Institutional Sources of Change in the Formal Structure of Organizations: The Diffusion of Civil Service Reform, 1880-1935

Abstract

This paper investigates the diffusion and institutionalization of change in formal organization structure, using data on the adoption of civil service reform by cities. It is shown that when civil service procedures are required by the state, they diffuse rapidly and directly from the state to each city. When the procedures are not so legitimated, they diffuse gradually and the underlying sources of adoption change overtime. In the latter case, early adoption of civil service by cities is related to internal organizational requirements, with city characteristics predicting adoption, while late adoption is related to institutional definitions of legitimate structural form, so that city characteristics no longer predict the adoption decision. Overall, the findings provide strong support for the argument that the adoption of a policy or program by an organization is importantly determined by the extent to which the measure is institutionalized -whether by law or by gradual legitimation. This paper investigates the diffusion and institutionalization of change in formal organization structure, using data on the adoption of civil service reform by cities. It is shown that when civil service procedures are required by the state, they diffuse rapidly and directly from the state to each city. When the procedures are not so legitimated, they diffuse gradually and the underlying sources of adoption change overtime. In the latter case, early adoption of civil service by cities is related to internal organizational requirements, with city characteristics predicting adoption, while late adoption is related to institutional definitions of legitimate structural form, so that city characteristics no longer predict the adoption decision. Overall, the findings provide strong support for the argument that the adoption of a policy or program by an organization is importantly determined by the extent to which the measure is institutionalizedwhether by law or by gradual legitimation.* © 1983 by Cornell University 0001 -8392/83/2801-0022/S00.75The authors are jointly responsible for the theoreticalargumentand analysis. M. Craig Brown suggested the topic of civil service reform. Maureen J. McConaghy, Nancy Brandon Tuma, Glenn R. Carroll, and P. Y. Liu provided methodological advice; Sharon Stevens aided early computational work. Both of us are grateful to Phillip Bonacich for his advice throughout the research, and to

The Role of Analogy in the Institutionalization of Sustainability Reporting

“…This model of institutionalization differs markedly from the quintessential depiction of institutionalization, wherein innovations are initially adopted for technical reasons and later for symbolic ones (Baron et al 1986;Tolbert and Zucker 1983). When multiple competing logics are present, the temporal shift from technical to symbolic rationality might not play out as canonically prescribed (Lounsbury 2007).…”

“…Social actors with conflicting interests all draw upon these features in the institutional landscape to further their agendas. While the paradigmatic view of institutionalization asserts that novel practices diffuse first among users who "technically" need to adopt them and then later diffuse through contagion, once they have become "institutionalized" (Baron, Dobbin and Jennings 1986;Tolbert and Zucker 1983), this view has been criticized both theoretically and empirically, and a more compelling theoretical approach built on the understanding that many institutional entrepreneurs operate in environments subject to multiple, competing institutional logics (Friedland and Alford, 1991), conflicting rationalities (Townley 2002), and practice variation (Lounsbury 2001(Lounsbury , 2007.In these settings, language and discourse are key components in the institutional entrepreneur's arsenal to guide the institutionalization process. At the most basic level entrepreneurs must produce texts that are accessible, understandable and persuasive (Green 2004;Phillips et al 2004;Suddaby and Greenwood 2005).…”

O que é legitimidade organizacional?

“…Como apontam Deephouse e Suchman (2008), o foco em tal origem é comum em estudos sobre difusão de formas e modelos organizacionais (vide, p. ex., STRANG;SOULE, 1998;TOLBERT;ZUCKER, 1983), assim como na abordagem da ecologia populacional (vide, p. ex., CARROL;CARROL, 1992;FREEMAN, 1989).…”

Dialogue and distributed agency in institutional transmission

“…In our view, this omission is problematic because an institutional template that is not enacted by the members of an organizational field would invariably fail to become an institution at all. This point has tended to be overlooked in the existing literature on institutional theory of diffusion (e.g., Abrahamson 1991;Gooderham, Nordhaug & Ringdal 1999;Guler, Guillen & Macpherson 2002;Ingram & Simons 1995: O"Neill, Pouder & Ruchholtz 1998Strang & Meyer 1993;Tolbert & Zucker 1983). Due to its macro focus, this literature has few means for finely distinguishing between the tactics employed in making practices more "acceptable" (and thereby adoptable) to its recipients.…”