The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Structure! Agency! (And Other Quarrels): A Meta-Analysis Of Institutional Theories Of Organization
Abstract
We use meta-analytical techniques to address three central debates in institutional theory: Is organizational behavior the product of social structure or organizational agency? Does conformity to institutional norms enhance or diminish organizational performance? Can organizational field-level factors explain differences in the pull of isomorphic forces across organizational fields? We find that the influence of social structure is weak. Also, the adoption of isomorphic templates improves both symbolic and substantive performance. Finally, we identify several field-level factors that moderate isomorphic processes. We discuss the implications of these findings for institutional theory research.
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
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015) · doi:10.4135/9781483398105 · Cited by 5,542
The combination of estimates from different experiments
Cochran, W. G. (1954) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/3001666 · Cited by 5,380
Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research
Rosenthal, R. (1991) · doi:10.4135/9781412984997 · Cited by 4,635
Hunter, J., & Schmidt, F. (2004) · doi:10.4135/9781412985031 · Cited by 3,023
Fixed-and random-effects models in meta-analysis.
Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.3.4.486 · Cited by 2,977
A Nonparametric “Trim and Fill” Method of Accounting for Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.2000.10473905 · Cited by 2,955
Predicting Intention to Adopt Interorganizational Linkages: An Institutional Perspective1
Teo, H. H., Wei, K. K., & Benbasat, I. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036518 · Cited by 1,639
Cited by
Schilke, O., Hu, S., & Helfat, C. E. (2018) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2016.0014 · Cited by 1,226
Babić Rosario, A., Sotgiu, F., De Valck, K., & Bijmolt, T. H. A. (2016) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmr.14.0380 · Cited by 1,073
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S. J., Blome, C., & Papadopoulos, T. (2019) · British Journal of Management · doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12355 · Cited by 881
History in Organization and Management Theory: More Than Meets the Eye
Kipping, M., & Üsdiken, B. (2014) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2014.911579 · Cited by 280
Volberda, H. W., van der Weerdt, N., Verwaal, E., Stienstra, M., & Verdu, A. J. (2012) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1110.0687 · Cited by 254
When Is More Uncertainty Better? A Model of Uncertainty Regulation and Effectiveness
Griffin, M. A., & Grote, G. (2020) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2018.0271 · Cited by 223
Embedding social innovation process into the institutional context: Voids or supports
Turker, D., & Altuntas Vural, C. (2017) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.019 · Cited by 96
Hwang, K., & Choi, M. (2017) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2017.02.001 · Cited by 85
Tinali, G. Z. P. (2022) · University of Dar es Salaam Library Journal · doi:10.4314/udslj.v17i1.3 · Cited by 8
Metadata
- Authors
- Heugens, P. P. M. A. R., & Lander, M. W.
- Venue
- Academy of Management Journal
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 2009-02
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 61-85
- ISSN
- 0001-4273 (ISSN-L)
- 1948-0989
- OpenAlex
- W2077031120
- Cited by
- 623
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 15.95
- 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
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.
