This section offers a comparison and contrast of the theories to try to derive some additional perspective about them. Table 2-1 summarizes some key points of the theories, emphasizing areas of connection or overlap. To start, consider row 1, which compares institutional theory with the others. Recall that in institutional theory, “coercive pressure” is one of the three major mechanisms or processes that can potentially lead organizations to adopt structural norms or standards imposed by external pressures to conform.
theory, seems consistent with the kind of pressure organizations might perceive from powerful stakeholders as described in the literature on resource dependence theory (row 1, column 2). In fact, Tolbert and Zucker talk about the overlapping propositions of resource dependence theory and institutional theory (Tolbert and Zucker, 1999:173-174).
Insert Table 2-1 about here
Institutional theory also shares similar constructs with garbage can theory (row 1, column 3). In both, symbolism plays a role in influencing decisions, but in somewhat different ways. In the institutional theory of Meyer and Rowan, organizations adopt structural arrangements that have acquired social meanings into their formal structure for the symbolic purpose of signaling organizations’ commitment to socially desirable ends. In the garbage can theory of March and Olsen (1983: 290), an organization’s declaration of taking on an organizational change initiative “symbolizes the possibility of effective leadership, and the belief in that possibility may be of greater significance than the execution of it.”
Institutional theory and garbage can theories might also have some overlaps in particular circumstances involving institutional review and interaction, for example, NASPAA accreditation or re-accreditation. From the institutional perspective, this kind of review makes for conformity pressure that might induce changes or review in a program’s curriculum. From the garbage can theory, such review might constitute a “choice opportunity” which could grab the attention of program decision-makers, leading to changes or review in a program’s curriculum (again, row 1, column 3 of Table 2.1).
1, column 4), we can see some significant commonalities. In institutional theory, the second kind of potential pressure leading to institutional isomorphism--the mimetic mechanism--is reminiscent of the views in diffusion theory about the way in which later adopters eventually imitate the actions of earlier adopters. Both theories might
hypothesize, for example, that an institution lacking innovative IT-related curriculum might observe an institution which does have such curriculum, and adopt the curriculum based on that observation. Diffusion theory and institutional theory would both argue in this case that the organization initially without IT-related curriculum would be modeling its behavior in response to the actions of “opinion leaders” or the behavior of another organization.
Notwithstanding these similarities, the focus and emphasis of institutional theory and diffusion theory differ slightly. Beyond the fact that institutional theory is all- encompassing, whereas diffusion theory focuses more specifically on organizational behavior around innovation, the latter theory also has an explicit hypothesis about the rate at which innovations are adopted over time. In contrast, institutional theory does not explicitly address the temporal aspects of organizational change, for example, theorize about the rate of change or pattern of change of organizational behavior over time.
The comparison now turns to resource dependence theory and its relationship to the others theories. Since resource dependence theory was already compared to institution theory above, I start by comparing it to garbage can theory (row 2, column 3 in Table 2- 1). As one point of commonality, the “stakeholders” concept in the resource dependence theory and “decision participants” in the garbage can theory seem similar. In both cases, the actions of self-interested actors are seen as crucial to the outcome of organizational
behavior. Moreover, resource dependence theory allows for “sense-making” on part of stakeholders of their resource environment, just as different participants in garbage can theory can perceive or define environmental attributes or decision-issues in different ways.
Notwithstanding these similarities, resource dependence theory differs from garbage can theory in seeing organizational behavior as fundamentally linked to the desire to acquire and maintain resources, whereas, garbage can theory allows for more idiosyncratic decision-making outcomes depending on what happens to be dumped in to the decision-making garbage can at any particular moment.
Resource dependence theory also seems to share a common element with one view of organizational response in diffusion theory (row 2, column 4). For example, the enactment process described by Pfeffer and Salancik in resource dependence theory seems similar to the description offered by Newell et al. (2000) of the way organizations unpack the knowledge they have about the outside environment and integrate it within existing organizational structures; specifically, the way in which organizations observe and incorporate knowledge about innovative processes.
Turning to the final comparison between theories which has not yet been made--the relationship between garbage can theory and diffusion theory--it can be observed that although these theories differ in many ways, they have one element in common (row 3, column 4). From a garbage can theoretical perspective, the opinion of leaders could play a role in organizational decision-making, assuming such opinions are expressed in a moment of choice opportunity. In the diffusion theory Rogers proposes, opinion leaders are seen as playing an instrumental role in innovation diffusion.
Conclusion
In this chapter it was seen that the four theories of organizational behavior have different emphases, but also points in common. They each have insight to offer, without being mutually exclusive. The empirical work in the dissertation will draw inspiration from all of these theories, in the hopes that this synthetic, big picture approach will yield greater understanding of the IT-related curriculum adoption process than would the reliance on any one of the theories alone.
Table 2-1: Overlapping Constructs Across Theories Institutional Theory Resource Dependence Theory Garbage Can Theory Diffusion Theory Institutional Theory **** Role of coercive pressure Symbolic meaning of organizational actions Choice opportunities around institutional involvement Role of imitative behavior Resource Dependence Theory **** Role of participants,
decision makers and their preferences and agenda Individualistic interpretation of environmental attributes Enactment Garbage Can Theory **** Emergence of opinion leaders Diffusion Theory ****