ABSTRACT
Figure 5.7 offers a summary of the overall process of legitimacy and isomorphism.
The fundamentals of NIT detail a range of concepts that can be utilised to examine institutions (i.e. groups of organisations that become more homogenous through drivers of isomorphism [Hawley, 1968]), enabling analysis at a higher level than an individual organisation or that organisation’s industry. The theory proposes that it is not economic drivers but social pressures on organisational fields (Machado-da-Silva et al., 2006b; Scott, 2014) through rationalised myths (Meyer and Rowan, 1977) that become agreed standards or models of behavior; this then drives a pressure to conform to the institutional norms. According to NIT actors seek legitimacy within groups of similar organisations by duplicating aspects of these organisations (Suddaby, 2013). Their institutions embodying the scripts or packages of culture, both formal and informal, defines a particular sector and with which, they make sense of the world (Wiseman and Baker, 2006). This results in organisations within an organisational field becoming more similar through a process of institutional isomorphism (Hawley, 1968).
So what can be made of this? If your organisation is significantly influenced by institutional legitimacy factors, is this a bad thing? If it enables the organisation to gain funds and approvals for activities then this surely could be good. That may be the case, but attempting to unpick drivers and activities that are undertaken for legitimacy versus activities and actions that may positively impact on the aims and objectives of the organisation may be worthwhile. The case study of the school inspection rankings is interesting in that the leaders of the organisation made a choice between what they feel is best for the individual participant of the school versus the institutional legitimacy drivers of certain levels of accreditation.
