Editors' Introduction

Editor’s Special

Journal of Management Inquiry Volume 17 Number 4 December 2008 257 © 2008 Sage Publications 10.1177/1056492608326694 http://jmi.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

Editors’ Introduction Michael Lounsbury Paul M. Hirsch

T

he neoinstitutional perspective has been one of the most robust conceptual lenses in organizational theory over the past 30 years, and continues to provide intellectual resources and energy for new and established scholars. Along with the following article by Greenwood and Meyer, we are delighted to celebrate the 25th anniversary of one of the most profound as well as highly cited pieces of scholarship that catalyzed this stream of work—“The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields”—written by Paul DiMaggio and Walter (Woody) Powell and published in the American Sociological Review in 1983. In their celebratory article, Greenwood and Meyer reflect on the power of this influential article, provide some details about its origins, and assess how it has been used and not used by scholars over the years. The DiMaggio and Powell classic’s focus on isomorphism is often credited or critiqued for inspiring a flurry of studies about institutional diffusion research, especially in business schools. In a fascinating analysis of how reviewers for Administrative Science Quarterly steered contributors to focus on its mimetic/symbolic aspects, Mizruchi and Fein (1999) noted how the reviewing process contributed to this perception. Even though the 1983 article also raised important issues about elites, domination, and struggle, in their authoritative introduction to the “Orange Book”, DiMaggio and Powell (1991) drew a line in the sand between the “old” (e.g., Perrow, Selznick, Stinchcombe) and “new” institutionalisms, contributing to the selective interpretation of their earlier “Iron Cage Revisited” article. The wide adoption of this influential framework had the effect of framing “institutional theory” as a theory of isomorphism, which, in turn, likely inspired the continued production of studies that focused on mechanisms of homogenization at the expense of attending to variation and conflict.

Although some in the field eventually complained and argued for reuniting these aspects of institutional theory (e.g., Greenwood & Hinings, 1996; Hirsch & Lounsbury, 1997), it is useful to note that this development is now well under way—institutional research over the past 10 years has increasingly included studies of heterogeneity, focusing more on entrepreneurship, social movements, and power. As Greenwood and Meyer point out, the 1983 DiMaggio and Powell classic ironically provides good justification for these new developments, thus contributing to the bridging of the chasm between the “new” and “old” institutionalisms that it previously helped to create. This multivocality perhaps provides one of the core reasons why that piece has endured the test of time and continues to inspire young researchers. Hence, we are pleased to celebrate one of the most important contemporary contributions to our literature with this tribute.

References DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational 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. 1-40). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review, 21, 1022-1054. Hirsch, P. M., & Lounsbury, M. (1997). Ending the family quarrel: Towards a reconciliation of “old” and “new” institutionalism. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 406-418. Mizruchi, M., & Fien, 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 UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA LIBRARY on February 26, 2016

257