Legitimacy as Property and Process: The Case of an Irish LGBT Organization

Abstract

This study provides insight into the changing normative judgements of civil society organizations over time through the concept of legitimacy. A case study of an LGBT organization in Ireland over the past 40 years shows how a process of legitimation took place in five steps: refuge, advocacy, formalization, impact, and organizational survival. The initial stigmatization of the organization’s core purpose created opportunities for social capital to grow, which, ironically, helped to initiate the process of legitimation. In the end, pragmatic legitimacy waned after the organization achieved impact and was successful in its mission. This organizational perspective on civil society and on a history of LGBT rights contributes to understanding the legitimacy of civil society organizations, actors which influence change in normative judgements over time. Treating legitimacy as both a property and a process highlights how these organizations can be simultaneously subjects of normative judgement and also agents of change.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    The organization and individuals have all been anonymized.

References

  1. Atack, I. (1999). Four criteria of development NGO legitimacy. World Development,27(5), 855–864. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(99)00033-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Blee, K. M. (2002). Inside organized racism: women in the hate movement. London: University of California Press Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (2006). On justification: Economies of worth. (C. Porter, Trans.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In G. J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York, NY: Greenwood.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Brewer, P. R. (2003). The shifting foundations of public opinion about gay rights. The Journal of Politics,65(4), 1208–1220. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.t01-1-00133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brown, L. D. (2008). Creating credibility: legitimacy and accountability for transnational civil society. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cannon, S. M., & Kreutzer, K. (2018). Mission accomplished? Organizational identity work in response to mission success. Human Relations,71(9), 1234–1263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726717741677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chambers, S., & Kopstein, J. (2001). Bad civil society. Political Theory,29(6), 837–865. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591701029006008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Clegg, S. R., Rhodes, C., & Kornberger, M. (2007). Desperately seeking legitimacy: organizational identity and emerging industries. Organization Studies,28(4), 495–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Clemens, E. S. (2006). The constitution of citizens: political theories of nonprofit organizations. In W. W. Powell & R. Steinberg (Eds.), The nonprofit sector. A research handbook (pp. 207–220). London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Creed, D. W. E., Hudson, B. A., Okhuysen, G. A., & Smith-Crowe, K. (2014). Swimming in a sea of shame: Incorporating emotion into explanations of institutional reproduction and change. Academy of Management Review,39(3), 275–301. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act, 1993, No. 20 of 1993 (Acts of the Oireachtas 7 July 1993). http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1993/act/20/enacted/en/html.

  13. Davis, G. F. (2016). Organization theory and the dilemmas of a post-corporate economy. In J. Gehman, M. Lounsbury, & R. Greenwood (Eds.), How institutions matter! (Vol. 48B, pp. 311–322). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Davis, G., McAdam, D., Scott, W. R., & Zald, M. (2005). Social movements and organization theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Deephouse, D. L., & Suchman, M. (2008). Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin (Eds.), The sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 49–77). London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Dragonfly Partners. (2014). Catalysing LGBT equality and visibility in Ireland (Research Report) (pp. 1–12). Dublin, Ireland: Atlantic Philanthropies.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Edwards, M. (2004). Civil society. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Edwards, M. (2011a). Civil society and the geometry of human relations. In M. Edwards (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of civil society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Edwards, M. (Ed.). (2011b). The Oxford handbook of civil society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Elsbach, K. D., & Sutton, R. I. (1992). Acquiring organizational legitimacy through illegitimate actions: A marriage of institutional and impression management theories. Academy of Management Journal,35(4), 699–738. https://doi.org/10.2307/256313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gabbay, S. M., & Leenders, R. T. A. J. (1999). CSC: The structure of advantage and disadvantage. In R. T. A. J. Leenders & S. M. Gabbay (Eds.), Corporate social capital and liability (pp. 1–14). Boston, MA: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-5027-3_1.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Glynn, M. A., & Marquis, C. (2004). When good names go bad: Symbolic illegitimacy in organizations. In C. Johnson (Ed.), Legitimacy processes in organizations (Vol. 22, pp. 147–170). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0733-558X(04)22005-5.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Golant, B. D., & Sillince, J. A. A. (2007). The constitution of organizational legitimacy: A narrative perspective. Organization Studies,28(8), 1149–1167. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607075671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Greenwood, R., Hinings, C. R., & Suddaby, R. (2002). Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. Academy of Management Journal,45(1), 58–80.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hager, M. A., Galaskiewicz, J., Bielefeld, W., & Pins, J. (1996). Tales from the grave: Organizations’ accounts of their own demise. American Behavioral Scientist,39(8), 975–994. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764296039008004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1989). Organizational ecology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. He, H., & Baruch, Y. (2010). Organizational identity and legitimacy under major environmental changes: Tales of two UK building societies. British Journal of Management,21(1), 44–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2009.00666.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Healy, G., Sheehan, B., & Whelan, N. (2015). Ireland says yes: The inside story of how the vote for marriage equality was won. Dublin, Ireland: Merrion Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hudson, B. A., & Okhuysen, G. A. (2009). Not with a ten-foot pole: Core stigma, stigma transfer, and improbable persistence of men’s bathhouses. Organization Science,20(1), 134–153. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Johnson, C., Dowd, T. J., & Ridgeway, C. L. (2006). Legitimacy as a social process. Annual Review of Sociology,32, 53–78. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.32.061604.123101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kollman, K., & Waites, M. (2009). The global politics of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender human rights: An introduction. Contemporary Politics,15(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569770802674188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review,24(4), 691–710. https://doi.org/10.2307/259349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Process studies of change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Academy of Management Journal,56(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lichterman, P., & Eliasoph, N. (2014). Civic action. American Journal of Sociology,120(3), 798–863. https://doi.org/10.1086/679189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Lister, S. (2003). NGO legitimacy: Technical issue or social construct? Critique of Anthropology,23(2), 175–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308275X03023002004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Lynch, B. J. (1995). A land beyond tears. In I. O’Carroll & E. Collins (Eds.), Lesbian and gay visions of Ireland (pp. 212–220). London: Cassell.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Mann, M. (2005). The dark side of democracy: Explaining ethnic cleansing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Marberg, A., Kranenburg, H., & Korzilius, H. (2016). NGOs in the news: The road to taken-for-grantedness. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations,27(6), 2734–2763. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9757-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Meyer, M., Buber, R., & Aghamanoukjan, A. (2013). In search of legitimacy: Managerialism and legitimation in civil society organizations. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations,24(1), 167–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations—formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology,83(2), 340–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review,23(2), 242–266. https://doi.org/10.2307/259373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Navis, C., & Glynn, M. A. (2010). How new market categories emerge: Temporal dynamics of legitimacy, identity, and entrepreneurship in satellite radio, 1990–2005. Administrative Science Quarterly,55(3), 439–471. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2010.55.3.439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. O’Carroll, I., & Collins, E. (Eds.). (1995). Lesbian and gay visions of Ireland. London: Cassell.

    Google Scholar 

  44. O’Carroll, I., & McDonnell, F. (2010). Marriage equality: Civil marriage for gay and lesbian people. House: O’Carroll Associates and Hibernian Consulting.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (2003). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Plujek-Shank, R., & Verkoren, W. (2017). Civil society in a divided society: Linking legitimacy and ethnicness of civil society organizations in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Cooperation and Conflict,52(2), 184–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836716673088.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Popplewell, R. (2018). Civil society, legitimacy and political space: Why some organisations are more vulnerable to restrictions than others in violent divided contexts. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations,29, 388–403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-018-9949-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone. The collapse and revival of american community. London: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Rao, H. (1994). The social construction of reputation: certification contests, legitimation, and the survival of organizations in the American Automobile Industry: 1895–1912. Strategic Management Journal,15(S1), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250150904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Reuter, M., Wijkström, F., & Meyer, M. (2014). Who calls the shots? The real normative power of civil society. In M. Freise & T. Hallmann (Eds.), Modernizing democracy associations and associating in the 21st century (pp. 71–82). New York, NY: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0485-3_6.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Rosa, J. A., Porac, J. F., Runser-Spanjol, J., & Saxon, M. S. (1999). Sociocognitive dynamics in a product market. Journal of Marketing,63(4), 64–77. https://doi.org/10.2307/1252102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Rose, K. (1994). Diverse communities: The evolution of lesbian and gay politics in Ireland. Cork: University of Cork Press.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Ryan, P. (2006). Coming out of the dark: A decade of gay mobilisation in Ireland, 1970–80. In L. Connolly & N. Hourigan (Eds.), Social movements and Ireland (pp. 86–105). Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Scott, R. W. (2008). Institutions and organizations. Ideas and interests. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Scott, R. W., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural and open system perspectives. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Seligman, A. B. (1995). The idea of civil society. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Singh, J. V., Tucker, D. J., & House, R. J. (1986). Organizational legitimacy and the liability of newness. Administrative Science Quarterly,31, 171–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Sparre, K. (2001). Megaphone diplomacy in the Northern Irish peace process: Squaring the circle by talking to terrorists through journalists. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics,6(1), 88–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/1081180X01006001006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Staggenborg, S. (1988). The consequences of professionalization and formalization in the pro-choice movement. American Sociological Review,53(4), 585–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Sternberg, E. (2010). NGOs vs Civil Society: Reflections on the illiberal, the illegitimate and the unaccountable. Economic Affairs,30(3), 22–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review,20(3), 571–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Suddaby, R., Bitektine, A., & Haack, P. (2017). Legitimacy. Academy of Management Annals,11(1), 451–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Vaccaro, A., & Palazzo, G. (2015). Values against violence: Institutional change in societies dominated by organized crime. Academy of Management Journal,58(4), 1075–1101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Wolff, S. (2002). The peace process in Northern Ireland since 1998: Success or failure of post-agreement reconstruction? Civil Wars,5(1), 87–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Woolcock, M., & Narayan, D. (2000). Social capital: Implications for development theory, research, and policy. The World Bank Research Observer,15(2), 225–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Zuckerman, E. W. (1999). The categorical imperative: securities analysts and the illegitimacy discount. American Journal of Sociology,104(5), 1398–1438. https://doi.org/10.1086/210178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank MBA graduates for their work on this project, in particular, Ashley Robbins and Omar Hadidi. A big debt of gratitude also goes to all of the interview participants who gave their time generously for this research.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sheila M Cannon.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that she has no conflict of interest. In July 2016 and March 2017 the author coordinated MBA company projects with the LGBT organization that is the subject of this research.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Special Issue: CSOs as sites for Legitimizing the Common Good.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cannon, S. Legitimacy as Property and Process: The Case of an Irish LGBT Organization. Voluntas 31, 39–55 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-019-00091-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Civil society organization
  • Legitimacy
  • Legitimation
  • LGBT movement
  • Process study