Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Nonprofit Isomorphism: An Australia–United States Comparison

Abstract

This paper examines the organizational structures of nonprofit organizations in Australia and the United States. Using random samples of nonprofits drawn from the two organizational populations, the analysis compares the extent of structural resemblance or isomorphism in each. It detects similar levels of isomorphism for several structural characteristics. The paper interprets this finding as reflecting expectations for nonprofit organizations that stretch worldwide.

Résumé

Cet article analyse les structures organisationnelles des organisations à but non lucratif en Australie et aux Etats-Unis. En proposant des exemples pris au hasard des objectifs non lucratifs des deux populations organisationnelles, l’analyse compare l’étendue les ressemblances ou de l’isomorphisme de chacune d’elles. Cela permet de détecter l’isomorphisme de plusieurs caractéristiques structurelles. L’article interprète le fruit de ces recherches en reflétant les attentes des organisations à but non lucratif qui s’étendent dans le monde entier.

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Beitrag untersucht die oranisatorischen Strukturen von Nonprofit-Organisationen in Australien und den Vereinigten Staaten. Unter Bezugnahme auf zufällig ausgewählte Stichproben beider organisatorischen Populationen vergleicht die Analyse das jeweilige Ausmaß struktureller Ähnlichkeit oder Isomorphie. Es werden ähnlich ausgeprägte Isomorphien bei mehreren strukturellen Charakteristiken entdeckt. Der Beitrag interpretiert diese Ergebnisse als ein Spiegelbild der Erwartungen für Nonprofit-Organisationen weltweit.

Resumen

Este trabajo examina las estructuras organizativas de las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro de Australia y los Estados Unidos. Utilizando muestras aleatorias de estas organizaciones extraídas de dos poblaciones organizativas, el análisis compara el nivel de semejanza estructural o isomorfismo de cada una. Detecta niveles similares de isomorfismo en varias características estructurales. El trabajo hace una interpretación de este dato que refleja que las expectativas de las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro son comunes en todo el mundo.

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    My thanks to Helmut Anheier for this insight.

  2. 2.

    On the other hand, national populations of organizations may differ in their solutions to the same problem. This is the import of Arrow’s phrase, “the multiplicity of possible long-run states” (Arrow 1994, p. x).

  3. 3.

    See David (1985) for the most frequently invoked example, the QWERTY keyboard.

  4. 4.

    Although this would not be the result expected under path dependent processes, different histories in different nations could lead coincidentally to similar levels of homogeneity.

  5. 5.

    Actually, from a statistical point of view, a finding, with reasonable confidence, that the two samples’ means are the same requires that their respective standard deviations not be too great. This suggests that finding similarity between the two countries’ nonprofit sectors may require that each country’s sector be isomorphic.

  6. 6.

    For a systematic application of these processes to the explanation of nonprofit isomorphism in Australia, see Leiter (2005b).

  7. 7.

    Outside the purposes of this paper, but consistent with scholarship on organizational isomorphism is the possibility that industries rather than legal forms, such as nonprofits, may be the organizational field within which isomorphism is produced. Industries, that is, workplaces that produce the same product or service, face the same environment of competitors, suppliers, customers, and regulators and use the same or similar technology. These factors increase the likelihood of isomorphism. Based on an earlier analysis of the same Australian data as used in the present analysis, I suggested this focus on industries (Leiter 2005b) and went on to demonstrate it across legal forms especially for the Australian health care industry (2005a). The latter finding echoes some other studies of the health care industry in which regulation, competition, and professionalization may lie behind isomorphism (Paradis and Cummings 1986; Potter 2001; Sloan et al. 2001); other studies, however, have not detected isomorphism in the health care industry and point instead to important differences by legal form (Garg et al. 1999; Scheid-Cook 1992; Schlesinger and Gray 2006).

  8. 8.

    Choice of these two nonprofit sectors arises both from the author’s personal circumstances as a US based academic who has ongoing ties with a nonprofit academic centre in Australia and from the availability of the required data regarding the two countries.

  9. 9.

    This phenomenon can itself be seen as an example of normative and mimetic isomorphism.

  10. 10.

    Earlier National Organizations Surveys from the United States (1991 and 1995) have several advantages but would lead to uncertainty about whether differences from the Australian data are due to the time when the data were collected.

  11. 11.

    Details are available from the author on request. Two possible reasons for the US data’s poorer recreation of the industry employment distribution: (1) As explained in Table 1, isolation of private nonprofits from other establishments may involve error; and (2) NOS asked for the establishment’s industry, but the open-ended responses were not coded when the data were prepared for analysis; therefore, the author’s efforts, after securing the verbatim responses, had to substitute for professional industry coding with reliability checking.

  12. 12.

    More accurately, workplace or establishment characteristics. Unless otherwise noted, the use of “organization” or “organizational” in this paper will refer to workplaces.

  13. 13.

    We examine the age distribution for its extent of similarity, even though age is not typically considered subject to isomorphic pressures.

  14. 14.

    While AusNOS asked for the educational credential generally required of the top manager in the organization, NOS did not. Therefore, we cannot examine professionalization comparatively as a source of variation in nonprofit structures.

  15. 15.

    Both countries’ distributions are shifted to the large end by the hypernetwork sampling method. Moreover, to the extent that nonprofits are larger in the United States than in Australia, the differences in the distributions may be accentuated by the sampling method. In particular, health care nonprofits, which are relatively large compared to other nonprofits in both counties and which comprise over twice the portion of nonprofit employment in US as in Australia (Lyons et al. 1999; Sokolowski and Salamon 1999), have slightly greater representation in the US NOS than in AusNOS, which could lead to a greater rightward shift in the US than the Australian nonprofit employment size distribution reported here.

  16. 16.

    The correlations (given as Australia, then, US) between levels and employment size (no casuals) are .46 and .34, and between levels and departments are .32 and .59. All four correlations are statistically significant at the .01 level.

  17. 17.

    Of course, conceptions of hard work may, nonetheless, differ considerably between the two countries.

References

  1. Alchian, A. A., & Demsetz, H. (1972). Production, information costs, and economic organization. American Economic Review, 62, 777–795.

  2. Arrow, K. J. (1994). Foreward. In W. B. Arthur (Ed.), Increasing returns and path dependence in the economy (pp. ix–x). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

  3. Arthur, W. B. (1994). Increasing returns and path dependence in the economy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

  4. Bedeian, A. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (2000). On the use of the coefficient of variation as a measure of diversity. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 285–297.

  5. David, P. A. (1985). Clio and the economics of QWERTY. American Economic Review, 75, 332–337.

  6. 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.

  7. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). Introduction. In W. W. Powell, & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 1–38). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  8. Garg, P. P., Frick, K. D., Diener-West, M., & Powe, N. R. (1999). Effect of the ownership of dialysis facilities on patients’ survival and referral for transplantation. The New England Journal of Medicine, 341, 1653–1660.

  9. Gerth, H., & Mills, C. W. (1946). From Max Weber: Essays in sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.

  10. Gronbjerg, K. A. (2002). Evaluating nonprofit databases. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 1741–1777.

  11. 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.

  12. Hager, M. A., Galaskiewicz, J., & Larson, J. (2004). Structural embeddedness and the liability of newness among nonprofit organizations. Public Management Review, 6, 159–188.

  13. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49, 149–164.

  14. Hansmann, H. B. (1986). The role of nonprofit enterprise. In S. Rose-Ackerman (Ed.), The economics of nonprofit institutions: Studies in structure and policy (pp. 57–84). New York: Oxford University Press.

  15. Independent Sector. (2006). Compendium of standards, codes, and principles of nonprofit and philanthropic organizations. http://www.independentsector.org/issues/accountability/standards2.html. Retrieved 6 June 2006.

  16. Kalleberg, A. L., Marsden, P. V., Aldrich, H. E., & Cassell, J. W. (1990). Comparing organizational sampling frames. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 658–688.

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

  18. Leiter, J. (2005a). An industry fields approach to structural isomorphism including Australian nonprofit organizations, Annual Meeting of the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action. Washington, DC.

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

  20. Levene, H. (1960). Robust tests for equality of variances. In I. Olkin (Ed.), Contributions to probability and statistics: Essays in Honor of Harold Hotelling (pp. 278–292). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

  21. Lyons, M. (1998). Dilemmas facing nonprofit management education: The Australian example. In M. O’Neill & K. Fletcher (Eds.), Nonprofit management education: US and world perspectives, (pp. 23–32). Praeger: Westport, CT.

  22. 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 (pp. 203–217). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies.

  23. 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 Sydney.

  24. McPherson, J. M. (1982). Hypernetwork sampling: Duality and differentiation among voluntary associations. Social Networks, 3, 225–249.

  25. 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.

  26. Meyer, J. W., Boli, J., Thomas, G. M., Ramirez, F. O. (1997). World society and the nation-state. American Journal of Sociology, 103, 144–181.

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

  28. Paradis, L. F., & Cummings, S. B. (1986). The evolution of hospice in America toward organizational homogeneity. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 27, 370–386.

  29. 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.

  30. Powell, W. W., & Friedkin, R. (1987). Organizational change in nonprofit organizations. In W. W. Powell (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 180–192). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

  31. Roy, W. G. (1997). Socializing capital. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

  32. Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. K. (1998). Social origins of civil society: Explaining the nonprofit sector cross-nationally. Voluntas, 9, 213–248.

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

  34. Schlesinger, M., & Gray, B. H. (2006). How nonprofits matter in American medicine, and what to do about it. Health affairs, 25 (Web Exclusives Supplement), W287–W303.

  35. Sloan, F. A., Picone, G. A., Taylor, D. H., Jr., & Chou, S.-Y. (2001). Hospital ownership and the cost and quality of care: Is there a dime’s worth of difference? Journal of Health Economics, 20, 1–21.

  36. Sokolowski, S. W., & Salamon, L. M. (1999). The United States. In L. M. Salamon, H. K. Anheier, R. List, S. Toepler, S. W. Sokolowski & Associates (Eds.), Global civil society: Dimensions of the nonprofit sector (pp. 261–281). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project.

  37. Starbuck, W. H. (2004). Methodological challenges posed by measures of performance. Journal of Management and Governance, 8, 337–343.

  38. 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 (pp. 21–44). New York: Oxford University Press.

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

  40. Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies, analysis and anti-trust implications: A study of internal organization. New York: Free Press.

  41. Wish, N. B., & Mirabella, R. M. (1998). Nonprofit management education: Current offerings and practices in university-based programs. In M. O’Neill, & K. Fletcher (Eds.), Nonprofit management education: U.S. and world perspectives (pp. 13–22). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Download references

Acknowledgments

An early version of this paper was presented at the 2006 ISTR meetings in Bangkok. That draft was written in part during residence at Queensland University of Technology’s Centre of Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies. Thanks to the Centre’s Director, Myles McGregor-Lowndes, for making me so welcome. I appreciate suggestions from Richard Clerkin on the earlier version and the unusually searching and constructive reviews secured by the journal.

Author information

Correspondence to Jeffrey Leiter.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Leiter, J. Nonprofit Isomorphism: An Australia–United States Comparison. Voluntas 19, 67–91 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-008-9053-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Nonprofit organizations
  • Organization theory
  • Isomorphism
  • Australia
  • United States