Analysis on institutional theory, mimetic isomorphism, and firm performance

Gurwinder Kaur Dua

doi:10.53730/ijhs.v6nS3.7243

Authors

Gurwinder Kaur Dua Research scholar, Chitkara Business School, Chitkara University, Punjab

Keywords:

institutional theory, isomorphism, multinational companies, business model, management, legitimacy, managerial implications

Abstract

The institutional isomorphism which clarifies the similarity between endeavors in the authoritative field is at the center of the institutional theory of organization. In this article, current knowledge on this field management approach is emphasized and the lack of such a theory in the field of multinational companies and their subsidiaries is highlighted; because of the intricacy and the intricacy of activities, the external climate, and intra-hierarchical climate, multinational companies are interesting to researchers. The present winning thought is that each association is one of a kind and, in its techniques and hierarchical conduct, specific. Be that as it may, we observe how associations, especially those working inside a similar industry, are getting comparative and equivalent to one another. This is clarified by the institutional hypothesis of association, which was at first settled to reprimand the hypothesis of possibility and which upholds the singularity of associations.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abrahamson, E. and Rosenkopf, L. (1993). ‘Institutional and competitive bandwagons: using mathematical modeling as a tool to explain innovation diffusion’. Academy of Management Review, 18, 487–517.

Avery, C. and Zemsky, P. (1998). ‘Multidimensional uncertainty and herd behavior’.American Economic Review, 88, 4, 724–43.

Banerjee, A. V. (1992). ‘A simple model of herd behavior’. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107, 3, 797–818.

Barnett, W. P., Greve, H. R. and Park, D. Y. (1994). ‘An evolutionary model of organizational performance’. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 11–28.

Bikhchandami, S., Hirshleifer, D. and Welch, I. (1992). ‘A theory of fads, fashion, custom, and cultural change as informational cascades. Journal of Political Economy,

100, 992–1024.

Burns, L. R. and Wholey, D. R. (1993). ‘Adoption and abandonment of matrix management programs: effects of organizational characteristics and interorganizational networks. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 106–38.

Chung, W. and Kalnins, A. (2001). ‘Agglomeration effects and performance: a test of the Texas lodging industry’. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 969–88. Cool, K., Roller, L. H. and Leleux, B. (1999). ‘The relative impact of actual and potential rivalry on firm profitability in the pharmaceutical industry’. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 1, 1–14.

Cyert, R. and March, J. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Dacin, M. T. (1997). ‘Isomorphism in context: the power and prescription of institutional norms. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 46–81.

Dacin, M. T., Goodstein, J. and Scott, W. R. (2002). ‘Institutional theory and institutional change’. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1, 45–57.

Deephouse, D. L. (1996). ‘Does isomorphism legitimate?’. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1024–39. Deephouse, D. L. (1999). ‘To be different, or to be the same? It’s a question (and theory) of strategic balance’. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 147– 66.

Greve, H. R. (1998). Managerial cognition and the mimetic adoption of market positions: what you see is what you do. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 967–988.

Grewal, R., &Dharwadkar, R. (2002). The role of the institutional environment in marketing channels. Journal of Marketing, 82(3), 82–97.

Guillén, M. (1994). Models of management. Ithaca: Cambridge University Press.

Haunschild, P. R., & Miner, A. S. (1997). Modes of interorganizational imitation: the effects of outcome salience and uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4), 472–500.

Hendricks, K. B., Singhal, V. R., & Stratman, J. K. (2006). The impact of enterprise systems on corporate performance: a study of ERP, SCM, and CRM system implementations. Journal of Operations Management, 25(1), 65–82.

Kostova, T., & Roth, K. 2002. Adoption of organizational practices by subsidiaries of multinational corporations: Institutional and relational effects., Academy of Management Journal, 45 45: p. 215-233

Kostova, T., & Zaheer, S. 1999. Organizational legitimacy under conditions of complexity: The case of the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 24: 64-81.

Meyer, J. W. i Rowan, B. (1977), Institutionalized organzations: Formal structure as a myth and ceremony, American Journal of Sociology, 83 (2), p. 340-363 North, D. C. (1991) Institutions, he Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5 (1), p. 97-112

Peteraf, M. 1991. The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view.

Strategic Management Journal, 14: 179-192.

Peteraf, M., & Shanley, M. 1998. Getting to know you: A theory of strategic group

identity. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 165-186.

Pfeffer, J., &Salancki, G. 1978. The external control of organizations: A resource

dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row.

Porter, M. 1985. Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance.

New York: The Free Press. Porter, M. 1980. Competitive strategy: Techniques for

analyzing industries and competitors. New York: The Free Press.

Prahalad, C. 1990. The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68: 79-91.

Ramanujam, V., & Venkatraman, N. 1984. An inventory and critique of strategy research using the PIMS database. Academy of Management Review, 9: 138-151.