The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Mimetic Processes Within an Interorganizational Field: An Empirical Test
Abstract
This paper is a revision of a paper entitled An Approach to the Study of Structural Change presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Sociological Association, August 30-September 3, 1986, New York, NY. We are grateful to Dawn lacobucci for her research assistance, and we thank Gloria DeWolfe for typing the manuscript. We also thank Marshall W. Meyer and three anonymous ASO referees for their helpful comments. Support for this research was provided by National Science Foundation grants #SES 80-08570 and #SES 83-19364 to the University of Minnesota and #SES 84-08626 to the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign. Support was also provided by the Program on Nonprofit Organizations, Yale University. The paper explores DiMaggio and Powell's thesis that under conditions of uncertainty organizational decision makers will mimic the behavior of other organizations in their environment. We add to their discussion by positing that managers are especially likely to mimic the behavior of organizations to which they have some type of network tie via boundary-spanning personnel. Data are presented on the charitable contributions of 75 business corporations to 198 nonprofit organizations in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area in 1980 and 1984. Using logistic regression models, we found that a firm is likely to give more money to a nonprofit that was previously funded by companies whose CEOs and/or giving officers are known personally by the firm's boundary-spanning personnel. Firms are also likely to give greater contributions to a nonprofit that is viewed more favorably by the local philanthropic elite. We also found that a nonprofit is likely to receive more money from a corporation that previously gave money to nonprofits whose directors sitzon the nonprofit's board. We concluded that managers utilize the information gathered through extraorganizational, interpersonal networks to make decisions on how to relate to other organizations in their task environment and achieve organizational ends.'
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Building Better Causal Theories: A Fuzzy Set Approach to Typologies in Organization Research
Fiss, P. C. (2011) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2011.60263120 · Cited by 5,930
Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes
Oliver, C. (1991) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1991.4279002 · Cited by 8,950
Institutional Complexity and Organizational Responses
Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2011.590299 · Cited by 3,519
Sustainable competitive advantage: combining institutional and resource-based views
Oliver, C. (1997) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(199710)18:9<697::aid-smj909>3.0.co;2-c · Cited by 2,873
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Schoonhoven, C. B. (1996) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.7.2.136 · Cited by 2,672
Metadata
- Authors
- Galaskiewicz, J., & Wasserman, S.
- Venue
- Administrative Science Quarterly
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1989-09
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 454
- ISSN
- 0001-8392 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2328674357
- Cited by
- 834
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Mimetic Processes Within an Interorganizational Field: An Empirical Test. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2393153
- The paper
- Galaskiewicz, J., & Wasserman, S. (1989). Mimetic Processes Within an Interorganizational Field: An Empirical Test. Administrative Science Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393153
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.