The sector divisions and organizational identities
It has occurred to me in the course of revising a work in progress that in the general literature on organizations there is surprisingly little discussion of sector differences or governance differences as mediating or conditioning the impacts of some of our fundamental theories. Neoinstitutionalism, resource dependency and population ecology are just some theories or orienting frameworks which come to mind. Most of the discussion regarding the role of sector differences is restricted to the nonprofits and public administration literature; when it does occur or get mentioned within the broader organizations literature it is usually in the form of a control variable in analysis.
Why is it that organizational researchers have been lax in examining this question? (Or have I simply been looking in the wrong places?)Why is this not a question in the broader literature? Why is it restricted to the small subsection of nonprofits? If researchers are truly interested in developing theories of organizational behavior shouldn’t we take into account this fundamental aspect that creates heterogeneity within organizational fields/markets and populations?
This issue becomes increasingly interesting given the growing interest within the field in categories of organizations and organizational identities. Recent work by Greta Hsu, Michael T. Hannan, Ezra Zuckerman, and others has focused on organizations and the impacts of the different identities on an organization’s likelihood of success in a given industry or field. It seems to me that this has direct relevance for both the issue of sector differences as well as higher education, which as I mentioned is my field of interest. This is in fact one of the issues that I will be examining in my dissertation research. Hopefully I can shed some light on the role of sector differences and multiple identities on higher education institutions and organizations more generally. Bringing these two issues together will hopefully aid in bridging this gap in the organizations literature.
