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)

more impressive with each exposure to it. Everything has changed and nothing has changed since Democracy in America was published in the 1830’s. Its author grasped with remarkable perception both the mutable and the immutable qualities of man. There could be nothing more salutary for us today than to assimilate his fine sense of what was permanent in a world which, like ours, was undergoing deep convulsions. Committed to the classical economics of Adam Smith, Tocqueville did not share Smith’s illusions about the eternal nature of the market. On the contrary, as Albert Salomon has emphasized, his point of view

Democracy in America: An Appreciation On the Occasion of the Centennial of Tocqueville's Death

Historically, management theory has ignored the constraints imposed by the biophysical (natural) environment. Building upon resource-based theory, this article attempts to fill this void by proposing a natural-resource-based view of the firm—a theory of competitive advantage based upon the firm's relationship to the natural environment. It is composed of three interconnected strategies: pollution prevention, product stewardship, and sustainable development. Propositions are advanced for each of these strategies regarding key resource requirements and their contributions to sustained competitive advantage.

A natural resource-based view of the firm

Corporate sustainability confronts managers with tensions between complex economic, environmental, and social issues. Drawing on the literature on managerial cognition, corporate sustainability, and strategic paradoxes, we develop a cognitive framing perspective on corporate sustainability. We propose two cognitive frames—a business case frame and a paradoxical frame—and explore how differences between them in cognitive content and structure influence the three stages of the sensemaking process—that is, managerial scanning, interpreting, and responding with regard to sustainability issues. We explain how the two frames lead to differences in the breadth and depth of scanning, differences in issue interpretations in terms of sense of control and issue valence, and different types of responses that managers consider with regard to sustainability issues. By considering alternative cognitive frames, our argument contributes to a better understanding of managerial decision making regarding ambiguous sustainability issues, and it develops the underlying cognitive determinants of the stance that managers adopt on sustainability issues. This argument offers a cognitive explanation for why managers rarely push for radical change when faced with complex and ambiguous issues, such as sustainability, that are characterized by conflicting yet interrelated aspects.

/pdf/cognitive-frames-in-corporate-sustainability-managerial-c4dv19obam.pdf

Cognitive Frames in Corporate Sustainability: Managerial Sensemaking with Paradoxical and Business Case Frames

This paper proposes a systematic framework for the analysis of tensions in corporate sustainability. The framework is based on the emerging integrative view on corporate sustainability, which stresses the need for a simultaneous integration of economic, environmental and social dimensions without, a priori, emphasising one over any other. The integrative view presupposes that firms need to accept tensions in corporate sustainability and pursue different sustainability aspects simultaneously even if they seem to contradict each other. The framework proposed in this paper goes beyond the traditional triad of economic, environmental and social dimensions and argues that tensions in corporate sustainability occur between different levels, in change processes and within a temporal and spatial context. The framework provides vital groundwork for managing tensions in corporate sustainability based on paradox strategies. The paper then applies the framework to identify and characterise four selected tensions and illustrates how key approaches from the literature on strategic contradictions, tensions and paradoxes—i.e., acceptance and resolution strategies—can be used to manage these tensions. Thereby, it refines the emerging literature on the integrative view for the management of tensions in corporate sustainability. The framework also provides managers with a better understanding of tensions in corporate sustainability and enables them to embrace these tensions in their decision making.

/pdf/tensions-in-corporate-sustainability-towards-an-integrative-34nmzu1v3y.pdf

Tensions in Corporate Sustainability: Towards an Integrative Framework

Corporate sustainability is rife with tensions as firms seek to balance often divergent economic, social, and environmental goals. To assess how tensions have been addressed in past research and to...

Embracing Tensions in Corporate Sustainability A Review of Research From Win-Wins and Trade-Offs to Paradoxes and Beyond

This inductive study of five firms in Alberta's oil sands examines how organizations attend to the intertemporal tensions between the short term and long term that are inherent in business sustainability. Grounding our insights in organizational responses to the climate change issue, we find that firms that juxtapose the short term and long term also confront the tension between business and society. These firms are, therefore, more likely to recognize the complexity of climate change and the need for integrated, multidimensional solutions. These insights contribute to prior research in business sustainability.

Short on Time: Intertemporal Tensions in Business Sustainability

Prior research often categorizes corporate environmental responses on a spectrum that ranges from reactive to proactive. Such research subordinates the role of time, yet time is central to organizational responses to environmental issues such as climate change. In this paper, we study five oil and gas firms and inductively develop a framework of corporate responses to climate change that explicitly acknowledges the role of time. The framework identifies two categories of corporate responses grounded in different temporal perspectives: focused and integrated. We discuss the implications of this categorization for research on corporate environmentalism and time in organizational theory.

A Matter of Time: The Temporal Perspectives of Organizational Responses to Climate Change

Despite increasing pressure to deal with climate change, firms have been slow to respond with effective action. This article presents a multi-level framework for a better understanding of why many firms are failing to reduce their absolute greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to climate change. The concepts of short-termism and uncertainty avoidance from research in psychology, sociology, and organization theory can explain the phenomenon of organizational inaction on climate change. Antecedents related to short-termism and uncertainty avoidance reinforce one another at three levels—individual, organizational, and institutional—and result in organizational inaction on climate change. The article also discusses the implications of this multi-level framework for research on corporate sustainability.

/pdf/the-role-of-short-termism-and-uncertainty-avoidance-in-jp2lg031in.pdf

The Role of Short-Termism and Uncertainty Avoidance in Organizational Inaction on Climate Change: A Multi-Level Framework

This article explores how authentic leaders enable learning in organizations through the mechanism of dialogue. Using Crossan et al.'s multi-level framework, we examine how top managers who exhibit the authentic leadership capabilities of self-awareness, balanced processing, self-regulation and relational transparency can shape an organizational culture characterized by authentic dialogue. This culture then supports feed-forward and feedback learning across individual, group and organizational levels, promoting and reinforcing double-loop learning. We develop propositions that integrate the leadership and organizational learning literatures and offer suggestions for future research.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1350507608093713

Natalie Slawinski

Papers

Embracing Tensions in Corporate Sustainability A Review of Research From Win-Wins and Trade-Offs to Paradoxes and Beyond

Short on Time: Intertemporal Tensions in Business Sustainability

A Matter of Time: The Temporal Perspectives of Organizational Responses to Climate Change

The Role of Short-Termism and Uncertainty Avoidance in Organizational Inaction on Climate Change: A Multi-Level Framework

Leading Organizational Learning Through Authentic Dialogue