The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields

Пересмотр «Железной клетки»: институциональный изоморфизм и коллективная рациональность в организационных полях
Paul DiMaggio, Walter W. Powell
1983-04-01

coercive isomorphisminstitutional isomorphismmimetic isomorphismnormative isomorphismorganizational field
Instead of examining why organizations are dissimilar, this study explores why organizations tend to be increasingly and inevitably homogenous in their forms and practices. Organizations in a similar line of work are structured into an organizational field by powerful forces that lead them to become similar. Rather than the causes of rationalization and bureaucratization suggested by Max Weber, including competition and the need for efficiency, institutional similarity is due to the structuration of organizational fields, a process caused largely by the state and the professions, which are the great rationalizers of the late 20th century. In highly structured organizational fields, rational efforts of individuals aggregately lead to structural, cultural, and output homogeneity. Homogenization is best captured by the concept of isomorphism, the process whereby one element in a population resembles others that confront the same environmental conditions. The two types of isomorphism are competitive and institutional. Three processes lead to organizational similarity: (1) coercive isomorphism stemming from political influence and the problem of legitimacy; (2) mimetic isomorphism resulting from uniform responses to uncertainty; and (3) normative isomorphism associated with professionalism. While these isomorphic processes improve organizational transactions, they do not necessarily increase internal efficiency. Twelve hypotheses are offered for further research about which organizational fields will be most homogenous. These hypotheses relate the impact of resource centralization and dependency, goal ambiguity and technical uncertainty, and professionalism and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, useful implications of the study for theories of organizations and social change are offered. (TNM)
1
Isomorphic processes improve inter-organizational transactions and legitimacy but do not necessarily enhance internal organizational efficiency.
2
Isomorphism — increasing similarity among organizations — best captures homogenization and arises from organizations facing common environmental conditions.
3
Organizations within the same field tend to become increasingly homogeneous due to structuration forces, not just competition or efficiency pressures.
4
Three isomorphic processes drive similarity: coercive isomorphism (political influence and legitimacy pressures), mimetic isomorphism (uniform responses to uncertainty), and normative isomorphism (professionalism).
5
Twelve testable hypotheses link field homogeneity to factors like resource centralization/dependency, goal ambiguity, technical uncertainty, professionalism, and degree of structuration.

Organizational fields (populations of organizations in a similar line of work)

Processes and mechanisms of institutional isomorphism (coercive, mimetic, normative) driving homogeneity in organizational forms, practices, and outputs, and factors influencing which fields become most homogeneous

Publication Details
Publication Date
1983-04-01
Journal
Publisher
ISSN
Access Type
Author Information
Authors
Paul DiMaggio
Walter W. Powell
Explore further
Open the scid.ai AI chat with a ready-made request: it will find papers on a similar topic and help build a literature review.
Find similar papers in the chat
Make a presentation
100%