The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Legitimacy in Organizational Institutionalism
Abstract
Legitimacy is a central concept in organizational institutionalism. The term ‘legitimacy’ dates back to the dawn of organization theory; however, for most of the past century, research on legitimacy emerged only slowly and was fragmented across several distinct social science literatures. Since 1995, however, the body of relevant scholarship has grown rapidly and in a variety of directions. Much of this new literature (like much of the literature that preceded it) has been highly theoretical, invoking legitimacy as an explanatory concept rather than examining it as an empirical property. Empirical accounts, to date, have focused on exploratory case studies of legitimacy being gained or lost, while only a handful of investigations have employed legitimacy as a variable in hypothesis testing. Perhaps because of this heavy skew toward theory development versus theory testing, the legitimacy concept has exhibited substantial plasticity as it has evolved from its earliest institutionalist usages (e.g., Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Meyer & Scott, 1983). As Wright (1985: 292) has observed, ‘the process of concept formation is always simultaneously the process of concept transformation,’ and legitimacy has been no exception. Nonetheless, despite its diversity, the literature on legitimacy displays more than enough coherence and commonality to merit an integrative review. This chapter is organized as follows. Our exploration begins with an overview of past theoretical and empirical research on legitimacy. This discussion includes some basic suggestions on the dimensions, sources, and subjects of legitimation, as well as on key legitimation processes, antecedents and consequences. Second, we consider the relationship between legitimacy and two other types of social evaluation that have recently gained prominence in organization studies, namely status and reputation. Finally, we conclude with several recommendations for advancing legitimacy research in the future.
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
Cites
Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches
Suchman, M. C. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258788 · Cited by 19,903
Self-citationConstruct validity in psychological tests.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0040957 · Cited by 11,195
Moving beyond Dyadic Ties: A Network Theory of Stakeholder Influences
Rowley, T. J. (1997) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1997.9711022107 · Cited by 2,522
The Double-Edge of Organizational Legitimation
Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1.2.177 · Cited by 2,228
Comments on “What theory is not”
DiMaggio, P. J. (1995) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393790 · Cited by 488 · cited 2×
“macy’ is often equated with DiMaggio and Powell’s (1983) concept of ‘normative isomorphism,’ which has come to connote not congruence with general social values, but rather congruence with the particular ethics and worldviews of formal professions.”
BackgroundSine, W. D., David, R. J., & Mitsuhashi, H. (2007) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1070.0300 · Cited by 241
Cited by
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
Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting in China: Symbol or Substance?
Marquis, C., & Qian, C. (2014) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2013.0837 · Cited by 1,793
Digital innovation and transformation: An institutional perspective
Hinings, B., Gegenhuber, T., & Greenwood, R. (2018) · Information and Organization · doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2018.02.004 · Cited by 1,537
From smoke and mirrors to walking the talk: Decoupling in the contemporary world
Bromley, P., & Powell, W. W. (2012) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2012.684462 · Cited by 1,656
Corporate Governance and Investors' Perceptions of Foreign IPO Value: An Institutional Perspective
Bell, R. G., Filatotchev, I., & Aguilera, R. V. (2014) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0146 · Cited by 429
Metadata
- Authors
- Deephouse, D. L., & Suchman, M.
- Venue
- The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications Ltd
- Published
- 2008
- Pages
- 49-77
- OpenAlex
- W2496218594
- Cited by
- 1,570
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 92.40
- Type
- book chapter
- 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: Legitimacy in Organizational Institutionalism. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4135/9781849200387.n2
- The paper
- Deephouse, D. L., & Suchman, M. (2008). Legitimacy in Organizational Institutionalism. The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200387.n2
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.