Advertisement

A Way for Organizations to Cope with Uncertainty: Mimetic Isomorphism

  • İnci Öztürk
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Complexity book series (SPCOM)

Abstract

Uncertainty, which means absence of sufficient clarity in obtained information and lack of full or correct information, is experienced by managers and employees because of dynamic changes within the organizational environment. Mimetic isomorphism, which is due to the attempts of organizations to minimize uncertainty, occurs when organizations mimic or take well-established and successful organizations as a model to legitimize themselves, especially where the objectives are uncertain. Competition, which accompanies globalization and massification, allows higher education institutions to react to changing social demands, with restructuring of existing programs and elimination of older ones. In this chapter, the ways in which higher education institutions mimic other such institutions when they encounter uncertainty are elaborated with examples. It is concluded that higher education institutions may adopt faulty applications as well as positive applications as a model for themselves.

Keywords

Mimetic isomorphism Uncertainty Coping with uncertainty Higher education institutions Bologna Process 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Dr. Tuncer Fidan for his valuable opinions regarding the auditing.

References

  1. Anadolu Üniversitesi. (2006). Topluma hizmet. http://iibf.anadolu.edu.tr/?page_id=440. Accessed 10 Feb 2015.
  2. Balcı, A. (2011). Eğitim yönetiminin değişen bağlamı ve eğitim yönetimi programlarına etkisi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 36(162), 196–208.Google Scholar
  3. Baruch, Y. (2013). Careers in academe: The academic labour market as an eco-system. Career Development International, 18(2), 196–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baruch, Y., & Fidan, T. (2019). The Turkish academic labor market as an ecosystem. In T. Fidan (Ed.), Vocational identity and career construction in education (pp. 37–57). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beckman, C. M., Haunschild, P. R., & Philips, D. J. (2004). Friends or strangers? Firm-specific uncertainty, market uncertainty, and network partner selection. Organization Science, 15(3), 259–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bess, J. L., & Dee, J. R. (2008). Understanding college and university organization: Theories for effective policy and practice. Volume I: The state of the system. Sterling: Stylus.Google Scholar
  7. Bordia, P., Hunt, E., Paulsen, N., Tourish, D., & DiFonzo, N. (2004). Uncertainty during organizational change: Is it all about control? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13(3), 345–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brief, A. P., Buttram, R. T., & Dukerich, J. M. (2001). Collective corruption in the corporate world: Toward a process model. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research (pp. 471–499). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Brǿgger, K. (2016). The rule of mimetic desire in higher education: Governing through naming, shaming and faming. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 37(1), 72–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cyert, R., & March, J. (1963). Behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  11. D’Aunno, T., Succi, M., & Alexander, J. A. (2000). The role of institutional and market forces in divergent organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(4), 679–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DESA/DPAD [Department of Economic and Social Affairs/Development Policy & Analysis Division]. (2017). Frontier issues: The impact of the technological revolution on labor markets and income distribution. United Nations. https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/publication/frontier-issues-artificial-intelligence-and-other-technologies-will-define-the-future-of-jobs-and-incomes/.
  13. Dill, D. D. (2010). Quality assurance in higher education: Practices and issues. In P. P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (3rd ed., pp. 377–383). Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 63–82). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi. (2011a). Dokuz Eylül University Bologna Process (In Turkish). http://webb.deu.edu.tr/bologna/index.php/bologna-suereci-nedir. Accessed 6 Mar 2019.
  16. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi. (2011b). Bologna Process member states (In Turkish). http://webb.deu.edu.tr/bologna/index.php/bologna-suerecine-ueye-uelkeler. Accessed 6 Mar 2019.
  17. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi. (2011c). 10 action titles of the Bologna Process (In Turkish). http://webb.deu.edu.tr/bologna/index.php/bologna-suerecinin-10-eylem-bal. Accessed 6 Mar 2019.
  18. Dominelli, L., & Hoogvelt, A. (1996). Globalization, contract government and the Taylorization of intelluctual labour in academia. Studies in Political Economy, 49, 71–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Downey, H. K., & Slocum, J. W. (1975). Uncertainty: Measures, research and sources of variation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18, 562–577.Google Scholar
  20. Duncan, R. B. (1972). Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived environmental uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(3), 313–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Erçetin, Ş. Ş., & Kayman, E. A. (2014). How to be a quantum leader in an intelligent organization? In S. Banerjee & Ş. Erçetin (Eds.), Chaos, complexity and leadership 2012 (pp. 247–252). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fidan, T. (2017). Kurumsalcılık yaklaşımları ve yeni kurumsalcılık perspektifinden eğitim örgütleri. Medeniyet Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  23. Fırat Üniversitesi. (2011). Fırat Üniversitesi internal audit unit annual report (year 2011) (In Turkish). http://web.firat.edu.tr/icdenetim/FR/F%C3%9C%20%C4%B0DB%20Faaliyet%20Raporu%202011.pdf. Accessed 13 Mar 2019.
  24. Haveman, H. A. (1993). Follow the leader: Mimetic isomorphism and entry into new markets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(4), 593–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hoffman, A. J. (1999). Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the US chemical industry. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 351–371.Google Scholar
  26. Hosmer, L. T. (1987). The institutionalization of unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 6(6), 439–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Johnson, V. (2007). What is organizational imprinting? Cultural entrepreneurship in the founding of the Paris Opera. American Journal of Sociology, 113(1), 97–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Koçel, T. (2011). İşletme yöneticiliği (13. Baskı). İstanbul: Beta Basım A.Ş.Google Scholar
  29. Kondra, A. Z., & Hinings, C. R. (1998). Organizational diversity and change in institutional theory. Organization Studies, 19(5), 743–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kondra, A. Z., & Hurst, D. C. (2009). Institutional processes of organizational culture. Culture and Organization, 15(1), 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kramer, M. W. (2015). Uncertainty and communication in organizations. The International Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Communication, 1787–1866. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ 10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic001.Google Scholar
  32. Levy, D. C. (2006). How private higher education’s growth challenges the new institutionalism. In H. D. Meyer & B. Rowan (Eds.), The new institutionalism in education (pp. 143–161). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  33. Madden, L., Kidder, D., Eddleston, K., Litzky, B., & Kellermanns, F. (2017). A conservation of resources study of standard and contingent employees. Personnel Review, 46(3), 644–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Manning, K. (2013). Organizational theory in higher education. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. March, J. G. (1981). Footnotes to organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(4), 563–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McDonough, E. F., III, & Leifer, R. (1983). Using simultaneous structures to cope with uncertainty. The Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 727–735.Google Scholar
  37. Meyer, J. W. (2010). World society, institutional theories, and the actor. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 1–20.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Meyer, J. W., Scott, W. R., & Deal, T. E. (1983). Institutional and technical sources of organizational structure: Explaining the structure of educational organizations. In J. W. Meyer, & W. R. Scott (Eds.). Organizational environments. (p. 45–70). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Meyer, J. W., Scott, W. R., & Strang, D. (1987). Centralization, fragmentation, and school district complexity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 186–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Milliken, F. J. (1987). Three types of perceived uncertainty about the environment: State, effect, and respeonse uncertainty. The Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 133–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Morphew, C. (2002). “A rose by any other name”: Which colleges became universities. Review of Higher Education, 25(2), 207–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Neyişci, N., & Potas, N. (2014). Avoidance behaviors of school managers in uncertain and chaotic environments. In S. Banerjee & Ş. Erçetin (Eds.), Chaos, complexity and leadership 2012 (pp. 219–227). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Öztürk Fidan, İ. (2018). Üniversitelerde iz bırakma ve kurumsallaşma (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.Google Scholar
  45. Parnell, J. A., Lester, D. L., & Menefee, M. L. (2000). Strategy as a response to organizational uncertainty: An alternative perspective on the strategy-performance relationship. Management Decision, 38(8), 520–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Refsgaard, J. C., van der Sluijs, J. P., Højberg, A. L., & Vanrolleghem, P. A. (2007). Uncertainty in the environmental modelling process—A framework and guidance. Environmental Modelling & Software., 22, 1543–1556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sayıştay. (2018). 2017 yılı dış denetim genel değerlendirme raporu: Eylül 2018. Ankara: Sayıştay Başkanlığı.Google Scholar
  48. Scott, W. R. (1991). Unpacking institutional arguments. In P. J. DiMaggio, & W. W. Powell (Eds.). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. (p. 164–182). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  49. Şimşek, H., & Louis, K. S. (1994). Organizational change as paradigm shift: Analysis of the change process in a large, public university. The Journal of Higher Education, 65(6), 670–695.Google Scholar
  50. Thrift, N. (2007). Non representational theory: Space, politics, affect. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1983). Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: The diffusion of civil service reform, 1880–1935. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 22–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yoo, S., & Digman, L. A. (1987). Decision support system: A new tool for strategic management. Long Range Planning, 20(2), 114–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. YöK. (2006). Dersler ve içerikleri. Ankara: Yükseköğretim Kurulu Başkanliği.Google Scholar
  54. Yükseköğretim Kurulu. (2006). Eğitim fakültelerinde uygulanacak yeni programlar hakkında açıklama. http://www.yok.gov.tr/documents/10279/49665/aciklama_programlar/aa7bd091-9328-4df7-aafa-2b99edb6872f. Accessed 17 Feb 2017.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • İnci Öztürk
    • 1
  1. 1.Ankara UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations