sociological Review Forty eight(2): 147-160.
Mazza, C. and J. S. Pedersen (2004). “From print to electronic media? The transformation of the organizational field.” Organizational Research twenty five(6): 875-896.
[ad_2]
Source link
