Journal of http://jmi.sagepub.

com/
Management Inquiry

Influencing Ideas: A Celebration of DiMaggio and Powell (1983)

Royston Greenwood and Renate E. Meyer
Journal of Management Inquiry 2008 17: 258
DOI: 10.1177/1056492608326693

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jmi.sagepub.com/content/17/4/258

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:
Western Academy of Management

Additional services and information for Journal of Management Inquiry can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jmi.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jmi.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://jmi.sagepub.com/content/17/4/258.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Nov 18, 2008

What is This?

Downloaded from jmi.sagepub.com at Dicle Ãœniversitesi on November 14, 2014

Editor’s Special Journal of Management Inquiry
Volume 17 Number 4
December 2008 258-264
© 2008 Sage Publications
10.1177/1056492608326693
Influencing Ideas http://jmi.sagepub.com
hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com

A Celebration of DiMaggio and Powell (1983)

Royston Greenwood
University of Alberta
Renate E. Meyer
Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien

Few papers achieve the success of DiMaggio and Powell’s 1983 “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and
Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields.” The impact of the paper, as indicated by its citation count and its influence
on a wide range of disciplines, has been extraordinary. Furthermore, the paper’s influence continues to increase. Here we
celebrate this exceptional paper and offer observations on how ideas become adopted, institutionalized, and sometimes
translated in ways not necessarily intended by their authors. We also note the vagaries of the process by which journals
assess the caliber of papers submitted to them—after all, this paper was initially rejected!

Keywords: institutional theory; excellence; reviews

A ll researchers hope for the “home run” contribution,

the paper that significantly shapes subsequent
research and theorizing. But very few papers have that
kind of impact. Granovetter’s (1985) study of embed-
dedness is an obvious example. So, too, is Child’s (1972)
concept of strategic choice and Cohen, March, and
Olsen’s garbage can model. Often, highly influential
papers introduce strikingly original theoretical perspec-
tives that open up new ways of thinking about organiza-
tions, such as Meyer and Rowan’s (1977) introduction of
new institutionalism, Hannan and Freeman’s (1977) pio-
neering statement of the ecological mind-set, Jensen and
Meckling’s (1976) agency theory of the firm, and
Williamson’s (1977) transaction cost economics.
One indicator of the impact of papers is their citation
count1 (i.e., the number of times that other scholars refer
to the work). Most papers are considered successful if
they are cited more than 50 times,2 and the life span of
their influence is typically short. Ours is not a field that
systematically builds and acknowledges foundational
contributions. Instead, usually we move on or simply
forget and later reinvent. But a small number of papers
have breathtakingly high citation counts and an enduring
influence.
One such paper is the one whose 25th anniversary we
are celebrating: Paul DiMaggio and Woody Powell’s (1983)3
“The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and
Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields,” which,
as of August 2008, had been cited more than 2,6004 times.
(To our knowledge, this citation count is only surpassed
by Granovetter’s 1985 embeddedness paper and Jensen
& Meckling’s 1976 exposition of the agency thesis.)
Moreover, the paper’s rate of citation continues to
increase (see Figure 1), suggesting that its extraordinary
influence is far from over (although the paper is now so
institutionalized that many citations to it are ceremonial
rather than substantive). Furthermore, the paper has pen-
etrated North American and European journals and dis-
ciplinary as well as management and strategy journals
(see Table 1). Not bad for a paper initially rejected out-
right by the American Journal of Sociology (AJS).
How did it happen that a paper anchored in political
and cultural studies has become a standard item on the
reading lists of graduate business schools? What is it
about this paper that captured and continues to capture
the imagination of troops of organizational theorists?
What did it say that resonated so well at the time of its
appearance and that even today inspires thinking about
organizations? Who were the people that influenced
Authors’ Note: The authors would like to thank Peter Walgenbach,
Woody Powell, and Markus Höllerer for their comments. We thank
Woody Powell for sharing materials and opinions pertinent to the
1983 paper.

258 Downloaded from jmi.sagepub.com at Dicle Ãœniversitesi on November 14, 2014

 Greenwood, Meyer / Celebration of DiMaggio and Powell 259

Figure 1
DiMaggio and Powell (1993) Citations per Year (as of September 30, 2008)

300

250

200
No. of Citations

150

100

50

0
1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year

Table 1
Subjects Areas of Citations
Subject Area Citations Subject Area Citations

Management 1,256 Business, finance 61

Business 821 Planning & development 56
Sociology 437 Operations research & management science 54
Education & educational research 124 Public, environmental, & occupational health 49
Public administration 120 Industrial relations & labor 44
Social sciences, interdisciplinary 104 Health care sciences & services 42
Psychology, applied 75 Information science & library science 42
Political science 70 Social issues 42
Economics 65 Law 41
Health policy & services 62 Computer science, information systems 38

Source: Web of Science.

what went into the iron cage? And how far have the ideas ago. The very young age of Paul DiMaggio and Woody
in the paper been selectively followed, leaving alterna- Powell—both in their early 30s at the time of the paper’s
tive trails outlined in the paper largely unexplored? publication—makes the story of this paper all the more
astonishing. Or, perhaps it was because of their academic
Genesis “immaturity” that the paper was possible. As Woody
Powell mused earlier this year, “If we knew then what we
When thinking of a seminal work written 25 years ago, know now, the paper would not have been as good!”
students tend to assume that the authors are long retired Just to recall: The early 1980s was not a time of Inter-
emeriti who must have left the academic arena decades net, e-mail, Skype, or conference tourism around the

Downloaded from jmi.sagepub.com at Dicle Ãœniversitesi on November 14, 2014

260 Journal of Management Inquiry
globe. Collaboration then was more difficult. Thus, the
paper was a partly fortuitous outcome of a job market
that brought two young researchers of cultural policy
studies and nonprofit organizations to New Haven,
Connecticut, where they finally met after having been in
letter and phone contact for some time. Both were
involved in social network research and were strongly
influenced by the work of Harrison White. Both had
been studying organizations in the arts and book pub-
lishing, and DiMaggio had been analyzing arts and class
structure, a trail bound to lead to Pierre Bourdieu’s ideas
on cultural capital and social fields.
Early in 1980 they and other Yale colleagues—Carl
Milofsky, Eleanor Westney, Avner Ben-Ner—had
observed traces of isomorphism, which surfaced as a
possible research contribution to Yale’s interdisciplinary
Program on Non-Profit Organizations (PONPO).
Originally proposed as a miniconference and/or edited
volume and despite several encouraging comments, the
idea was subsequently dropped and the two decided,
instead, to write a paper exploring the notion of isomor-
phic processes. Legend holds that composition of the
first draft took no more than a few days.
The paper was rejected by AJS because, so the review-
ers believed, the power and elite control debate within the
paper was not sufficiently sophisticated—an interesting
judgment given that the power dimension of the paper
would be ignored during the next two and a half decades.
Nevertheless, the other ideas in the paper had an enormous
impact, which suggests that AJS failed to recognize the
power of the paper as a whole. (Knowing that this, of all
papers, began with an outright rejection has helped many
a student digest journal rejections.) Mark Granovetter, a
member of Woody Powell’s doctoral committee, encour-
aged them to change the address on the envelope and send
the paper to the American Sociological Review.
(Granovetter’s 1973 ASR paper on the strength of weak
ties had received the same blunt rejection from AJS.)
Sheldon Stryker, editor of ASR at the time, provided a
surer hand in steering the paper through the review
process and in October 1982 accepted it without any
major revisions. His acceptance letter finished with words
that all researchers, especially young ones, hope to hear:
“I think this is a first-rate paper.”
Inevitably, a paper of this novelty was not constructed
in an intellectual vacuum. So where did the inspiration
and encouragement come from?
At the front line is Yale economist and political scien-
tist Ed Lindblom, who was famous for demystifying gov-
ernmental policy making as an incremental process of
“muddling through.” The issue of elite control raised in
Downloaded from jmi.sagepub.com at Dicle Ãœniversitesi on November 14, 2014
the 1983 paper undoubtedly owes much to the then-
current debate between Lindblom, C. Wright Mills, G. W.
Domhoff, and R. A. Dahl. According to Woody Powell,
Lindblom was the first to raise the question of whether
mechanisms similar to those that lead to homogenization
and institutionalization would also apply to differentiation
and heterogeneity, a question that has only recently started
to puzzle institutionalists. Other names on the list of influ-
ential Yale colleagues are community researcher and soci-
ologist of crime Albert J. Reiss and Rosabeth Moss
Kanter, who, in her work on communes, had already
drawn on the notion of isomorphism to address the pres-
sures on communities to accommodate the expectations of
their environment. She defined isomorphism as “the struc-
tural similarity between the community and its environ-
ment” (1972, p. 153).
Charles Perrow is frequently cited as one of the earliest
(i.e., 1985) and most eloquent critics of neo-institutional-
ism, speaking against its predominantly cultural Lesart,
the emphasis on myth and symbols. He pointed to the
shortsightedness of institutional researchers for giving
little regard to institutionalized asymmetries, inequality
and power, and the vice versa influence of organizations
on their environments. Despite these views, Perrow, as a
member of Powell’s doctoral committee, not only encour-
aged DiMaggio and Powell to press ahead with their iso-
morphism project but advised them to leave the confines
of the nonprofit sector in order to make a much broader
claim. Hard to believe that Perrow would not have nudged
them then had he thought the issue of power inappropri-
ately expounded in the 1983 paper.
The two authors were, of course, aware of the impor-
tant work taking place on the West Coast and were in con-
tact with the Stanford proponents of the emerging
institutional perspective—notably John Meyer and Dick
Scott. John Meyer, who has never stopped encouraging
outside-the-box thinking, very recently acknowledged that
he was one of the reviewers encouraging the 1983 manu-
script to publication. At the paper’s presentation at a
roundtable workshop at the 1981 American Sociological
Association only a handful of people attended, but one of
them was Art Stinchcombe, who would later give the
debate a twist by reclaiming the virtues of the old institu-
tionalism (1997) and by adding evangelism as a fourth
mechanism of isomorphism (2002).
Signposts
Did the paper catch a wave? Or trigger a wave? The
1983 paper appeared 6 years after Meyer and Rowan’s

(1977) elaboration of an institutional perspective in orga-
nization theory. Unlike earlier work, Meyer and Rowan’s
formulation focused on how organizations are influenced
by the norms and values of their “institutional” context.
The key point was that organizations are not quasi-rational
actors choosing how to function in an optimal manner but
rather feel urged to follow rational myths impressed on
them by their institutional setting because not to do so
would undermine their social legitimacy and risk the loss
of important resources and support. An important obser-
vation was that organizations structurally reflect the
socially constructed reality of their domains of activity.
The influence of Meyer and Rowan’s core idea was,
initially, relatively modest (it received only 57 citations
before 1983). Two papers published in 1983, however,
gave impetus to the new thesis. Tolbert and Zucker’s
study of the spread of civil service reform among munic-
ipalities gave the starting signal for numerous diffusion
studies. And DiMaggio and Powell’s paper offered sev-
eral signposts on how to explore the newly opening intel-
lectual terrain. Two of the signposts—the field-level of
analysis and specification of the mechanisms of isomorphic
change—were readily followed, but others remained
largely underexplored.
Organizational Fields
The first signpost pointed to the organizational field as a
useful level of analysis and provided greater specificity to
understanding and theorizing about how, why, and which
organizations respond in particular ways to institutional
expectations. Exploring how organizations are connected
and how those connections enable and frame the institu-
tionalization of ideas and practices became a defining fea-
ture of subsequent institutional work. Instead of encircling
competing firms as “populations” (Hannan & Freeman,
1977), the imagery is of organizations linked in a network
of relationships to others of similar and dissimilar forms.
That is, DiMaggio and Powell explicitly linked insti-
tutional thought to ideas about networks. They were nei-
ther the first nor the only ones to do so. Meyer and
Rowan had—albeit rather vaguely—conceptualized
organizations as set within an institutional context or
environment; Hirsch (1972) had referred to industry sys-
tems; Laumann, Galaskiewicz, and Marsden (1978) had
conceptualized community structures as interorganiza-
tional networks; and Scott and Meyer (1983) had used
the concept of societal sectors. In social movement theory,
Curtis and Zurcher’s (1973) concept of multi-organiza-
tional field and Zald and McCarthy’s concept of social
movement sector (1979) pointed in a similar direction. In
addition to recognizing all this previous work, DiMaggio
Downloaded from jmi.sagepub.com at Dicle Ãœniversitesi on November 14, 2014
Greenwood, Meyer / Celebration of DiMaggio and Powell 261
and Powell acknowledged the contribution of Roland
Warren (1967; see also, Warren, Rose, & Bergunder,
1974) and cast organizations within an organizational
field, famously defined as “those organizations that, in the
aggregate, constitute a recognized area of institutional life:
key suppliers, resource and product customers, regulatory
agencies, and other organizations that produce similar ser-
vices or products” (1983, p. 148). The explicit emphasis
on connectedness and structural equivalence underscores
the relational dimension of organizational fields and
unmistakably bears the imprint of Harrison White.
DiMaggio and Powell’s definition of organizational
fields has become a classic and has well served genera-
tions of institutional researchers (and accounts for a good
proportion of the paper’s heavy citation), and it is almost
an irony that during later empirical usage organizational
fields have often shifted back in definition to populations
of organizations (e.g., competing organizations, the largest
organizations, publicly listed organizations)—hence back
to the very distinction between organizations and their
environments that the notion of organizational fields as
relational space had originally intended to overcome.
The organizational field was explicitly chosen as level
of analysis because it “directs our attention . . . to the
totality of relevant actors” (1983, p. 148), that is, to all
actors—consumers, suppliers, proponents, critiques,
gatekeepers, regulators, or advocates—who have voice
and who engage in the processes observed and to those
who have not. This latter part of DiMaggio and Powell’s
definition of fields is far less widely acknowledged in the
paper’s later applications; however, it directly points to
the work of Pierre Bourdieu. Bourdieu was clearly a core
inspiration behind the idea of fields as the totality of rel-
evant actors and of the dynamic, asymmetric relation-
ships between them. Unlike the two authors in their in
previous work, Bourdieu is not explicitly cited in the
1983 publication, which may at least partly explain why
DiMaggio and Powell’s call to recognize that actors have
specific subject positions from which they derive their
capacity to voice their interests, and that fields are arenas
of permanent struggle with shifting boundaries, was sub-
sequently overlooked and had to be later reclaimed and
reinvented (e.g., in Hoffman’s “issue field”).
Mechanisms of Isomorphic Change
The second influential signpost in the paper, and the
one that for many researchers defines the paper, is its
explanation of how processes of homogenization and
institutionalization actually occur. DiMaggio and Powell
specified “three mechanisms of isomorphic institutional
change”: coercive mechanisms, which occur when external
262 Journal of Management Inquiry
constituents on which an organization is dependent or
cultural expectations in the society within which organi-
zations function cajole or force organizations to change
in a certain way; normative mechanisms, which arise pri-
marily from professionalization projects; and mimetic
mechanisms, which occur when organizations copy suc-
cessful role models either because their actions are
believed to be rational or because of a desire to avoid
appearing deviant or backward (see the recent meta-
analysis of the empirical strength of the iron cage;
Heugens & Lander, 2007). However, as Mizruchi and
Fein (1999) noted, the three mechanisms have not
received equal treatment. Most U.S. empirical studies
have focused on mimetic isomorphism. In contrast,
European researchers have been much more interested in
processes arising from the coercive role of the state and
other national or supranational, soft or hard regulators
(e.g., Brunsson & Jacobsson, 2000; Djelic & Sahlin-
Andersson, 2006). Although DiMaggio and Powell refer
to their three mechanisms as pathways to institutionally
induced isomorphism, they have frequently been read as
mechanisms or channels of diffusion. This twist has con-
tributed to the confounding of institutionalization with
the mere spread of forms and practices, a misunder-
standing still inherent in much current work.
The power of DiMaggio and Powell’s classification is
such that it remains the definitive way of analyzing the
institutionalization of ideas and practices, significantly
helped by Dick Scott, who, in the three editions of his
seminal review of institutional theory, incorporated the
classification into the now-standard formulation of institu-
tional theory’s three pillars. In doing so, Scott effectively
institutionalized the classification itself. Introduced as
analytical devices, they have come to share the fate of their
objects of study and become objectified and reified. Just as
we have turned the pillars initially proposed as “types of
ingredients that underlie institutional order” (Scott, in
press) into distinct and separable types of institutions, the
three mechanisms that, as DiMaggio and Powell stressed
(1983, p. 150), in empirical settings operate in concert
with each other, were isolated from one another. How they
intermingle in homogenization processes, accelerate or
slow each others’ effects, or even tug in different direc-
tions remain largely unprobed questions.
Roads Ignored
Power, Politics, and Domination
Beyond doubt, the most neglected component of the
1983 paper, actually a third signpost that it offered, is its
reference to the link between institutions and “the influence
Downloaded from jmi.sagepub.com at Dicle Ãœniversitesi on November 14, 2014
of elite interests” (1983, p. 157). Power and elite control
are the backdrop against which the whole play of their
ideas takes place. If, the paper asks, societies and power
elites are as smart as often assumed, why are the organi-
zations they form and run so dumb? How do the findings
on elite control on the one hand and organizational anar-
chies, garbage cans, and bounded rationalities on the
other go together? “How can it be that the confused and
contentious bumblers that populate the pages of organi-
zational case studies and theories combine to construct
the elaborate and well proportioned social edifice that
macro theorists describe?” (1983, p. 156f). The paper
clearly starts and ends with the assertion that natural
selection mechanisms and elite control arguments can
provide only part of the answer.
Maybe one could contend that the outline was not suffi-
ciently elaborated (a point made in the original rejection by
AJS). Maybe the short allusions and references to a well-
known debate in political sociology did not ring a bell
loudly enough in business schools. Nevertheless, DiMaggio
and Powell explicitly asked us to investigate where new
organizational forms come from and whose interests they
serve (1983, p. 157) and called for an analysis of the politi-
cal struggles for organizational power. It is, for example,
difficult to envisage pressures on dependent organizations
without evoking images of power and domination.
Similarly, the “four parts of the structuration process”
(1983, p. 148) of the organizational field invoke images of
conflictual processes in which interests collide, boundaries
of inclusion and exclusion are drawn, relevant knowledge is
defined and distributed, subject positions and interaction
relations are stabilized, and ephemeral power is frozen in
patterns of domination. However, a systematic analysis of
the structuration processes of organizational fields—which
would, as DiMaggio and Powell had expressed the hope,
help to give Lukes’ perspective on power “more empirical
flesh” (1983, p. 157)—is still awaiting realization. The
same theme was raised again by DiMaggio (1988)—this
time even more explicitly and a little less unheard.
However, the attention to the power dimension and political
consequences of institutional processes that DiMaggio and
Powell highlighted in their 1983 piece was largely lost in
subsequent institutional work and has only begun to recap-
ture serious attention when the dominant isomorphic read-
ing of the paper started to come under serious attack.
Sameness and Similarity, Homogeneity and
Heterogeneity
Early in the paper, DiMaggio and Powell set out the
question that motivated their analysis. They asked, “Why
is there such startling homogeneity of organizational forms

and practices” (1983, p. 148). What, in other words, “makes
organizations so similar?” (1983, p. 147, emphasis added).
This pithy expression of the core question counterpointed
rhetorically Hannan and Freeman’s (1977) formulation of
the ecologist’s question: “Why are there so many kinds of
organization?” (Hannan & Freeman, 1977, p. 936).
An unfortunate consequence of framing the institu-
tional question in this way was that—although DiMaggio
and Powell talked of homogenization as a process of get-
ting more similar—for several years (and still today in,
thankfully, a minority of papers), institutional theory
became associated with the idea that all organizations
would adopt the same structures and practices. A wave of
empirical studies demonstrated and supposedly confirmed
this idea by looking at the adoption of very specific man-
agement practices within populations of organizations.
Partly, this wave of primarily U.S.-based research
reflected the preference for using quantitative analysis of
large-scale data sets. In contrast, European and, especially,
Scandinavian research, with its careful analysis of modest
numbers of case studies, stood in sharp contrast because it
avoided both the somewhat simplistic idea of organiza-
tions as becoming identical and the overly narrow focus
upon particular management practices.
DiMaggio and Powell (1991) themselves bemoaned
this erroneous interpretation of their paper, reminding
researchers that organizations often face complex institu-
tional contexts with multiple institutional prescriptions
projected by different audiences; further, institutional
pressures are often vague and the appropriate response
may be less than clear. All of this ambiguity allows for
various organizational responses, with the result that
“organizations in a field may be highly diverse on some
dimensions, yet extremely homogeneous on others”
(1983, p. 156). Moreover, the clear link in the 1983 paper
between processes of field structuration and homogeniza-
tion usually is ignored. Thus, although the framework of
the paper has been extensively used for studying the dif-
fusion of practices, the actual hypotheses—the concerted
motion between homogenization and field structuration—
and, consequently, a discussion of the effects that different
levels of field structuration have on the degree of isomor-
phism still await scholarly attention as much as the sys-
tematic comparison of organizational fields (Boxenbaum
& Jonsson, 2008; Walgenbach & Meyer, 2008).
Conclusion
The story of the 1983 paper is both refreshing and cau-
tionary. On the one hand, the fact that such an influential
paper could be written by young scholars speaks to the
enthusiasm and untrammeled opportunities of youth. Great
Downloaded from jmi.sagepub.com at Dicle Ãœniversitesi on November 14, 2014
Greenwood, Meyer / Celebration of DiMaggio and Powell 263
ideas are clearly not the prerogative of accumulated wis-
dom and reflection. But this throws into relief the critical
importance of the processes whereby papers are reviewed
and fitted into existing moulds. DiMaggio and Powell were
in some senses lucky to have colleagues, an editor, and
reviewers who recognized the value of the paper despite its
imperfections. The freshness of the ideas and the com-
pelling insights carried the day with those reviewers. But
what if the rejection from AJS had been too discouraging?
We might ask ourselves serious questions concerning
the inherent conservatism and normalizing effect of our
science system. In an odd way, this issue mirrors our cur-
rent debates on institutional innovation: How “old” do
new ideas have to be framed in order to be categorizable
and therefore understandable? How strictly do we need
to stick to an institutionalized genre template in order to
evade the categorical imperative of science’s watchdogs?
The story also shows how ideas, once in print, take on
a life distinct from what the authors might have intended.
Once work is published, authors give up the exclusive
right to interpretation. What was meant, even what was
actually said, loses relevance. Ideas proposed take on a
life of their own as readers translate, interpret, and use
them, sometimes leaving authors puzzled by what others
read into and out of what they had written. For young
scholars, of course, whether they are understood pro-
foundly and quoted accurately is not the most important
thing: What matters is not to be ignored!
Not only are ideas in the public domain open for
translation, but there may be a path-dependency effect as
the initial reception establishes and narrows the central
theme or message that will be explored. Thus, the early
focus on mimetic processes established the institutional
storyline as one of isomorphism and diffusion. It was
that storyline that became elaborated, confirmed, and
later criticized. Initial translations beget and limit subse-
quent applications, thinning the original message. And
sometimes the critique on a particular storyline helps to
recover the multivalence of the original insights.
But the 1983 story, in the end, also shows the sheer
power of interesting ideas that, not always fully worked out,
simply capture the imagination of fellow travelers and moti-
vate further exploration. “The Iron Cage Revisited,” by any
standard, is an exceptional paper that continues to guide and
extend understanding of institutional and social network
processes. Twenty-five years old, it is still going strong!
Notes
1. Here we use statistics provided by the Web of Science.
2. Approximately 56% receive only one citation, 3.6% receive
between 25 and 99 citations, and less than 1% receive 100 or more
(Garfield, 1998).
264 Journal of Management Inquiry
3. Hereafter, referred to as “the 1983 paper.”
4. We are referring to articles, not books.
References
Boxenbaum, E., & Jonsson, S. (2008). Isomorphism, diffusion and
decoupling. In R. Greenwood, R. Suddaby, C. Oliver, & K. Sahlin
(Eds.), Handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 78-98).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brunsson, N., & Jacobsson, B. (2000). A world of standards. Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
Child, J. (1972). Organizational structure, environment and perfor-
mance: The role of strategic choice. Sociology, 6, 1-22.
Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can
model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly,
17, 1-25.
Curtis, R. L., & Zurcher, L. A., Jr. (1973). Stable resources of protest
movements: The multiorganizational field. Social Forces, 52, 53-60.
DiMaggio, P. J. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory.
In L. G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations
(pp. 3-22). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited:
Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organiza-
tional fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). Introduction. In W. W. Powell
& P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational
analysis (pp. 1-38). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Djelic, M. L., & Sahlin-Andersson, K. (Eds.). (2006). Transnational
governance: Institutional dynamics of regulation. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Garfield, E. (1998). From citation indexes to informetrics: Is the tail
now wagging the dog? Libri, 48, 67-80.
Granovetter, M. (1984). Small is bountiful: Labor markets and estab-
lishment size. American Sociological Review, 49, 323-334.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The
problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91,
481-510.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of
organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 5, 929-964.
Heugens, P., & Lander, M. (2007). Testing the strength of the iron
cage: A meta-analysis of neo-institutional theory. ERS-2007-007-
ORG. Available at http://hdl.handle.net/1765/8581
Hirsch, P. (1972). Processing fads and fashions: An organization set
analysis of culture industry systems. American Journal of
Sociology, 77, 639-659.
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm:
Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure.
Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305-360.
Kanter, R. M. (1972). Commitment and community. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Laumann, E., Galaskiewicz, J., & Marsden, P. V. (1978). Community
structure as interorganizational linkages. Annual Review of
Sociology, 4, 455-484.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations:
Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of
Sociology, 83, 340-363.
Mizruchi, M. S., & Fein, L. S. (1999). The social construction of
organizational knowledge: A study of the uses of coercive,
mimetic and normative isomorphism. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 44, 653-683.
Downloaded from jmi.sagepub.com at Dicle Ãœniversitesi on November 14, 2014
Perrow, C. (1985). Review essay: Overboard with myth and symbols.
American Journal of Sociology, 91, 151-155.
Scott, W. R. (in press). Approaching adulthood: The maturing of insti-
tutional theory. Theory and Society.
Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and organizations (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Scott, W. R., & Meyer, J. W. 1983. The organization of societal sec-
tors. In J. W. Meyer & W. R. Scott (Eds.), Organizational envi-
ronments: Ritual and rationality (pp. 129-154). Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Stinchcombe, A. L. (2002). New sociological microfoundations for
organizational theory: A postscript. In M. Lounsbury & M. J.
Ventresca (Eds.), Social structure and organizations revisited:
Research in the sociology of organizations (Vol. 19, pp. 415-433).
Kidlington, Oxford, UK: JAI/Elsevier.
Stinchcombe, A. L. (1997). On the virtues of the old institutionalism.
Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 1-18.
Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1983). Institutional sources of change
in the formal structure of organizations: The diffusion of civil ser-
vice reform, 1880-1935. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28,
22-39.
Walgenbach, P., & Meyer, R. E. (2008). Neoinstitutionalistische
Organisationstheorie. Stuttgart, Germany: Kohlhammer.
Warren, R. L. (1967). The interorganizational field as a focus for
investigation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 396-419.
Warren, R. L., Rose, S. M., & Bergunder, A. F. (1974). The structure
of urban reform. Community decision organizations in stability
and change. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Williamson, O. (1977). Transaction-cost economics: The governance of
contractual relations. Journal of Law and Economics, 22, 233-261.
Zald, M. N., & McCarthy, J. D. (1979). Social movement industries:
Competition and cooperation among movement organizations
(CRSO Working Paper No. 21). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Royston Greenwood (royston.greenwood@ualberta.ca) is the
TELUS Professor of Strategic Management in the Department of
Strategic Management and Organization, School of Business, the
University of Alberta, and visiting professor at the Säid Business
School, University of Oxford. He received his PhD from the
University of Birmingham, United Kingdom. His research focuses on
the dynamics of institutional change, especially at the field level of
analysis. His favored empirical settings involve professional service
firms. Recently, he has explored how and why large professional ser-
vice firms have developed new organizational forms with particular
reference to how they are “theorized” and thus legitimated. One paper
from this research stream won the Academy of Management Journal’s
2006 Best Paper Award. His work has appeared in Administrative
Science Quarterly, Academy of Management Journal, Academy of
Management Review, Organization Science, Organization Studies,
and Strategic Management Journal. He is a founding coeditor of
Strategic Organization and is a coeditor of the SAGE Handbook of
Organizational Institutionalism.
Renate E. Meyer is a professor of public management at
Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien (WU), Vienna, Austria. Her research
interests include new forms of public and corporate governance, the
hermeneutic foundations of institutions and the role of meaning, and
the combination of qualitative and quantitative methodology. Her
recent research addresses adaptations of global management concepts
to local cultural contexts, multiple institutional logics, social identi-
ties, and the development of communicative institutions.