What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organizations emerges as a field, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them. We describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative—leading to this outcome. We then specify hypotheses about the impact of resource centralization and dependency, goal ambiguity and technical uncertainty, and professionalization and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, we suggest implications for theories of organizations and social change.

The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields (Chinese Translation)

* Starting from Need* Evolution of the Toyota Production System* Further Development* Genealogy of the Toyota Production System* The True Intention of the Ford System* Surviving the Low-Growth Period

Toyota production system : beyond large-scale production

This publication contains reprint articles for which IEEE does not hold copyright. Full text is not available on IEEE Xplore for these articles.

Management innovation

Fifteen years of research on business model innovation : how far have we come, and where should we go?

Given the inherent risk of innovative activity. firms can improve the odds of success by pursuing multiple parallel objectives. Because innovation draws on many sources of ideas, firms also may improve their odds of successful innovation by accessing a large number of knowledge sources. In this study, we conduct one of the first firm-level statistical analyses of the impact on innovation of breadth in both innovation objectives and knowledge sources. The empirical results suggest that broader horizons with respect to innovation objectives and knowledge sources are associated with successful innovation. We do not find diminishing returns to breadth in innovation objectives, which suggests that firms may tend to search too narrowly. We interpret these results in light of well-known cognitive biases toward searching in relatively familiar domains. Copyright (C) 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

/pdf/innovation-objectives-knowledge-sources-and-the-benefits-of-48n8aftnb7.pdf

Innovation objectives, knowledge sources, and the benefits of breadth

The sources of management innovation: When firms introduce new management practices

Despite the importance of management innovation, it is poorly understood and usually not systematically fostered. To research the process, the authors first conducted an historical analysis of more than 100 management innovations that took place over 130 years. Then they studied 11 recent cases of management innovation, in most cases interviewing one or more of the key innovators. The research revealed that, compared with the process of technological innovation, management innovation tends to be more diffuse and gradual. It typically follows four stages. The first stage is some type of dissatisfaction with the status quo, such as a crisis or strategic threat. That stage is followed by inspiration from other sources. The third stage is the invention of the management innovation itself. While most innovators identified a precipitating event that preceded the innovation, such as a challenge from a boss or a new assignment, few recalled a distinct ?eureka moment?when the innovation occurred. The fourth stage is validation, both internally and through external sources such as academics, consultants, media organizations or industry associations.

Michael J. Mol

Papers

Management innovation

The sources of management innovation: When firms introduce new management practices

How management innovation happens

Antecedents and performance consequences of international outsourcing

Does being R&D intensive still discourage outsourcing?: Evidence from Dutch manufacturing