In her paper, the author comes from the idea that there is not one definition of legitimacy and try to summarize the arguments on what legitimacy is. Boyd (2000) suggests that legitimacy is dependent on social structure, systems and norms and that legitimation is a social process, however it is not clear how large a part of the social system must confer its approval for an organisation. These statements she also analyses.
In her paper she argues that there is a plethora of theories analysing the gaining of legitimacy, however the process of gaining legitimacy and its establishment depends on diverse factors. To support the argument, she has researched and compared various theories and thus discussed different aspects on how legitimacy is gained. The paper is organised as follows: firstly, she will sum up the theories on what legitimacy means and how is it approached by different authors. Secondly, she discusses the questions of actors and who establishes legitimacy, then I focus on the theories about what role do resources play in establishing legitimacy and lastly, I analyse the approach of legitimacy as a constraint.
Another thesis underlying her paper is from Deephouse (1996) who argues that organizational legitimacy is defined as a status conferred by social actors. He states that legitimacy depends on the perspective of a particular social actor, whose values and expectations for action should be congruent with the aspiring legitimate organisation. Moreover, the social actors approve legitimacy for an organisation, where only certain actors have the authority to confer legitimacy, however they need to be identified first. In her seminar paper she also discusses Hybels (1995) who theorizes that legitimation comes from the actors through conferral of resources and communication of positive reputation, however she points out the resource-based view from Tilling (2010) where he suggests that legitimacy is an operational resource too. During her research, she discussed several authors who research the aspects of legitimacy important for her paper. Suchman (1995) and Hamidu (2015) who analyse the concept of legitimacy, Dowling and Pfeffer (1975) who address the importance of resources and the idea of legitimacy as a constraint, Hybels (1995) whose work opposes the argument about resources of the two authors, and other authors who contribute to her topic.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. What is legitimacy?
3. Who establishes legitimacy?
4. Legitimacy and resources
5. Legitimacy as a constraint
6. Conclusion
Research Objective and Key Topics
This paper explores the multifaceted concept of organizational legitimacy by synthesizing various theoretical approaches. It investigates the mechanisms through which organizations gain, maintain, and manage legitimacy, aiming to clarify how different social actors, resource dependencies, and environmental constraints shape the legitimation process.
- The role of social norms, values, and beliefs in defining legitimacy.
- The identification of critical actors (state, public, media) in the legitimation process.
- Legitimacy as an operational resource versus a contextual constraint.
- The strategic actions organizations take to align with institutional expectations.
Excerpt from the Publication
1. Introduction
Many social and political scientists agree that organizational legitimacy is a central concept in organizational theory – legitimacy was a topic of social theorists such as Dowling and Pfeffer (1975), Deephouse (2018), Parsons (1960), Suchman (1995) and others. According to Ruef and Scott (1998) was Max Weber among the first social theorists to stress the importance of legitimacy. In his theory on the types of social action, he gave particular attention to those forms of action that were guided by a belief in the existence of a legitimate order: a set of “determinable maxims”, a model regarded by the actor as in some way obligatory or exemplary for the actor himself. In his work, Weber applied the concept to the legitimation of power structures, both corporate and governmental. Boyd (2000) discusses Stillman (1974) who acknowledged that there is no consensus definition of legitimacy but generalized that a government is legitimate if the results of governmental output are compatible with the value pattern of the society. He argues that legitimacy is (usually) a part of an institution that acts in accordance with public values.
In my paper, I come from this idea that there is not one definition of legitimacy and try to summarize the arguments on what legitimacy is. Boyd (2000) suggests that legitimacy is dependent on social structure, systems and norms and that legitimation is a social process, however it is not clear how large a part of the social system must confer its approval for an organisation; these statements I also analyse. Another thesis underlying my paper is from Deephouse (1996) who argues that organizational legitimacy is defined as a status conferred by social actors. He states that legitimacy depends on the perspective of a particular social actor, whose values and expectations for action should be congruent with the aspiring legitimate organization.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the significance of organizational legitimacy as a central concept in organizational theory and introduces the author's research question regarding how organizations gain legitimacy.
2. What is legitimacy?: Explores various theoretical definitions of legitimacy, highlighting the importance of norms, values, and the distinction between legitimation and legality.
3. Who establishes legitimacy?: Identifies critical internal and external actors, such as the state, the public, and the media, that play a pivotal role in conferring or withholding legitimacy.
4. Legitimacy and resources: Examines the complex relationship between resource acquisition and legitimation, discussing whether legitimacy is an operational resource or a symbolic context of exchange.
5. Legitimacy as a constraint: Analyzes how legitimacy functions as a dynamic constraint that shapes organizational behavior, goals, and adaptation strategies in response to social pressure.
6. Conclusion: Summarizes the key findings, emphasizing that the process of legitimation is complex, context-dependent, and influenced by a variety of heterogeneous factors.
Keywords
Organizational legitimacy, legitimation, social norms, stakeholders, organizational theory, resource-based view, institutional approach, social action, organizational environment, constraint, corporate governance, organizational survival, public values.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this paper?
The paper examines how organizations gain and maintain legitimacy, focusing on the synthesis of various social science theories regarding organizational behavior and social approval.
What are the primary themes discussed?
The main themes include definitions of legitimacy, the role of external actors like the public and media, the intersection of legitimacy with resource acquisition, and the limiting impact of legitimacy as a social constraint.
What is the primary research question?
The overarching research question is: "How do organizations gain legitimacy?"
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The author employs a qualitative literature review and comparative theory analysis, synthesizing arguments from influential researchers such as Dowling, Pfeffer, Suchman, and Hybels.
What topics are covered in the main body of the paper?
The main body systematically covers the definitions of legitimacy, the actors involved in the legitimation process, the role of resources, and the concept of legitimacy as a constraint on organizational actions.
Which keywords characterize the work?
The paper is characterized by terms such as organizational legitimacy, legitimation, stakeholders, resource-based view, and social norms.
How does Hybels theorize the link between resources and legitimacy?
Hybels suggests that resource flows are evidence of legitimation, where each act of exchange serves as an ongoing act of social approval and consent for the organization.
What does the author conclude regarding the "resource-based view" of legitimacy?
The author notes that while some theorists view legitimacy as an operational resource similar to capital, others argue it is a contextual condition, illustrating the complexity of how legitimacy is managed and perceived.
How do organizations handle the constraints imposed by legitimacy?
Organizations often adapt their goals, outputs, and communication strategies to align with social expectations, or they attempt to align themselves with established legitimate institutions.
Why is the "media" considered a critical actor in this study?
The media is highlighted as a critical actor because it operates within an institutional framework that evaluates the actions of organizations, thereby influencing public perception and resource allocation.
- Quote paper
- Anna Steinbachova (Author), 2019, How Do Organisations Gain Legitimacy? Legitimacy as Social Process, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/941760
