Search results

Although the organizational identity (OI) construct (Albert & Whetten, 1985) is now in its fourth decade, research in the field has been somewhat uneven, particularly with respect to an essentialist view and hypothetico-deductive type of studies. Believing that this stems in large part from insufficient construct clarity (Suddaby, 2010), this theory-development initiative presents an expanded conceptual framework. The authors exploit several key elements of individual identity and make the case for using these as the basis for conceptualizing an organizational-level equivalent. Starting with the premise that an individual’s identity is the product of comparisons, two dimensions are identified: the type of comparison (similarity, difference), referred to as the “identity conundrum,” and the object of comparison (self–other, self–self), referred to as the “identity perspective.” The authors then propose a four-cell distinctive conceptual domain for OI and explore its implications for scholarship.

This chapter sets forth a form of comparative analysis that is explicitly organizational, in the sense that it uses cross-level, contextual or compositional, analysis to explain organizational-level observations, especially comparisons between organizations. Inter-organizational comparisons often surface paradoxical results, in the form of unexpected differences among similar kinds of organizations, or unexpected similarities among different kinds of organizations. The value of using comparative analysis in these cases is that the information required to unravel organizational-level puzzling results is often located at a higher or lower levels. The proposed form of comparative analysis thus extends the conventional top-down, unidirectional form by adding a bottom-up component – making it bi-directional. In addition to introducing an organization-centered form of comparative analysis, the chapter offers suggestions for its practice and speculates about the potential benefits of its broad application within organizational studies.

Inspired by increasing public interest in corporate social responsibility (CSR) and the intensified focus of research on family firms (FFs) over the past few decades, the purpose of this paper is to analyze the existing literature on CSR in FF through a citation analysis.

This paper overviews the structure of research on CSR in FF, identifying influential publications, authors, and key lines of discussion. The authors identified the underlying sample through a systematic, keyword-based literature search of seven databases. Starting with this sample, the authors analyzed a database of 4,342 references of 3,025 different sources cited in the 63 articles.

The findings show that the cited literature on CSR in FF is widespread, confirming that the research field has great heterogeneity. The authors identified the most-cited researcher as Luis R. Gómez-Mejía (University of Notre Dame, USA), with 93 citations. The average author in the group of the 22 most-cited authors (with a three-way tie for 20th-most-cited author) counts 45.45 citations in the sample of 13.95 different sources. Because the citations mostly refer to journal articles, the authors further investigated the particular journals of publication. The 20 most-influential journals cover 45.28 percent of all citations, with the Journal of Business Ethics being the most influential (6.38 percent of all citations). Within the 3,025 different sources cited in the whole sample, the publication by Dyer and Whetten (2006), which is titled “Family firms and social responsibility: preliminary evidence from the S&P 500,” is the most-cited (29 citations in 46.03 percent of the analyzed 63 peer-reviewed journal articles).

The authors conclude with a call for more research on CSR in FF (especially qualitative case studies). Moreover, as scholars of North America and Western Europe dominate the current landscape of research, the authors would like to encourage scholars from other countries and cultures to provide insights from their countries.

Comparative organizational analysis once dominated American organizational sociology, grounded in rich case studies about organizational processes and outcomes. The Columbia school's approach to organizational research was exemplary in this regard. Following the publication of Robert K. Merton's (1940) essay, “Bureaucratic Structure and Personality,” he attracted a group of talented doctoral students to his formal organizations seminar (Crothers, 1990), the core of whom would go on to write dissertations, books, and articles forming the substance of American organizational sociology in the decades to come. Among those students were Philip Selznick, Alvin Gouldner, Peter Blau, Seymour Martin Lipset, Rose Coser, and James Coleman. While their work varied greatly in substantive content, their studies shared a theoretical interest in explaining intra-organizational dynamics and the unexpected outcomes of bureaucratic administration. Organizations, they demonstrated, developed “lives of their own,” quite outside the intents of their founders (Haveman, 2009; refer, especially, Selznick, 1957). Organizations, in other words, were adaptive to the needs of their constituents, but adaptations did not always produce the intended results. One of the unintended consequences of organizational development was increasing variety in the kinds of organizations that emerged to meet particular societal goals or ends. Thus, an inherent focus of this early comparative research was the explanation of variety in organizational types, policies, and outcomes and an emphasis on the ways in which organizations diverged from ideal types.

In this chapter, we describe a multilevel, longitudinal, comparative case study approach for investigating organizational heterogeneity based on our experience studying institutional change in the health care field (Scott, Ruef, Mendel, & Caronna, 2000). By examining the relationship between organizations, populations, and fields, differences between organizations can be captured in terms of their organizational identities as well as their (changing) relationships with the organizational field. We discuss the analytical strategies we used in our study of institutional change and describe our findings of organizational heterogeneity across levels and over time. We conclude with suggestions for future research that incorporate elements of our study design and lessons from our research process and outcomes.

This paper broadens and extends the idea of organizational death by arguing that certain organizational site moves, those in which employees hold a strong place attachment to the to be left, are a form of organizational death. It argues for the utility of viewing organizational change as involving loss and including space in studies of everyday organizational experiences. Using ethnographic research (participant‐observation and in‐depth interviews with the employees) of one such organization (the “Coffee House”) and a negotiated‐order perspective, discusses employee beliefs as to how the site move should have been managed as a means to document their understanding of the move as a loss experience and as a form of organizational death.

Social movements are heterogeneous because they attract organizations from other movements and encourage activists to create organizations “indigenous” to the movement. This chapter examines the structural and technical differences between these kinds of organizations. Employing a contingency theory framework, it is shown that older “spill over” groups are much more likely to be multi-issue national organizations with particular organizational structures. Then, it is shown that these older groups have correlated environments and internal structures, but not their more contemporary counterparts. Finally, it is shown that the adoption of a new technology, the Facebook group, is mainly a path dependency outcome, and not correlated with contingency factors.

When we try to explain the dynamic relationship between actors and their environment, “unidirectional” paradigms clustered at either end of an agency–determinism continuum, theoretical absolutes, and a focus on final outcomes are of limited value. Comparative research is uniquely positioned to move beyond such limitations and toward accounts of organizing that incorporate variation, interests, and interaction. To guide comparative research toward this more relational approach, we (1) highlight a move toward the middle ground of the agency–determinism continuum, that is, varieties of interaction and mutual influence between actors and their environments across levels of analysis; and (2) propose to conceptualize actor–environment relations as a “negotiation.” We use this metaphorical lens to stimulate a focus on the variety of different “negotiation spaces” and “negotiation moves,” which actors may utilize in an organizational field to affect stability or change. We provide an exemplary application of the framework and conclude with some observation on the implications for future research.