David L. Deephouse

Bio: David L. Deephouse is an academic researcher from University of Alberta. The author has contributed to research in topics: Reputation & Stakeholder. The author has an hindex of 29, co-authored 53 publications receiving 9843 citations. Previous affiliations of David L. Deephouse include College of Business Administration & Louisiana State University.

Does Isomorphism Legitimate

Abstract: This study tests a central proposition of institutional theory, that organizational isomorphism increases organizational legitimacy. Results show that isomorphism in the strategies of commercial ba...

Legitimacy in Organizational Institutionalism

Abstract: Legitimacy is a central concept in organizational institutionalism. The term ‘legitimacy’ dates back to the dawn of organization theory; however, for most of the past century, research on legitimacy emerged only slowly and was fragmented across several distinct social science literatures. Since 1995, however, the body of relevant scholarship has grown rapidly and in a variety of directions. Much of this new literature (like much of the literature that preceded it) has been highly theoretical, invoking legitimacy as an explanatory concept rather than examining it as an empirical property. Empirical accounts, to date, have focused on exploratory case studies of legitimacy being gained or lost, while only a handful of investigations have employed legitimacy as a variable in hypothesis testing. Perhaps because of this heavy skew toward theory development versus theory testing, the legitimacy concept has exhibited substantial plasticity as it has evolved from its earliest institutionalist usages (e.g., Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Meyer & Scott, 1983). As Wright (1985: 292) has observed, ‘the process of concept formation is always simultaneously the process of concept transformation,’ and legitimacy has been no exception. Nonetheless, despite its diversity, the literature on legitimacy displays more than enough coherence and commonality to merit an integrative review. This chapter is organized as follows. Our exploration begins with an overview of past theoretical and empirical research on legitimacy. This discussion includes some basic suggestions on the dimensions, sources, and subjects of legitimation, as well as on key legitimation processes, antecedents and consequences. Second, we consider the relationship between legitimacy and two other types of social evaluation that have recently gained prominence in organization studies, namely status and reputation. Finally, we conclude with several recommendations for advancing legitimacy research in the future.

To be different, or to be the same? It’s a question (and theory) of strategic balance

Abstract: This paper addresses the performance consequences of firm-level strategic similarity. Past research observed that firms face pressures to be different and to be the same. By differentiating, firms reduce competition. By conforming, firms demonstrate their legitimacy. Both reduced competition and legitimacy improve performance. This paper begins building a theory of strategic balance by synthesizing the differentiation and conformity perspectives. The theory directs attention to intermediate levels of strategic similarity where firms balance the pressures of competition and legitimation. Empirical support for the theory is found in a longitudinal study of commercial banks. Several suggestions for developing a theory of strategic balance conclude the paper. The theory’s major implication is that firms should be as different as legitimately possible. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

An Examination of Differences between Organizational Legitimacy and Organizational Reputation

Abstract: Organizational legitimacy and organizational reputation have similar antecedents, social construction processes and consequences. Nonetheless, an improved understanding of relationships between legitimacy and reputation requires that differences between the two be specified and clarified. Our examination of past research indicates that legitimacy emphasizes the social acceptance resulting from adherence to social norms and expectations whereas reputation emphasizes comparisons among organizations. We empirically examine two antecedents of the financial, regulatory, and public dimensions of legitimacy and reputation in a population of US commercial banks. We find that isomorphism improves legitimacy, but its effects on reputation depend on the bank's reputation. Moreover, higher financial performance increases reputation, but does not increase the legitimacy of high performing banks.

Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity

Abstract: 1. Introduction and Overview. 2. Detecting Influential Observations and Outliers. 3. Detecting and Assessing Collinearity. 4. Applications and Remedies. 5. Research Issues and Directions for Extensions. Bibliography. Author Index. Subject Index.

Theorizing Change: The Role of Professional Associations in the Transformation of Institutionalized Fields

Abstract: This study examines the role of professional associations in a changing, highly institutionalized organizational field and suggests that they play a significant role in legitimating change. A model...

Organizational Legitimacy Under Conditions of Complexity: The Case of the Multinational Enterprise

Abstract: We examine organizational legitimacy in the context of the multinational enterprise (MNE). After discussing three types of complexity (of the legitimating environment, the organization, and the process of legitimation) that MNEs typically face, we explore their effects on MNE legitimacy. In particular, we distinguish between the legitimacy of the MNE as a whole and that of its parts, and we develop propositions that include issues of internal versus external legitimacy and positive and negative legitimacy spillovers.

Building Better Causal Theories: A Fuzzy Set Approach to Typologies in Organization Research

Abstract: Typologies are an important way of organizing the complex cause-effect relationships that are key building blocks of the strategy and organization literatures. Here, I develop a novel theoretical perspective on causal core and periphery, which is based on how elements of a configuration are connected to outcomes. Using data on hightechnology firms, I empirically investigate configurations based on the Miles and Snow typology using fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA). My findings show how the theoretical perspective developed here allows for a detailed analysis of causal core, periphery, and asymmetry, shifting the focus to midrange theories of causal processes.