The role of imprinting on the adoption of diversity management in German universities

Abstract

This study questions the universal effect of organizational imprinting and argues that the relevance of the imprint differs across organizations' administrative levels. Specifically, this study analyses how institutional founding conditions affect the adoption of diversity management, as a method of responding to increasing institutional pressure to conform to a logic of inclusion and equality in institutions of higher education. Focusing on 112 universities in Germany, results show that the imprint does not affect the adoption of diversity management in general but does so at higher administrative levels. Through a discussion of these findings, this study contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of how imprinting affects organizations. Further, it contributes to a better understanding of factors that influence the diffusion of diversity management in universities.

Institutional logics analysis in higher education research

“…To fill these gaps, Cloutier and Langley (2013) propose combining institutional logics with insights from other theories. Similar efforts are seen in some of our reviewed studies, such as the integration of institutional logics and imprinting theory in higher education literature (Oertel and Soll 2017;Oertel 2018). Building synergies between institutional logics and other theories would help to gain a comprehensive understanding of various organisational phenomena in the complex professional organisations that characterise the higher education field.…”

Institutional Logics in the Global Higher Education Landscape: Differences in Organizational Characteristics by Sector and Founding Era

“…The findings suggest that imprinting during the formative phase endures and leaves a footprint across subsequent eras. While organizational imprinting is a well-established concept (Oertel 2018;Stinchcombe 1965;Waeger and Weber 2019), linking it to institutional logics, i.e., the ideational blueprints of organizations, turns out to be a fruitful extension.…”

“…Rather, they suggest that organizational differences in higher education also stem from specific norms or 'institutional logics' dominant in sector-specific or field-specific environments (DiMaggio and Powell 1983;Ramirez and Christensen 2013). According to this perspective, institutional logics, once imprinted in the formative phase, will continue to influence actors' behavior, resulting in persistent differences in norms and practices within organizations, even as environmental pressures change (Oertel 2018;Raynard, Lounsbury and Greenwood 2013;Stinchcombe 1965;Waeger and Weber 2019).…”

Legitimacy, stratification, and internationalization in global higher education: the case of the International Association of Universities

“…For example, analyzing corporate social responsibility activities in a large sample of Chinese companies, Raynard et al (2013) find that cognitive frames reflect a state logic that was more dominant in an earlier era, and argue that the earlier frame, once imprinted, remained salient. Similarly, the time of university creation has an influence on the way it adapts to an existing environment and signals its status and belonging (Zapp and Lerch 2020;Oertel 2018;Oertel and Söll 2017). In this sense, younger universities are more likely to look to international organizations such as the IAU to seek legitimacy and use the IAU's prominent and unique status in global higher education governance and its link to UNESCO to augment their standing and underline their participation in the global organizational field of higher education.…”

“…Thinking about historical eras and their influence on universities leads us to the imprinting perspective. Stinchcombe (1965) argued that organizational structures and strategies were heavily influenced by the conditions in which organizations were born, that is, by the dominant and persistent institutional logics of the specific era in which they came into existence (Oertel 2018;Oertel and Söll 2017). Even though there are serious and ongoing debates as to what constitutes internationalization (Buckner 2017(Buckner , 2019(Buckner , 2020Knight 2014;Kosmützky and Putty 2016), the post-World War II era clearly emphasizes internationalization in higher education as a desideratum more so than in earlier time periods (Ramirez 2006;Chou et al 2017; Parreira do Amaral 2010; Powell et al 2017;Seeber et al 2016;Stensaker et al 2019).…”