The DOI matches its Crossref record; 117 of the 119 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches
Abstract
This article synthesizes the large but diverse literature on organizational legitimacy, highlighting similarities and disparities among the leading strategic and institutional approaches. The analysis identifies three primary forms of legitimacy: pragmatic, based on audience self-interest; moral, based on normative approval: and cognitive, based on comprehensibility and taken-for-grantedness. The article then examines strategies for gaining, maintaining, and repairing legitimacy of each type, suggesting both the promises and the pitfalls of such instrumental manipulations.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“…a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are (desirable), proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions. (Suchman 1995, 574)”
From Algorithmic Governance: Experimental Evidence on Citizens' and Public Administrators' Legitimacy Perceptions of Automated Decision‐Making (2026) · cites this paper as Suchman 1995
In the citing paper
“Conformity to cognitive institutions confers legitimacy, which help firms to create public acceptance, political protection and venture capital mobilization (Suchman, 1995).”
From Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective (2010) · cites this paper as Suchman, 1995
In the citing paper
“Discourse analysts added interactive dimensions by addressing collective sensemaking around specific issues.Because collective sense-making is an ongoing process, the interpretations sediment into particular discourses, i.e. ways of talking and thinking about issues (Hajer, 1995).Discourses contain deep structural elements that are framed by actors in particular ways.This discursive framing is a”
From Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective (2010) · cites this paper as Suchman, 1995
Citations
Cites
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2095101 · Cited by 38,435
Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/226550 · Cited by 28,308
DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. (2004) · Advances in strategic management · doi:10.1016/s0742-3322(00)17011-1 · Cited by 25,973
A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
Festinger, L. (1957) · doi:10.1515/9781503620766 · Cited by 24,241
The Interpretation of Cultures
Fenn, R. K., & Geertz, C. (1974) · Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion · doi:10.2307/1384392 · Cited by 19,241
A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
Morvan, C., & O’Connor, A. (2017) · Macat Library eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781912282432 · Cited by 18,284
The Interpretation of Cultures
Dadze-Arthur, A. F. (2017) · Macat Library eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781912128310 · Cited by 16,510
External Control of Organizations: Resource Dependence Perspective
Miner, J. B. (2011) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315701967-54 · Cited by 14,229
The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis
Powell, W., & DiMaggio, P. (1993) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393344 · Cited by 11,926
The Logic of Collective Action.
Golembiewski, R. T., & Olson, M. (1966) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2091298 · Cited by 11,371
Flagged first, then by citations
2 of the 119 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259247 · Cited by 5,039
WHY COMPANIES GO GREEN: A MODEL OF ECOLOGICAL RESPONSIVENESS.
Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/1556363 · Cited by 4,020
Modes of Network Governance: Structure, Management, and Effectiveness
Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2007) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/mum015 · Cited by 4,006
The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review of Concepts, Research and Practice
Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010) · International Journal of Management Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00275.x · Cited by 4,459
Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2007.25275678 · Cited by 3,602
Metadata
- Authors
- Suchman, M. C.
- Affiliations
- University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
- Corresponding author
- Suchman, Mark C.
- Venue
- The Academy of Management Review
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 1995-07
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 571
- ISSN
- 0363-7425 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2162412465
- Cited by
- 19,903
- References
- 119
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2681 · 2025: 1654 · 2024: 1347 · 2023: 1207 · 2022: 1227 · 2021: 1174 · 2020: 1231 · 2019: 1123 · 2018: 948 · 2017: 865 · 2016: 807 · 2015: 769 · 2014: 768 · 2013: 729 · 2012: 572
- FWCI
- 29.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Academy of Management Review (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Organizational Strategy and Culture
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Corporate Identity and Reputation
- Keywords
- organizational legitimacy, legitimacy management, pragmatic legitimacy, moral legitimacy, cognitive legitimacy, legitimation strategies, legitimacy maintenance, institutional theory
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
