Isomorphism (lecture 8, chapter 13) and contingency theory (lecture 9, chapter 14) are two alternative explanations to how organizational structure is determined. How do isomorphism and contingency theory explain organizational structure (e.g. organizational designs, forms or practices)? How would you summarize the key difference between these two explanations?
To understand how isomorphism and contingency theory are explanations to organizational structure first the two theories should be introduced and explained.
Isomorphism means that multiple kinds of organisms which are from different ancestry have a similar shape (Clegg, Kornberger, Pitsis, 2011, 606). Similarly, in organizational …show more content…
2011, 607). An example for this is the fact that partnerships are to be found in all kinds of organizations (Clegg et al. 2011, 607). Because of the fact that members of all kinds of organizations are unconsciously engaging in normative isomorphism, this causes different kinds of firms share their designs and practices.
Coercive isomorphism is the process when a certain powerful institution pressurizes organizations to adhere to certain practices and designs (Clegg et al. 2011, 608). This can be found mainly in form of laws, which make sure that all organizations in countries adhere to certain set rules (Clegg et al. 2011, 608). These rules cause all companies to conduct their businesses in a similar way, which results in different kinds of organizations to have similar designs and practices.
Mimetic isomorphism is the process in which organizations look at successful organizational designs and practices of other organizations and copy certain aspects of the behavior (Clegg et al. 2011, 609). Not only from companies that are similar, but also from companies in different sectors the copying is done (Clegg et al. 2011, 609). This again is what isomorphism essentially