Nonprofit Isomorphism: An Australia–United States Comparison

Original Paper
First Online:

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.

Keywords

Nonprofit organizations Organization theory Isomorphism Australia United States 

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

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.

References

  1. Alchian, A. A., & Demsetz, H. (1972). Production, information costs, and economic organization. American Economic Review, 62, 777–795.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  3. Arthur, W. B. (1994). Increasing returns and path dependence in the economy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. David, P. A. (1985). Clio and the economics of QWERTY. American Economic Review, 75, 332–337.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gerth, H., & Mills, C. W. (1946). From Max Weber: Essays in sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Gronbjerg, K. A. (2002). Evaluating nonprofit databases. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 1741–1777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49, 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kramer, R. M. (1994). Voluntary agencies and the contract culture: “Dream or nightmare?” Social Service Review, 68, 33–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  19. Leiter, J. (2005b). Structural isomorphism in Australian nonprofit organizations. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 16, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  24. McPherson, J. M. (1982). Hypernetwork sampling: Duality and differentiation among voluntary associations. Social Networks, 3, 225–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  31. Roy, W. G. (1997). Socializing capital. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. K. (1998). Social origins of civil society: Explaining the nonprofit sector cross-nationally. Voluntas, 9, 213–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Scheid-Cook, T. L. (1992). Organziational enactments and conformity to environmental prescriptions. Human Relations, 45, 537–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  37. Starbuck, W. H. (2004). Methodological challenges posed by measures of performance. Journal of Management and Governance, 8, 337–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  39. Western, B. (1997). Between class and market: Postwar unionization in the capitalist democracies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies, analysis and anti-trust implications: A study of internal organization. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sociology and Anthropology and Institute for NonprofitsNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  2. 2.Visiting Academic, Centre of Philanthropy and Nonprofit StudiesQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations