Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Industry Fields Approach to Isomorphism Involving Australian Nonprofit Organizations

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Structural similarity or isomorphism is expected among organizations in the same organizational field. Such a field matures with increasing interaction among the organizations in it. Using a random sample of Australian organizations, this paper compares isomorphism among nonprofit organizations regardless of industry with that among organizations in the same industry regardless of legal form. The results point to isomorphism especially in the healthcare industry, regardless of legal form. This finding adds weight to earlier research that questioned the operation of the nonprofit sector as an organizational field with enough interaction to produce isomorphism.

Résumé

On anticipe une similarité structurelle ou isomorphisme parmi les entités relevant du même secteur organisationnel. Un tel secteur évolue grâce aux interactions accrues entre les organisations le composant. Se fondant sur un échantillon aléatoire d’organisations australiennes, cet article compare l’isomorphisme parmi les organisations sans but lucratif (indépendamment de l’industrie) avec celui des organisations appartenant à une même industrie (indépendamment de leur forme juridique). Les résultats indiquent un isomorphisme en particulier dans l’industrie des soins de santé, quelle que soit la forme juridique. Cette constatation vient corroborer une recherche antérieure qui remettait en question le fonctionnement du secteur sans but lucratif en tant que domaine organisationnel doté d’interactions suffisantes pour produire un isomorphisme.

Zusammenfassung

Bei Organisationen, die im gleichen Bereich tätig sind, kann man von einer strukturellen Ähnlichkeit oder Isomorphie ausgehen. Dieser Tätigkeitsbereich entwickelt sich bei vermehrten Interaktionen zwischen den Organisationen weiter. Der vorliegende Beitrag vergleicht mittels einer Zufallsstichprobe von australischen Organisationen die Isomorphie zwischen Nonprofit-Organisationen ungeachtet ihrer Tätigkeitsbereiche mit der Isomorphie zwischen Organisationen im gleichen Tätigkeitsbereich ungeachtet ihrer Rechtsform. Die Ergebnisse deuten insbesondere im Gesundheitswesen auf eine bestehende Isomorphie hin, ungeachtet der jeweiligen Rechtsform. Diese Erkenntnisse bekräftigen frühere Studien, die sich mit der Frage beschäftigten, ob der Nonprofit-Sektor ein Organisationsbereich mit ausreichend Interaktionen ist, um eine Isomorphie herbeizuführen.

Resumen

La similitud estructural o isomorfismo se espera entre las organizaciones en el mismo campo organizativo. Dicho campo madura con la creciente interacción entre las diferentes organizaciones. Utilizando una muestra aleatoria de organizaciones australianas, este documento compara el isomorfismo entre las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro independientemente de la industria con el isomorfismo entre organizaciones en la misma industria independientemente de su forma legal. Los resultados señalan al isomorfismo especialmente en la industria de la atención sanitaria, independientemente de su forma legal. Este hallazgo añade peso a investigaciones anteriores que cuestionaban el funcionamiento del sector sin ánimo de lucro como un campo organizativo con suficiente interacción para producir isomorfismo.

摘要

在同一组织领域内的各组织之间,可能存在结构的类似性或同构关系。随着该领域内组织之间相互作用的增加,这一领域日臻成熟。本文利用澳大利亚组织的随机样品,将不分产业的非盈利组织之间的同构关系,与同产业不分法律形式的组织之间的同构关系相比较。结果表明,同构关系,特别是保健行业的同构关系,与法律形式没有关系。这一发现进一步证明了早期的研究,该研究对非盈利部门作为组织领域进行运营提出了质疑,此组织领域具备产生同构关系所需的足够相互作用。

ملخص

من المتوقع التشابه الهيكلي أو التماثل بين المنظمات في المجال التنظيمي الواحد. مثل حقل ينضج مع زيادة التفاعل بين المنظمات فيه. بإستخدام عينة عشوائية من المنظمات الأسترالية، فإن هذا البحث يقارن التماثل بين المنظمات الغير ربحية بغض النظر عن الصناعة مع المنظمات العاملة في نفس الصناعة بغض النظرعن الشكل القانوني. النتائج تشير إلى التماثل خاصة في صناعة الرعاية الصحية، بغض النظرعن الشكل القانوني. هذه النتيجة تضيف وزنا˝ لبحث سابق تساءل في تشغيل القطاع الغير ربحي كحقل تنظيمي مع تفاعل يكفي لإنتاج التماثل.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Published examples, drawn on here, focus primarily on the United States. As the paper’s empirical focus is Australian nonprofits, subsequent portions of the paper provide information on the Australian nonprofit sector, the industries in which they are primarily clustered, and their institutional context.

  2. Competition may also lead to the spread of good practices among surviving competitors and the decline or demise of competitors that do not adopt these practices. The result is “competitive isomorphism,” which DiMaggio and Powell (1983) discuss but conceptualize distinctly from the institutional process on which they and we focus.

  3. The term “workplace establishment” is a more accurate description of the units of analysis in AusNOS than is “organization.” Organizations can have multiple workplaces. The AusNOS data set may include more than one workplace from the same organization. The remainder of the text often uses the more typical term “organization” to refer to the units of analysis.

  4. Because respondents were asked for the number of levels between the lowest and highest levels of management, a one-level managerial hierarchy is a logical impossibility in these data. Many nonprofits, however, either because of small size or ideological commitments, have such flat hierarchies that they will be misrepresented by this measure.

  5. A heteroscedasticity problem arises in the third part of the analysis in the case of three organizational characteristics. This is remedied by taking the log of the number of management levels and the number of direct reports to the CEO (plus 1) and by squaring the number of job documents.

References

  • Abzug, R., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2001). Nonprofit boards: Crucibles of expertise or symbols of local identities? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30, 51–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, D. (2010/2011). Free and fair–How Australia’s low-tax egalitarianism confounds the world. Policy, 26, 3–14.

  • Anderson, D. (2000). Education and the social order: The effect of the private sector. In J. M. Najman & J. S. Western (Eds.), A sociology of Australian society. South Yarra: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anheier, H. K. (2005). Nonprofit organizations: Theory, management, policy. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Badelt, C., & Weiss, P. (1990). Non-profit, for-profit and government organisations in social service provision: Comparison of behavioural patterns for Austria. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 1, 77–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barman, E. A. (2002). Asserting difference: The strategic response of nonprofit organizations to competition. Social Forces, 80, 1191–1222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, N. (2002). Collaboration between the U.S. and Mexican HIV/AIDS sectors: The role of community-based organizations and federal HIV/AIDS funding policies in creating a binational political-organizational field. The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 22, 21–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bidwell, C. (2001). Analyzing schools as organizations: Long-term permanence and short-term change. Sociology of Education, 74 (Extra Issue), 100–114.

  • Briggs, C., Meagher, G., & Healy, K. (2007). Becoming an industry: The struggle of social and community workers for award coverage, 1976–2001. Journal of Industrial Relations, 49, 497–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R. G. (1989). Social security and welfare. In K. Hancock (Ed.), Australian society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, P. G., & Hayden, M. (2000). Higher education in Australia. South Yarra: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, C. F., & Tuckman, H. P. (1994). Revenue diversification among non-profits. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 5, 273–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cleary, M. (2001). The management dilemmas in Catholic human service organisations (health, welfare and education) in Australia. Dissertation, School of Management, Faculty of Business, University of Technology, Sydney.

  • Coleman, J. S., Hoffer, T., & Kilgore, S. (1982). High school achievement: Public, catholic, and private schools compared. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collyer, F., & White, K. (1997). Enter the market: Competition, regulation, and hospital funding in Australia. Australia New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 33, 344–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darr, A., & Stern, R. N. (2002). Coopting change toward industrial democracy: Professionals as agents of structural constraint. Sociological Inquiry, 72, 171–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J. (1983). State expansion and organizational fields. In R. H. Hall & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Organizational theory and public policy. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Anheier, H. K. (1990). The sociology of nonprofit organizations and sectors. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 137–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, L. (1985). In defense of organization theory: A reply to the critics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fremont-Smith, M. (2004). Governing nonprofit organizations: Federal and state law and regulation. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.

    Google Scholar 

  • Germov, J. (2005). Managerialism in the Australian public health sector: Towards the hyper-rationalisation of professional bureaucracies. Sociology of Health & Illness, 27, 738–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1973). The class structure of the advanced societies. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goddeeris, J. (2005). Health care. In W. Adams & J. W. Brock (Eds.), The structure of American industry. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson-Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gronbjerg, K. A., & Clerkin, R. M. (2005). Examining the landscape of Indiana’s nonprofit sector: Does what you know depend on where you look? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34, 232–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, R. H. (1968). Professionalization and bureaucratization. American Sociological Review, 33, 92–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, P. D. (1992). Inventing the nonprofit sector. In P. D. Hall (Ed.), Inventing the nonprofit sector and other essays on philanthropy, voluntarism, and nonprofit organizations. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, P. D. (1994). Historical perspectives on nonprofit organizations. In R. D. Herman & Associates (Eds.), The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

  • Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 929–964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansmann, H. B. (1986). The role of nonprofit enterprise. In S. Rose-Ackerman (Ed.), The economics of nonprofit institutions: Studies in structure and policy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansmann, H. (1996). The changing roles of public, private, and nonprofit enterprise in education, health care, and other human services. In V. R. Fuchs (Ed.), Individual and social responsibility: Child Care, education, medical care, and long-term care in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollingsworth, J. R., & Hollingsworth, E. J. (1987). Controversy about American hospitals: Funding, ownership, and performance. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howe, A. L. (1996). International comparisons of long-term care: Australia. Canadian Journal on Aging/La Revue Canadienne du Vieillissement, 15, 13–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, H., & Powell, W. W. (2009). The rationalization of charity: The influences of professionalism in the nonprofit sector. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 268–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Industry Commission. (1995). Charitable organizations in Australia. Melbourne: Australian Government Publishing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, R. M., & Summers, D. V. (1987). Doing well while doing good: Dilemmas of performance measurement in nonprofit organizations and the need for a multiple-constituency approach. In W. W. Powell (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, K., & Weisbrod, B. A. (2000). The roles of government and nonprofit suppliers in mixed industries. Public Finance Review, 28, 275–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, R. M. (1994). Voluntary agencies and the contract culture: “Dream or nightmare?”. Social Service Review, 68, 33–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leiter, J. (2005). Structural isomorphism in Australian nonprofit organizations. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 16, 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leiter, J., & Newton, C. (2009). Nonprofit organizational behaviour: Sociological and psychological approaches. In H. Anheier & S. Toepler (Eds.), International encyclopedia of civil society. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levene, H. (1960). Robust tests for equality of variances. In I. Olkin (Ed.), Contributions to probability and statistics: Essays in honor of Harold Hotelling. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipsky, M., & Smith, S. R. (1989–1990). Nonprofit organizations, government, and the welfare state. Political Science Quarterly, 104, 625–648.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lohmann, R. A. (1989). And lettuce is nonanimal: Toward a positive economics of voluntary action. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 18, 367–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lounsbury, M. (2001). Institutional sources of practice variation: Staffing college and university recycling. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 29–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lune, H., & Martinez, M. (1999). Old structures, new relations: How community development credit unions define organizational boundaries. Sociological Forum, 14, 609–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, M. (1993). The history of non-profit organizations in Australia as a test of some recent non-profit theory. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 4, 301–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, M. (2001). Third sector: The contribution of nonprofit and cooperative enterprises in Australia. Crows Nest: Allen Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, M., & Hocking, S. (2000). Dimensions of Australia’s third sector: Report of the Australian nonprofit data project. Sydney: Centre for Australian Community Organisations and Management (CACOM), University of Technology.

  • Lyons, M., Hocking, S., Hems, L., & Salamon, L. M. (1999). Australia. In L. M. Salamon, H. K. Anheier, R. List, S. Toepler, S. W. Sokolowski, & Associates (Eds.), Global civil society: Dimensions of the nonprofit sector. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies.

  • Lyons, M., & Nyland, J. (1995). Supporting the managers: An analysis of the management support needs of community organisations and proposals for better meeting these needs. Sydney: Centre for Community Organisations and Management (CACOM), University of Technology.

  • May, J. (1996). The role of peak bodies in a civil society. In A. Farrar & J. Inglis (Eds.), Keeping it together: State and civil society in Australia. Leichhardt: Pluto Press Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCallum, J. (1999). Policy implications of Australian aging: The greying of a young society. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 26, 87–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melville, R. (1999). Nonprofit umbrella organisations in a contracting regime: A comparative review of Australian, British and American literature and experience. International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law, 1.

  • Melville, R. (2003). Changing roles of community sector peak bodies in a neo-liberal policy environment in Australia: An ARC funded study (2000–2002). Wollongong: Institute of Social Change and Critical Inquiry, Faculty of Arts, University of Wollongong.

  • Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrill, C., & McKee, C. (1993). Institutional isomorphism and informal social control: Evidence from a community mediation center. Social Problems, 40, 445–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mosteller, F. (1995). The Tennessee study of class size in the early school grades. The Future of Children, 5, 113–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muetzelfeldt, M. (1998). Governments and the non profit sector: A comment. Third Sector Review, 4, 119–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulhare, E. M. (1999). Mindful of the future: Strategic planning ideology and the culture of nonprofit management. Human Organization, 58, 323–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowland-Foreman, G. (1998). Purchase-of-service contracting, voluntary organizations, and civil society. American Behavioral Scientist, 42, 108–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ornstein, A. C. (1989). Private and public school comparisons: Size, organization, and effectiveness. Edcuation and Urban Society, 21, 192–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peyrot, M. (1991). Institutional and organizational dynamics in community-based drug abuse treatment. Social Problems, 38, 20–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potter, S. J. (2001). A longitudinal analysis of the distinction between for-profit and not-for-profit hospitals in America. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 42, 17–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramanath, R. (2009). Limits to institutional isomorphism: Examining internal processes in NGO–government interactions. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38, 51–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riiskjaer, S., & Nielsen, K. (1987). Financial dependence and organizational autonomy: The economy of voluntary sport in Denmark. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 22, 193–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothschild-Whitt, J. (1979). The collectivist organization: An alternative to rational-bureaucratic models. American Sociological Review, 54, 509–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rufo-Lignos, P., & Richards, C. E. (2003). Emerging forms of school organization. Teachers College Record, 105, 753–781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rushing, W. A. (1976). Profit and nonprofit orientations and the differentiation-coordination hypothesis for organizations: A study of small general hospitals. American Sociological Review, 41, 676–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. K. (1993). In search of the non-profit sector I: The question of definitions. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 3, 125–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheid-Cook, T. L. (1992). Organizational enactments and conformity to environmental prescriptions. Human Relations, 45, 537–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmid, H. (2001). Nonprofit organizations and for-profit organizations providing home care services for the Israeli frail elderly: A comparative analysis. International Journal of Public Administration, 24, 1233–1265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaver, S. (2000). Restructuring the Australian welfare state: Social security in the 1980s and 1990s. In J. M. Najman & J. S. Western (Eds.), A sociology of Australian society. South Yarra: Macmillan.

  • Siciliano, J. I. (1997). The relationship between formal planning and performance in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 7, 387–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silber, N. I. (2001). A corporate form of freedom: The emergence of the nonprofit sector (new perspectives on law, culture, and society). Boulder, CO: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skoldberg, K. (1991). Strategic change in Swedish higher education. Higher Education, 21, 551–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D. H. (2000). Grassroots associations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steane, P. D., & Christie, M. (2001). Nonprofit boards in Australia: A distinctive governance approach. Corporate Governance, 9, 48–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stinchcombe, A. (1965). Social structure and organizations. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations. Chicago: Rand-McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomaskovic-Devey, D., Avent-Holt, D., Zimmer, C., & Harding, S. (2009). The categorical generation of organizational inequality: A comparative test of Tilly’s durable inequality. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 27, 128–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomaskovic-Devey, D., Leiter, J., & Thompson, S. (1994). Organizational survey nonresponse. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 439–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Til, J. (2009). A paradigm shift in third sector theory and practice: Refreshing the wellsprings of democratic capacity. American Behavioral Scientist, 52, 1069–1081.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbruggen, S., Christiaens, J., & Milis, K. (2011). Can resource dependence and coercive isomorphism explain nonprofit organizations’ compliance with reporting standards? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 5–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, A. (2000). Reframing “social origins” theory: The structural transformation of the public sphere. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29, 541–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisbrod, B. A. (1986). Toward a theory of the voluntary nonprofit sector in a three-sector economy. In S. Rose-Ackerman (Ed.), The economics of nonprofit institutions: studies in structure and policy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Western, B. (1997). Between class and market: Postwar unionization in the capitalist democracies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I appreciate the warm support of the Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies at Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia and especially its director, Myles McGregor Lowndes. The Centre welcomed me as a Visiting Academic during the period when I began to study nonprofit organizations.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology and Anthropology, NC State University, Box 8107, Raleigh, NC, 27695-8107, USA

    Jeffrey Leiter

Authors
  1. Jeffrey Leiter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey Leiter.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Leiter, J. An Industry Fields Approach to Isomorphism Involving Australian Nonprofit Organizations. Voluntas 24, 1037–1070 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9298-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9298-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation