Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2rsb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T06:27:09.777Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Structural Isomorphism in Australian Nonprofit Organizations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Jeffrey Leiter
Jeffrey Leiter*
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology and Anthropology and Institute for Nonprofits, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, United StatesCentre of Philanthropy and Non-Profit Studies, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia
*
3Correspondence should be directed to Jeffrey Leiter, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27695-8107; e-mail: jeff_leiter@ncsu.edu.
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper assesses the extent of structural similarity or isomorphism among nonprofit organizations in Australia. Based on neo-institutional theory, the paper explains such isomorphism in terms of these organizations’ subordination and dependency, the uncertainties they face, and the networks of experts of which they are a part. The analysis uses the nonprofit component of a 2001-2002 random sample of Australian employment organizations. It finds surprisingly little isomorphism in this subsample and few differences in isomorphism according to the level of the factors thought to produce similarity. The discussion of the findings focuses on the suitability of the nonprofit sector as the appropriate organizational field within which isomorphism involving these organizations is likely to be produced. Industries, which include all organizations that produce the same product or service, be they nonprofit, for-profit, or government, may be more appropriate interactional fields for the development of isomorphism.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article étudie la similarité structurelle ou isomorphisme au sein des organisations à but non lucratif en Australie. S’appuyant sur la théorie néoinstitutionnelle, il explique un tel isomorphisme par la dépendance et la subordination de ces organisations, les incertitudes auxquelles elles doivent faire face et les réseaux d’experts dont elles sont un maillon. L’analyse utilise un échantillon aléatoire réalisé en 2001-2002 d’organisations australiennes bénévoles oeuvrant dans l’aide à l’emploi. L’analyse trouve étonnamment peu d’isomorphisme dans cet échantillon et peu de différence d’isomorphisme selon le niveau des facteurs supposés produire des similarités. La discussion de ces découvertes porte sur la pertinence du secteur à but non lucratif en tant que champ organisationnel approprié au sein duquel l’isomorphisme impliquant ces organisations est susceptible de ce produire. Les industries qui incluent toutes les organisations produisant le même produit ou service, fussent-elles du secteur lucratif, non lucratif ou gouvernementale pourraient s’avérer des champs interactionnels plus appropriés pour le développement de l’isomorphisme.

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Aufsatz betrachtet das Ausmaß struktureller Ähnlichkeit oder Isomorphie unter gemeinnützigen Organisationen in Australien. Auf einem neoinstitutionellen Theorieansatz basierend, erklärt der Aufsatz Isomorphien im Hinblick auf Unterordnung und Abhängigkeit dieser Organisationen, die Unsicherheiten, denen sie sich gegenüber sehen und der Expertennetzwerke, von denen sie ein Teil sind. Die Analyse verwendet die gemeinnützige Komponente einer 2001-2002-Zufallsstichprobe australischer Arbeitsorganisationen. In dieser Stichprobe wurde überraschend wenig Isomorphie gefunden, es gibt nur geringfügige Unterschiede im Niveau der Faktoren, von denen man annimmt, dass sie Ähnlicheit produzieren. Die Diskussion der Ergebnisse konzentriert sich im Wesentlichen darauf, inwieweit der gemeinnützige Sektor das geeignete Organisationsfeld zur Untersuchung der Entstehung diese Organisationen betreffender Isomorphien ist. Demzufolge sind Geschäftsfelder, die alle dasselbe Produkt oder dieselbe Dienstleistung produzierende Organisationstypen einschließen, seien sie gemeinnützige, gewinnorientierte oder Regierungsorganisationen, möglicherweise geeignetere Interaktionsfelder für die Entwicklung von Isomorphien.

Resumen

Resumen

Este artículo valora el alcance de la semejanza estructural o isomorfismo entre las organizaciones no lucrativas en Australia. Basado en la teoría neo-institucional, el artículo explica tal isomorfismo en términos de la subordinación y dependencia de estas organizaciones, las incertidumbres a las que hace frente, y la red de expertos de las cuales forman parte. El análisis utiliza el componente no lucrativo de una muestra seleccionada al azar 2001-2002 de organizaciones de empleo australianas. Sorprendentemente descubre poco isomorfismo en esta muestra y pocas diferencias en el isomorfismo conforme al nivel de los factores que se pensaban producirían semejanzas. El tratamiento de los descubrimientos se centra en la idoneidad del sector no lucrativo como el campo organizativo apropiado dentro del cual el isomorfismo que envuelve estas organizaciones es probable que se produzca. Las industrias, las cuales incluyen todas las organizaciones que producen el mismo producto o servicio, ya sea lucrativo, no lucrativo o gubernamental, puede ser un campo de interacción más apropiado para el desarrollo del isomorfismo.

Keywords

isomorphismnonprofit organizationsneo-institutional theoryAustralia

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , March 2005, pp. 1 - 31
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abzug, R. (1999). Nonprofits in organizational sociology’s research traditions: An empirical study. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 28, 330–338.10.1177/0899764099283006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abzug, R., and Galaskiewicz, J. (2001). Nonprofit boards: Crucibles of expertise or symbols of local identities? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 30, 51–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anheier, H. K. (2003). Dimensions of the nonprofit sector. In Anheier, H. K. and Ben-Ner, A. (eds.), The Study of Nonprofit Enterprise: Theories and Approaches, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, pp. 247–276.10.1007/978-1-4615-0131-2_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barman, E. A. (2002). Asserting difference: The strategic response of nonprofit organizations to competition. Social Forces 80, 1191–1222.10.1353/sof.2002.0020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bedeian, A. G., and Mossholder, K. W. (2000). On the use of the coefficient of variation as a measure of diversity. Organizational Research Methods 3, 285–297.10.1177/109442810033005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bidwell, C. (2001). Analyzing schools as organizations: Long-term permanence and short-term change. Sociology of Education 74(Extra Issue), 100–114.10.2307/2673256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bielefeld, W. (1992). Non-profit-funding environment relations: Theory and application. Voluntas 3, 48–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, W., Deakin, S., Nash, D., and Oxenbridge, S. (2000). The employment contract: From collective procedures to individual rights. British Journal of Industrial Relations 38, 611–629.10.1111/1467-8543.00182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, C. F., and Tuckman, H. P. (1994). Revenue diversification among non-profits. Voluntas 5, 273–290.10.1007/BF02354036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleary, M. (2001). The Management Dilemmas in Catholic Human Service Organisations (Health, Welfare and Education) in Australia, Dissertation, School of Management, Faculty of Business, University of Technology, Sydney.Google Scholar
Darr, A., and Stern, R. N. (2002). Coopting change toward industrial democracy: Professionals as agents of structural constraint. Sociological Inquiry 72, 171–194.10.1111/1475-682X.00012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiMaggio, P. J., and Anheier, H. K. (1990). The sociology of nonprofit organizations and sectors. Annual Review of Sociology 16, 137–159.Google Scholar
DiMaggio, P. J., and Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48, 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerth, H., and Mills, C. W. (1946). From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Hall, P. D. (1994). Historical perspectives on nonprofit organizations. In Herman, R. D. and Associates (eds.), The Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, pp. 3–43.Google Scholar
Hannan, M. T., and Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology 82, 929–964.10.1086/226424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannan, M. T., and Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review 49, 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansmann, H. B. (1986). The role of nonprofit enterprise. In Rose-Ackerman, S. (ed.), The Economics of Nonprofit Institutions: Studies in Structure and Policy, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 57–84.Google Scholar
Commission, Industry. (1995). Charitable Organizations in Australia, Australian Government Publishing Service, Melbourne.Google Scholar
Kalleberg, A. L., Marsden, P. V., Aldrich, H. E., and Cassell, J. W. (1990). Comparing organizational sampling frames. Administrative Science Quarterly 35, 658–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalleberg, A. L., Marsden, P. V., Knoke, D., and Spaeth, J. L. (1996). Formalizing the employment relation: Internal labor markets and dispute resolution procedures. In Kalleberg, A. L., Knoke, D., Marsden, P. V., and Spaeth, J. L. (eds.), Organizations in America: Analyzing Their Structures and Human Resource Practices, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 87–112.Google Scholar
Kanter, R. M., and Summers, D. V. (1987). Doing well while doing good: Dilemmas of performance measurement in nonprofit organizations and the need for a multiple-constituency approach. In Powell, W. W. (ed.), The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook, Yale University Press, New Haven, pp. 154–166.Google Scholar
Knapp, M., and Davis Smith, J. (1995). Who Volunteers and Why? The Key Factors Which Determine Volunteering, Personal Social Services Research Unit at the University of Kent and the Volunteer Centre, London, UK.Google Scholar
Kramer, R. M. (1994). Voluntary agencies and the contract culture: “Dream or nightmare?” Social Service Review 68, 33–60.10.1086/604032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lammers, J. C. (1990). The effect of competition on labor management in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 19, 171–186.Google Scholar
Levene, H. (1960). Robust tests for equality of variances. In Olkin, I. (ed.), Contributions to Probability and Statistics: Essays in Honor of Harold Hotelling, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, pp. 278–292.Google Scholar
Lounsbury, M. (2001). Institutional sources of practice variation: Staffing college and university recycling. Administrative Science Quarterly 46, 29–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lune, H., and Martinez, M. (1999). Old structures, new relations: How community development credit unions define organizational boundaries. Sociological Forum 14, 609–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, M. (2001). Third Sector: The Contribution of Nonprofit and Cooperative Enterprises in Australia, Allen Unwin, Crows Nest, NSW, Australia.Google Scholar
Lyons, M., and Hocking, S. (2000). Dimensions of Australia s Third Sector: Report of the Australian Nonprofit Data Project, Centre for Australian Community Organisations and Management (CACOM), University of Technology, Sydney.Google Scholar
Lyons, M., Hocking, S., Hems, L., and Salamon, L. M. (1999). Australia. In Salamon, L. M., Anheier, H. K., List, R., Toepler, S., Sokolowski, S. W., and Associates (eds.), Global Civil Society: Dimensions of the Nonprofit Sector, Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies, Baltimore, MD, pp. 203–217.Google Scholar
Lyons, M., and Nyland, J. (1995). Supporting the Managers: An Analysis of the Management Support Needs of Community Organisations and Proposals for Better Meeting These Needs, Centre for Community Organisations and Management (CACOM), University of Technology, Sydney.Google Scholar
May, J. (1996). The role of peak bodies in a civil society. In Farrar, A., and Inglis, J. (eds.), Keeping It Together: State and Civil Society in Australia, Pluto Press Australia, Leichhardt, NSW, pp. 245272.Google Scholar
Mcllwee, J. S., and Robinson, J. G. (1992). Women in Engineering: Gender, Power, and Workplace Culture, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.Google Scholar
Melville, R. (1999). Nonprofit umbrella organisations in a contracting regime: A comparative review of Australian, British and American literature and experience. International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law 1(4). .Google Scholar
Melville, R. (2003). Changing Roles of Community Sector Peak Bodies in a Neo-Liberal Policy Environment in Australia: An ARC Funded Study (2000-2002), Institute of Social Change and Critical Inquiry, Faculty of Arts, University of Wollongong, Wollongong.Google Scholar
Meyer, J. W., and Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83, 340–363.10.1086/226550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrill, C., and McKee, C. (1993). Institutional isomorphism and informal social control: Evidence from a community mediation center. Social Problems 40, 445–463.10.2307/3096861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, C. W., De Coster, S., and Estes, S. B. (2001). Sexual harassment in the workplace: Unanticipated consequences of modern social control in organizations. Work and Occupations 28, 411–446.10.1177/0730888401028004003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muetzelfeldt, M. (1998). Governments and the non-profit sector: A comment. Third Sector Review 4, 119–123.Google Scholar
Mulhare, E. M. (1999). Mindful of the future: Strategic planning ideology and the culture of nonprofit management. Human Organization 58, 323–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nowland-Foreman, G. (1998). Purchase-of-service contracting, voluntary organizations, and civil society. American Behavioral Scientist 42, 108–123.10.1177/0002764298042001009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, C. (1988). The collective strategy framework: An application to competing predictions of isomorphism. Administrative Science Quarterly 33, 543–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peyrot, M. (1991). Institutional and organizational dynamics in community-based drug abuse treatment. Social Problems 38, 20–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeffer, J., and Salancik, G. R. (1978). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective, Harper and Row, New York.Google Scholar
Plastrik, P, and Taylor, M. (2004). Network Power for Philanthropy and Nonprofits (Draft 4.1), Barr Foundation Network Research Project, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Pynes, J. E. (1997). The anticipated growth of nonprofit unionism. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 7, 355–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riiskjaer, S., and Nielsen, K. (1987). Financial dependence and organizational autonomy: The economy of voluntary sport in Denmark. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 22, 193208.Google Scholar
Rowan, B. (1982). Organizational structure and the institutional environment: The case of public schools. Administrative Science Quarterly 27, 259–279.10.2307/2392303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheid-Cook, T. L. (1992). Organizational enactments and conformity to environmental prescriptions. Human Relations 45, 537–554.Google Scholar
Siciliano, J. I. (1997). The relationship between formal planning and performance in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 7, 387–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skoldberg, K. (1991). Strategic change in Swedish higher education. Higher Education 21, 551572.10.1007/BF00134988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steane, P. (2001). Governance: Convergent expectations, divergent practices. Corporate Governance 1, 15–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steane, P. D., and Christie, M. (2001). Nonprofit boards in Australia: A distinctive governance approach. Corporate Governance 9, 48–58.10.1111/1467-8683.00225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stinchcombe, A. (1965). Social structure and organizations. In March, J. G. (ed.), Handbook of Organizations, Rand-McNally, Chicago, pp. 142–193.Google Scholar
Tomaskovic-Devey, D., Kalleberg, A. L., and Marsden, P. V. (1996). Organizational patterns of gender segregation. In Kalleberg, A. L., Knoke, D., Marsden, P. V., and Spaeth, J. L. (eds.), Organizations in America, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 276–301.Google Scholar
Tomaskovic-Devey, D., Leiter, J., and Thompson, S. (1994). Organizational survey nonresponse. Administrative Science Quarterly 39, 439–457.Google Scholar
Australia, Volunteering Western. (2001). Volunteering in Western Australia: Trends and Patterns 1995 to 2000, Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Government of Western Australia, Perth.Google Scholar
Weisbrod, B. A. (1986). Toward a theory of the voluntary nonprofit sector in a three-sector economy. In Rose-Ackerman, S. (ed.), The Economics of Nonprofit Institutions: Studies in Structure and Policy, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 21–44.Google Scholar
Western, B. (1997). Between Class and Market: Postwar Unionization in the Capitalist Democracies, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.10.1515/9780691214573CrossRefGoogle Scholar