Recently in [3-28] Institutional Analysis: DiMaggio & Powell and Granovetter Category

1. When Granovetter discusses the oversocialized view of human action he is referring to a life in which the behavior of people is controlled by the opinions of others. People who are oversocialized are controlled by what are considered the norms and values of society. These people do exactly what is "expected" of them. An example of this would be those people who are "destined" for lower level jobs are trained to be dependable followers of rules, and those people who are expected to be in elite job or career positions attend four year colleges. In each example, the specific type of person is being socialized in a way that would best suit someone in the position they anticipate being in for the rest of their lives. They are overly controlled by social norms.
The view of human action as undersocialized is that it is based on self-interest. At least that is how I understood it. People who are undersocialized are less influenced by societal norms and values than are their oversocialized counterparts. People may initially act in an undersocialized manner, but will eventually shift to a more oversocialized form of action as they feel the daily pressures of society's norms and expectations being pushed on them from every direction. In society, people are expected to follow the social norms that structure our loves. Like the example above, certain people are expected to attend college while others are expected to take on training and consequently jobs that are dependent on following rules and obedience. If a person who was expected to be the latter type of individual ends up going to college and becoming a successful businessman (or businesswoman), it is considered a great success story because that individual is doing the unexpected. On the other hand, if a person who is expected to go to college and be one of those successful business people ends up not going to college, that person is often considered to have been unsuccessful in their life. If someone who is expected to go to college does go to college and does exactly what is expected of him (or her), there is nothing out of the norm here. Most people are not exceptionally impressed or disappointed. It is just the norm created by society. This is what occurs in oversocialized human action.
Granovetter views the idea of actions as embedded as more accurate because he says you cannot construe behavior as strictly independent because the immense social relations that are experienced on a daily basis. There is more to human action than just oversocialization and undersocialization. There is a sort of combination of the two. He says culture is not a once for all influence but an ongoing process. Culture not only shapes its members bur is also shaped by them. So, oversocialization cannot be the right answer because culture is not just shaping the individual. However, undersocialization cannot be the right answer either because culture is not just shaped by the individual. So, we come to a combination of the two with embeddedness.; culture being shaped by individuals and also shaping them in the process.

Emily Hoffman Blog #1: Institutional Analysis

| No Comments

DiMaggio and Powell revisit Max Weber's classic idea of the Iron Cage of Capitalism. While they pay homage to his ideas, stating that the need for efficiency for economic gain began the start of bureaucracy, and in fact drove a great deal of its increase and do believe it has taken on a life of its own, outside of the religious and cultural temperature in which it began (i.e. ascetism and Protestantism and the industrial revolution). However, DiMaggio and Powell differ greatly from Weber in one important way: They believe that it is no longer a drive for efficiency that spreads bureaucracy, but a desire for homogenization. They believe that this shift to homogeneity does not necessitate that the changes be for more efficiency. The rationalization of society, they say, comes from the state and professions, which are set up similarly to each other because of organizational structures. The state dictates certain laws and organizational structures, which every new unit in the population must submit to in order to abide by customs and laws. Efficiency is no longer the center of the iron cage, it is sameness and predictability.

The main way in which this homogenization takes place, according to DiMaggio and Powell, is through isomorphism--organizational structures constrain institutions to resemble each other when they are faced with the same/similar situations. They tend to do this in three different ways: coercive isomorphism, mimetic isomorphism, and normative isomorphism.

Coercive isomorphism is enacted when political forces tend to constrain an institution to behave a certain way, either through legal or extra-legal methods. Because institutions in a society share a common legal environment (they all must obey the same laws, deal with citizens who must obey the same laws, etc.), they are required to follow certain guidelines and honor their commitments in a certain way. Eventually, even if an institution sets out to differentiate itself from other organizations, the legal environment will demand that it acts in similar ways to the institutions around it by dictating how they interact with individuals and other institutions.

Institutions tend to model themselves after other institutions that have "succeeded" already, because they have overcome similar problems and found legitimate and useful ways to deal with uncertain situations. This natural reaction to uncertainty is termed by DiMaggio and Powell as mimetic isomorphism. The original institution may in fact have no desire to be modeled, and the newer institution may not necessarily want to model itself after another, but when a new situation presents itself and an institution does not know how to deal with it, it automatically grasps at what has already been done (and done successfully) to confront the situation. "New organizations are modeled upon old ones... and managers actively seek models on which to build" (152), is the statement that best describes mimetic isomorphism.

The third type of isomorphism is normative isomorphism, which dictates that a given society has certain expectations from certain types of institutions, and when an individual enters a certain type of institution they bring those expectations into it. For instance, a doctor who has gone through many years of schooling has been taught that doctors are given a certain salary and treated with a certain amount of respect, even if they enter their profession in a different hospital than they trained at. As a result, the organization of hospitals looks mostly the same even in very different areas, because the individuals build them up as so.

The three types of isomorphism described above fall into DiMaggio and Powell's category of institutional isomorphism, which describes mostly politics and customs of modern life, while competitive isomorphism describes more of Weber's idea of rationalization: the need to sell the cheaper product to out-do one's competition drives rationalization through efficiency.

The Iron Cage Revised - Blog # 3

| No Comments

According to Mark Granovetter there are two polar or extreme views of human actions. On the one side it is a human action that is characterized by "nudersocialization". It means that people act with no regard to the relationships between each other and are solely driven by self-interest and rationality. It is a utilitarian approach to human action. This view suggests that "people of the same trade seldom meet together..." . On the other hand there is a human action that is "oversocialized", meaning that people act driven by social influence. That people are very sensitive to the opinions of others. They become obedient to norms and traditions. They get socialized and instead of following rational self-interest they automatically follow habits, customs and norms.
Nevertheless, since social relations are always present, Granovetter suggests that interpretation of human actions or institutions could not be made by construing it as independent entities. He suggested that human actions are constrained by social relations and are embedded in it.
Granovetter suggested that people also could be opportunistic in their self-interest, meaning that they can be "self-interest seeking with guile". The concept of self-interest included force and fraud in terms of economic relations. Here comes the issue of trust. How people can trust each other? From utilitarian point of view a person who cannot be trusted would not have an opportunity for economic relations and malfeasance becomes costly. Also, there is a substitute of trust in a form of contracts. Also he argues that there is a concept of general morality that keeps things in order. People developed certain regard for others that is essential for survival.
But, what the author argues, differs his theory from others is that every action is embedded in social relationships, and social relations produce trust. People involved in relations and relations generate trust that discourages malfeasance. So, better or stronger relationships, more trust is generated and less malfeasance is present.
However, Granovetter also suggests that strong trusting relationships enhance opportunities for malfeasance. Embezzlement would be an example of a malfeasance that involves an abuse of trust.
So, Granovetter argues that people are not driven solely by self-interest, but their interests are imbedded in social relations. Instead of having under- or oversocialized human actions there are social relations that guide social actions either more over- or more undersocialized.
In their turn DiMaggio and Powel suggest that institutions become isomorphic due to relations between each other. They paraphrase Schelling that states that organizations in a structured field respond to an environment that consists of the responses of other organizations to the environment, so it is a relation between responses (p. 148). Institutions mimic each other, they coerce each other to become like them. Normative pressure includes collective struggle. Even if chance happens not due to relationship, it is still due to the influence from outside and not because of pure self-interest. So, both theories suggest that people act in response to somebody else, which implies relations between people or institutions.

2. What are the three mechanisms of institutional isomorphic change, according to DiMaggio and Powell, and how are they different? In other words, what are three situations that they suggest lead to institutions "copying" one another, and why? How are these examples of institutional isomorphism different from competitive isomorphism?


The three mechanisms of institutional isomorphic change are, coercive isomorphism, mimetic isomorphism and normative isomorphism. "Coercive isomorphism results from both formal and informal pressures exerted on organizations by other organizations upon which they are dependent and by cultural expectations in the society within which organizations function" (150). The pressure to change may be due to political influence as well as problems of legitimacy, which institutions may feel as force, such as government mandate, or persuasion. DiMaggio and Powell provide examples of institutions that adopt changes to conform to external standards. These examples include changing pollution control technologies to satisfy new environmental regulations, as well as adopting changes within an organization to meet tax law requirements.

Mimetic isomorphism is based on uncertainty. Uncertainty within an institution encourages imitation. "When organizational technologies are poorly understood (March and Olsen, 1976), when goals are ambiguous, or when the environment creates symbolic uncertainty, organizations may model themselves on other organizations" (151). This is different from coercive isomorphism because the latter feels external pressures to implement changes within its institutions. Mimetic isomorphism on the other hand, encourages changes within its organizations, in order to make its practices more effective. These organizations can then model themselves after similar organizations that may be more legitimate and successful, in hopes that the implemented changes enhance their legitimacy and express their desire to improve the conditions of the organization to other organizations.

Normative isomorphism then refers to professional pressures that instigate changes. These professional pressures, or professionalization, are the collective struggles of an occupations members to ultimately control the production of producers. Through normative isomorphism, organizations are able to ensure the best individuals become members of specific occupations. This isomorphism encourages the filtering of personnel. "Within many organizational fields filtering 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; through common promotion practices, such as always hiring top executives from financial or legal departments; and from skill-level requirements for particular jobs" (153). As a result of professionalization, organizations attempt to only allow those with exceptional qualities as members of their organization. These organizations hope that by having only the best of the best, they can build legitimacy with other organizations in the same field. This is different from coercive isomorphism because normative pressures are felt from within an organization, to establish not only employment standards, but also value standards. In this sense it is more similar to mimetic isomorphism, but mimetic isomorphism seeks improve itself by modeling its own organization after another. Normative isomorphism then is primarily driven by professional pressures to establish legitimacy is the individuals that organizations employ rather than the structure or practices of organizations.

Institutional isomorphism is different from competitive isomorphism, because these changes serve to enhance the internal efficiency of organizations. The goal of institutional isomorphic change is to establish similarities between organizations, rather than establish a status competition between organizations. "This similarity can make it easier for organizations to transact with other organizations, to attract career-minded staff, to be acknowledged as legitimate and reputable, and to fit into administrative categories that define eligibility for public and private grants and contracts" (155). Although competition may exist between organizations, the primary goal is to establish efficiency within individual organizations as well as in the relations between organizations in the same field.

Jenna Headrick-Blog Post #1

| No Comments

In "Economic Embeddedness," Mark Granovetter is arguing that neither the "oversocialized" view nor the "undersocialized" view of human action is accurate.
An "oversocialized" view of human action asserts that all human action is caused by socialization. Essentially, people listen to and obey the previously developed set of norms and values until the "obedience is not perceived as a burden" (163). According to this school of thought, social influence is an external force and mechanical. Once a person is born into a certain social class the rest of their behavior is automatic.
On the other hand, an "undersocialized" view of human action argues that no social interaction or social relations have any affect on production, distribution, or consumption. In this school of thought, when applied to economics, argues no person "noticeably influences aggregate supply or demand" (163). Under an idealized competitive market, there is no need for bargaining or any need for prolonged human or social contact between buying parties. In the real world, believers of the "undersocialized" view of human action believe free market competition creates a system of maintaining order than personal traders cannot produce themselves. In a competitive market, if traders are encountering the malfeasance of other traders, they can simply move on to another set of traders that are willing to do business in a trusting manner. In this view of social action, social relationships are seen to be frictional. In the end, social action is caused by self-interest.
Granovetter does not believe either of these views of social action completely encapsulates the reality of social action. He believes his theory of embeddedness is much more fitting. The basis of his theory rests on the behaviors of people and institutions being constrained by ongoing social relations. The importance of social relations is the main reason Granovetter rejects both the "oversocialized" and the "undersocialized" view of social action. To him, social relations play little importance in both of these views. These views, he argues, are driven by atomized actors. First, in the "oversocialized" view, action is driven externally by previously established social value and norms. Second, in the "undersocialized" view, action is driven by self-interest. Granovetter further argues that these two views merge and intersect. Though people may act in their own interest "undersocialized," the source of other social functions is left open to social norms and values, which is really an "oversocialized" view.
Granovetter wants to avoid any view that involves atomization. He feels that no one behaves outside a social context. Instead, actions are "embedded in concrete, ongoing systems of social relations." If economists ever do consider social relations as key to action, they strip away any social context from those relations. They take away the history and interpersonal ties between the relations and simplify the interactions down to people playing specific role positions and role sets. Therefore, the person is atomized by the role they are ascribed. No individual content or social context is even considered. Though attempting to consider social relations, economists are really again just atomizing economic action. To Granovetter, this is a travesty as "ongoing systems of social relations" is the core of all economic action.

Blog Post #4: Institutional Analysis: Dimaggio and Powell

| No Comments

2. DiMaggio and Powell define isomorphism as a process of interaction that forces one thing to resemble another or other things that face the same conditions. This leads to the homogenization of things as being similar in nature. For example, organizations try to resemble more successful organization of the same status hoping to be as successful if not more successful. According to DiMaggio and Powell, the three mechanisms of institutional isomorphic change are coercive isomorphism, mimetic isomorphism, and normative isomorphism.

"Coercive isomorphism results from both formal and informal pressures exerted on organizations by other organizations upon which they are dependent and by cultural expectations in the society within which organizations function" (150). To extend on that quote, DiMaggio and Powell are saying that coercive isomorphism occurs when an organization exerts pressure on another organization which depends on them. This dependency can be economic or the companies may be bound by contract. This pressure can be applied in the forms of force, persuasion, or policies. For example, government uses policies or sanctions to keep companies in check as a form of coercive isomorphism.

Mimetic isomorphism is basically the imitation of another as a result of uncertainty, or sometimes failure. Organizations can model themselves on the basics of other organizations when they feel that they can't reach their goals or their goals are ambiguous. The modeled organization is sometimes unaware that it is being copied. It is only a source of information that the borrowing organization uses. This can happen through employee transfer, trade between organizations etc... The authors use the example of Japan's efforts to modernize by copying by studying different aspects of American and European systems of education, and economy and in turn implementing it in their own society.
DiMaggio and Powell stress that homogeneity stems from the fact that new organizations are modeled upon old ones throughout the economy (152). They are arguing that organizations model themselves after similar organizations that they perceive to be successful. Basically, I think their argument is that the economy drives this concept of isomorphism.

Normative isomorphism derives from "professionalization as the collective struggle of members of an occupation to define the conditions and methods of their work" (152). There are two features of professionalization which DiMaggio and Powell say are important to isomorphism. One is education in a university, and second, the growth and expansion of professional networks that create new models. This creates a group of professionals or individuals who hold similar positions in organizations, and process the same ideas which may "shape organizational behavior" (153). Again this homogenizes diverse organizations and this is the point that DiMaggio and Powell are trying to make through isomorphism.

Institutional isomorphism differs from competitive isomorphism in the sense that the latter emphasizes more on "market competition, niche change, and fitness measures" (149). Basically homogeneity is does not exist and according to DiMaggio and Powell, free competition exists among organizations.

Blog Post #1--DiMaggio & Powell

| No Comments

In regards to the first question addressing this reading: As was mentioned in both the reading "The Iron Cage Revisited" and "The Protestant ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism," Max Weber explains that rationalization was brought on by asceticism and creates its own sort of whirl wind which captivates and locks in society under capitalism. The imprisonment of this sort of society is what has been referred to as the "iron cage." Going one step further, Weber explained that the organizational result of rationalization is bureaucracy and once bureaucracy became prevalent, that whirl wind would keep society locked in, leaving no escape. Paul DiMaggio and Walter Powell state Weber's three related causes of bureaucracy, placing extra emphasis on the competitive marketplace.
DiMaggio and Powell explain their beliefs that the causes of bureaucracy and rationalization have changed and are different from that of Weber's. They explain that now competition and efficiency are less of the driving force behind the changes in organizations. Rather, these changes are resulting from the "process that make[s] organizations more similar without necessarily making them more efficient" (147). The structuration of organizational fields, DiMaggio and Powell argue, are actually the motivation behind bureaucratization and homogenization. They identified the "rationalizers" as the government and businessmen/women that affect the process of the structuration of organizational fields.
DiMaggio and Powell believe that organizations and institutions tend to look very similar today. Their reasoning for this phenomena are stated when they explain that "individual efforts to deal rationally with uncertainty and constraint often lead, in the aggregate, to homogeneity in structure, culture and output" (147). To clarify, in the beginning stages, institutions and organizations seek diversity in hopes of standing out and being noticed for those differences that set them apart from other organizations and institutions. However, once that field becomes better known and established, the strain towards homogenization becomes unbearable. This process places great emphasis on the notions of connectedness and structural equivalence. The structuration or process of institutional definition includes the following four components: "an increase in the extent of interaction among organizations in the field; the emergence of sharply defined interorganizational structures of domination and patterns of coalition; an increase in the information load with which organizations in a field must contend; and the development of a mutual awareness among participants in a set of organizations that they are involved in a common enterprise" (148).
After the institution or organization has been established and structured into an existing field, they are forced into being similar. In the long run, the people in charge of making the rational changes create an environment that disables their growth in the future. In other words, organizations desire change and strive for it constantly, but after they reach that peak in structuration of an organizational field, the opposite occurs and they are forced to cut back on diversity and changes within the field. The organizations that have been around the longest and are of greatest magnitude are those that reach the peak and then are able to control it by dominating the environment that encompasses them rather than adjusting to them. Isomorphism is the concept that most accurately captures the process of homogenization. In regards to isomorphism, "at the population level, such an approach suggests that organizational characteristics are modified in the direction of increasing compatibility with environmental characteristics; the number of organizations in a population is a function of environmental carrying capacity; and the diversity of organizational forms is isomorphic to environmental diversity" (149). Isomorphism is broken down into two categories: competitive and institutional.
--Lindsay Florin


1. DiMaggio and Powell begin their paper describing Weber's analysis of rationalization and bureaucratization. How do you they think their perspective on changes in institutional structure is different from Weber's? Why do they think institutions tend to look so similar today?

-DiMaggio and Powell seem to theorize that structural change in organizations seem to be driven more by how they strive to become more and more similar to other organizations within the institutional structure. This can be compared to Weber's theory, which suggested that bureaucratization and other forms of organizational change are driven by competition among organizations or the need for efficiency. To Weber, the Iron Cage trapped us under bureaucratization and rationalization to become machine like to make everything we do be efficient in nature. To D&P, I feel that they take the Iron Cage metaphor another step further. If we become these machine like creatures with one common goal (efficiency), this will already be so normatively established that it will no longer be questioned. Competition is no longer necessary, as we grow into homogeneous organizations much like others. Once organizational fields have been established, they are pushed to become more and more alike. These fields then become so normatively sanctioned that this increases the likelihood that these institutions will continue to adopt the same kinds of norms and values that already preexist, and this is why they think institutions tend to look so similar today.

2. What are the three mechanisms of institutional isomorphic change, according to DiMaggio and Powell, and how are they different? In other words, what are three situations that they suggest lead to institutions "copying" one another, and why? How are these examples of institutional isomorphism different from competitive isomorphism?

-The three mechanisms of institutional isomorphic change include coercive isomorphism, mimetic processes and normative pressures. Coercive isomorphism occurs when there is a large influence put on organizations depending on certain cultural expectations in society. This influence is based on pressures regarding how certain organizations should function. This might occur when there is a certain force or persuasion to run an organization differently to live up to certain laws or rules enforced by government policies or the like. In this light, many similar organizations would tend to be structured similarly or start to resemble each other based on rules and regulations they need to abide by. Mimetic processes involves modeling other organizations, who may already be similar, when they adopt different successful tactics, policies, etc . from these organizations. This might occur because one organization is uncertain of their own ways of running it, so they imitate another in hopes of being as successful. This might happen from employees suggesting different things they may have seen while working with a different organization or heard by word of mouth. However it occurs, there is an extent as to how much different organizations mimic each other. In normative pressures, the professionals or leaders of organizations tend to have similar traits and ways of carrying out how the organization will thrive. Many professionals within the organization were trained in much of the same way as their competitors were trained, like education backgrounds and qualifications. I believe that these mechanisms of institutional isomorphism differ from competitive isomorphism because it is not how organizations 'weed out' methods of gaining advantage over other competitors, but how many organizations tend to end up operating in similar ways altogether. Institutional isomorphism is how organizations tend to start to look similar in many aspects, while competitive isomorphism looks at how these organizations compare each other in what the best way is to come out on top.

Institutional Analysis - Blog Post #1

| No Comments

1. Weber viewed bureaucratization as a means by which to control individuals. He saw it as an iron cage where the bureaucracy made it impossible for individualism or creativity to survive, in effect imprisoning individuals. He argued for the irreversibility of bureaucracy based on its efficiency and power of control. However, since Weber wrote, the growth and change in bureaucracy cause DiMaggio and Powel to view it in a different light. They believe that the causes (as Weber saw them: competition among capitalist firms in the marketplace, competition among states, and bourgeois demands for equal protection under the law) of bureaucratization have changed. Instead of structural changes being driven by competition or need for efficiency, DiMaggio and Powell see these changes driven by processes that make organizations more alike - not necessarily more efficient as they state. The authors contend that bureaucratization comes from the ever-developing structure of organizational fields.

DiMaggio and Powell set out to explain the uniformity, not variation, of organizational forms. They look at the totality of relevant factors in answering this question. They note that when an organizational field is initially established there is much variation, but over the course of its life, sees a push towards homogenization. The authors note that after an organization is structurally defined, "powerful forces emerge that lead them to become more similar to one another" (148). The sameness comes from the fact that as organizations develop, they create environments that constrain future movement. As organizations try to develop and change, a time will come when the developed structure of the organization will lead to the totality of individual change lessening the extent of diversity in the field. The organization has the power to control the environment instead of adapt to it. DiMaggio and Powell seek to explain this phenomenon with the term 'isomorphism.' They define isomorphism as "a constraining process that forces one unit in a population to resemble other units that face the same set of environmental conditions." They go further to suggest two different kinds of isomorphism. Competitive isomorphism is more closely related to Weber's views of competition driving early innovation. Institutional isomorphism is the idea that the major factor organizations have to take into account is other organizations.

2. Coercive isomorphic change deals with pressure from other organizations. These pressures can be formal or informal. In addition, coercive isomorphism results deals with the changing in cultures surrounding an organization. Mimetic isomorphic change happens when there is uncertainty. When an organization is having trouble defining itself, identifying with an environment, or labeling goals the organization is likely to mimic other organizations (most often similar or more legitimate/successful.) Normative isomorphic change comes from professionalization. "Professionalization is the 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." These institutional types of isomorphism differ from competitive isomorphism because although institutional isomorphism is in part driven by other organizations, it is not driven by the competition between the organizations, but rather different aspects interactions with each other.

Iron Cage Revisited: Blog Post #1 (Laina Hinrichs)

| No Comments

1. DiMaggio and Powell begin their paper describing Weber's analysis of rationalization and bureaucratization. How do you they think their perspective on changes in institutional structure is different from Weber's? Why do they think institutions tend to look so similar today?
DiMaggio and Powell argue that their view is different from Weber's theory by claiming that the bureaucratization of the corporations and the state have already been achieved. They argue that the world has become filled with increasingly homogeneous organizations, and they study the variations in structure and technology within the organizations. DiMaggio and Powell note that as organizations go through the stages of their life cycles, they lose their diversity--as they become more established, they lose their diversity. The two sociologists claim that as new ideas spread, there's a limit to the benefits of adopting those ideas. The ideas are adopted for the sake of having the ideas and fitting in with the other organizations rather than any practical need. As a result, the environment of organizations becomes one in which one organization responds to the responses of other organizations, which are only responding to yet another response of yet another organization. This is happening because of four things: there's more interaction between organizations now, strongly defined inter-organizational patterns of coalition, an increase in the information load, and a developing awareness of competition among organizations. These things have been increasing steadily over time, which creates a more homogeneous environment for orginizations.

2. What are the three mechanisms of institutional isomorphic change, according to DiMaggio and Powell, and how are they different? In other words, what are three situations that they suggest lead to institutions "copying" one another, and why? How are these examples of institutional isomorphism different from competitive isomorphism?
According to DiMaggio and Powell, there are three mechanisms which spark institutional isomorphic change. These are coercive isomorphism, mimetic isomorphism, and normative isomorphism. In different situations, these mechanisms will cause change. Coercive isomorphism comes from an organization under political pressure, or adjusting to seem legitimate within the environment. The organizations are pressured by cultural expectations in their societies. Mimetic isomorphism is simply a change made as a response to an uncertain environmental factor. Normative isomorphism may have an external force require change within an organization, stating that the change is necessary for professional reasons. For these mechanisms, the motivation to change is so that the organizations will conform with the other organizations within their environment. Competitive isomorphism is different from institutional isomorphism in that with competitive, some organizations will copy the ones that are more successful. It's the same idea of organizations adapting to one another for success, but with competitive isomorphism, some organizations don't just imitate and conform, they rather directly copy a more successful rival.

June 2013

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30            

Pages

Powered by Movable Type 4.31-en

About this Archive

This page is an archive of recent entries in the [3-28] Institutional Analysis: DiMaggio & Powell and Granovetter category.

[3-21] Micro-Sociology II: Goffman & Blumer is the previous category.

[4-02] Foucault I: Power, Discourse, and Knowledge is the next category.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.