Structural Isomorphism in Australian Nonprofit Organizations

Abstract

This paper assesses the extent of structural similarity or isomorphism among nonprofit organizations in Australia. Based on neo-institutional theory, the paper explains such isomorphism in terms of these organizations' subordination and dependency, the uncertainties they face, and the networks of experts of which they are a part. The analysis uses the nonprofit component of a 2001-2002 random sample of Australian employment organizations. It finds surprisingly little isomorphism in this subsample and few differences in isomorphism according to the level of the factors thought to produce similarity. The discussion of the findings focuses on the suitability of the nonprofit sector as the appropriate organizational field within which isomorphism involving these organizations is likely to be produced. Industries, which include all organizations that produce the same product or service, be they nonprofit, for-profit, or government, may be more appropriate interactional fields for the development of isomorphism.

The Institutional and Technical Structuring of Nonprofit Ventures: Case Study of a U.S. Hybrid Organization Caught Between Two Fields

“…Due to the nascent stage of the social enterprise field, neo-institutional theory would predict a broad range of emergent organizational models for integrating business enterprise with social goals (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983;Leiter, 2005). More research is needed on how other organizational models for social enterprise are set up to manage exposure of core social services to market and business "risk," taking into account different societal contexts.…”

Sport policy convergence: a framework for analysis

“…Although this theory is usually applied to the analysis of the behaviour of business organisations it can readily be applied in the context of government departments. The theory is attractive at a commonsense level and is also supported by a considerable body of empirical research (see for example Phelps & Dickson, 2009;Phelps & Kent, 2010;Leiter, 2005;Ordanini et al, 2008;Edwards et al, 2009). The theory also overlaps with the theorisation of policy regimes discussed above and the softer form of regime influence through socialisation.…”

Determinants of Organizational Design Choices in Spanish Nongovernmental Development Organizations

“…Thus, we concede that the span of control influences the organization's incentive system and expect a positive relation between a higher span of control and a greater use of incentive compensation. We measure this variable by the number of employees supervised by the project department coordinator, a widely accepted measure in the literature [4], [46].…”

“…Therefore, we expect a negative relation between formalization and delegation of decision rights. Following the studies of [34], [46], we measure formalization of procedures as the extent to which the organization has manuals of practices and rules to perform the tasks. The respondents answer on a fully anchored Likert scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (yes, for everything).…”

“…Therefore, we expect a positive relation between the level of knowledge of the employee and delegation of decision rights because the knowledge potential of the employees allows them to make decisions over a wide range of activities. We capture the specific knowledge level as the employees' education level, a well-known variable in the literature [25], [46]. We ask respondents to indicate on a Likert scale from 1 (no studies) to 5 (postgraduate) what education level their staff needs to fulfil their jobs.…”