Chris Quinn-Trank *Alejandra Marin *Carliss Charles Seminar: Organizational Theory Professor: Dr. Kim Boal Spring 2010

 Organizations operate in two environments—a material environment and a symbolic environment (Berger & Luckmann, 1967; Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Scott, 1995; Stinchcombe, 1965; Suchman, 1995).  Organizational fields constitute and are constituted by these two environments. “those organizations that, in the aggregate, constitute a recognized area of institutional life: key suppliers, resource and product consumers, regulatory agencies, and other organizations that produce similar services or products” (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983:148)

 How do organizations signal their symbolic resources to others?”  Symbolic resources—legitimacy, reputation, and status  Research proposal: how do organizations represent the symbolic resources available to them?, How do these representations instantiate the symbolic order of the field?

 Early research on Org Fields: understanding of institutions and their impact on the behavior of organizations (Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Zucker, 1977). Isomorphic forces that provided stability and collective meaning to social behavior (Leblebici, Salancik, Copay, & King, 1991; Tolbert & Zucker, 1983).  More recent discussion: “relational spaces…organizations become connected within the same field when they begin to take note of one another” (Wooten and Hoffman, 2008: 138).

 Capital and Org. Field are highly interlinked.  Field as a game (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992: 98) Trump cards = capital  Capital = anything that enables further appropriation of available resources for the players in the field (Bourdieu, 1986).  Economic, social, cultural,  SYMBOLIC capital

“In most transactions the notions of buyer and seller tend to be dissolved in the network of middlemen and guarantors designed to transform the purely economic relationship between supply and demand into a genealogically based and genealogically guaranteed relationship. Marriage itself is no exception…the families bring in prestigious kinsmen or affines as ‘guarantors’, the symbolic capital thus displayed serving both to strengthen their hand in the negotiations and to guarantee the deal once it has been concluded” (Bourdieu, 1977: 174, italics added).

 Practical actions reflect how symbolic capital defines and recreates a social order: Organizational self-presentations using their most valuable symbolic capital.  Bridging gaps between macro and micro levels in studies about Org. Fields (Wooten & Hoffman, 2008).  Review of previous studies that have used legitimacy, reputation, status as symbolic resources.

DefinitionValidationStrategies for Creation/ Defense References LegitimacyValidates A sign of the validity and appropriate- ness of an organization to participate in a field and to obtain other resources An external actor (e.g. accreditation by AACSB) as a signal of organizational legitimacy Impression management Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) (p ); Galaskiewicz, J., Rauschenbach, B. (1985) ; Carroll and Hannan (1989) ; Elsbach and Sutton (1992) ; Rao (1994) ; Elsbach (1994) ; Deephouse (1996) ; Brown (1998) ; Deephouse (1999) ; Deephouse and Carter (2005) ; Bansal and Clelland (2004) ; Greenwood Suddaby Hinings (2002) ; Glynn and Abzug (2002) ; Sherer and Lee (2002) ; Pollock and Rindova (2003) ; Anand and Watson (2004) ; Zilber (2006) Reputation Differentiates A measure of perceived quality based on previous collective perceptions of past behavior or performance References to organizations that make quantitative, comparative distinctions e.g. School rankings Diversification, profitability, advertisement, social responsiveness, market risk and performance, media exposure Boyd, Byrd & Ketchem (2010); Rindova et al (2005); Fernhaber & McDougal-Coven (2009); Deephouse & Carter (2004); Greenwood et al (2005 ) Status Excludes An unearned ascription of social rank—signals of influence in the field due to prestige, elite groups, legacy, and tradition References acknowledging the organization’s power to shape the field-- The role in defining “the rules of the game” Exclusion of actors that don’t belong to the group of “high- status” Karabel (1984); Podolny (1993); Benjamin and Podolny (1999); Phillips and Zuckerman (2001); Washington and Zajac (2005); Castelluci and Ertug (2010)

DefinitionValidationStrategies for Creation/ Defense References Legitimacy Validates A sign of the validity and appropriateness of an organization to participate in a field and to obtain other resources An external actor e.g. accreditation by AACSB as a signal of organizational legitimacy Impression management, rhetorical analysis Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) (p ); Galaskiewicz, J., Rauschenbach, B. (1985); Carroll and Hannan (1989); Elsbach and Sutton (1992); Rao (1994); Elsbach (1994); Deephouse (1996); Brown (1998); Deephouse (1999); Deephouse and Carter (2005); Bansal and Clelland (2004); Greenwood Suddaby Hinings (2002); Glynn and Abzug (2002); Sherer and Lee (2002); Pollock and Rindova (2003); Anand and Watson (2004); Zilber (2006) ReputationDifferentiates A measure of perceived quality based on previous collective perceptions of past behavior or performance References to organizations that make quantitative, comparative distinctions e.g. School rankings Diversification, profitability, advertisement, social responsiveness, market risk and performance, media exposure Boyd, Byrd & Ketchem (2010); Rindova et al (2005); Fernhaber & McDougal-Coven (2009); Deephouse & Carter (2004); Greenwood et al (2005 ) Status Excludes An unearned ascription of social rank—signals of influence in the field due to prestige, elite groups, legacy, and tradition References acknowledging the organization’s power to shape the field-- The role in defining “the rules of the game” Exclusion of actors that don’t belong to the group of “high- status” Karabel (1984); Podolny (1993); Benjamin and Podolny (1999); Phillips and Zuckerman (2001); Washington and Zajac (2005); Castelluci and Ertug (2010)

DefinitionValidationStrategies for Creation/ Defense References Legitimacy Validates A sign of the validity and appropriateness of an organization to participate in a field and to obtain other resources An external actor e.g. accreditation by AACSB as a signal of organizational legitimacy Impression management, rhetorical analysis Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) (p ); Galaskiewicz, J., Rauschenbach, B. (1985); Carroll and Hannan (1989); Elsbach and Sutton (1992); Rao (1994); Elsbach (1994); Deephouse (1996); Brown (1998); Deephouse (1999); Deephouse and Carter (2005); Bansal and Clelland (2004); Greenwood Suddaby Hinings (2002); Glynn and Abzug (2002); Sherer and Lee (2002); Pollock and Rindova (2003); Anand and Watson (2004); Zilber (2006) Reputation Differentiates A measure of perceived quality based on previous collective perceptions of past behavior or performance References to organizations that make quantitative, comparative distinctions e.g. School rankings Diversification, profitability, advertisement, social responsive- ness, market risk and performance, media exposure, so on Boyd, Byrd & Ketchem (2010); Rindova et al (2005); Fernhaber & McDougal-Coven (2009); Deephouse & Carter (2004); Greenwood et al (2005 ) StatusExcludes An unearned ascription of social rank—signals of influence in the field due to prestige, elite groups, legacy, and tradition References acknowledging the organization’s power to shape the field--The role in defining “the rules of the game” Exclusion of actors that don’t belong to the group of “high- status” Karabel (1984); Podolny (1993); Benjamin and Podolny (1999); Phillips and Zuckerman (2001); Washington and Zajac (2005); Castelluci and Ertug (2010)

 Sample and Data Collection Universities accredited by AACSB as of fall 2008  Measures: Organizational legitimacy: accredited by AACSB Organizational reputation: rankings Organizational status: unearned ascription of social rank. Indications of influence in the field due to prestige, elite groups, legacy, and tradition  Actual stage: coding of the information

 Hierarchy among the symbolic resources  Strategic use of symbolic resources  Contributions: Bridging macro and micro Org Fields as relational spaces Differentiation among legitimacy, reputation, status  Future research Other fields Change in org fields: longitudinal study