What Unit or Level?Legitimation pro

What Unit or Level?

Legitimation processes operating on organizations may be considered on several levels: (1) entire organizational populations, (2) individual organizations, or (3) subunits and specialized aspects of organizations, Ecological as well as many institutional approaches focus attention on the legitimation of organizational populations, collections of organizations exhibiting a given structure or form. Population ecologists such as Carroll and Hannan (1989) have used population density, or prevalence, as an indicator of cognitive legitimacy. They argued that organizational density serves as an indicator of the cognitive status of the form, the extent to which it is taken for granted, the degree to which "relevant actors regard it as the 'natural' way to organize for some purpose" (1989: 525), Critics of this interpretation (e.q. Zucker, 1989; Baum and Powell, 1995) have expressed concern about the indirect nature of this indicator legitimacy is inferred from density rather than directly assessed but to date there have been few attempts to develop more direct measures at this level. One notable exception is a recent study by Hybels, Ryan, and Barley (1994), which examined the impact of the numbers of articles in the business press dealing with biotechnology on the founding rates of U.S. biotechnology firms. They measured the net rate of favorable to unfavorable articles as an indicator of cumulative legitimacy during the period 1971 to 1989 and showed it to be positively correlated with founding rates. A different approach to assessing population-level legitimacy was developed by Baum and Oliver (1992), who examined the institutional embedding of day care centers the extent of relations between centers and various sources of legitimacy and resources and its effects on survival at both the overall population and individual organization levels.

Whether or not an organizational form is regarded as legitimate, organizations within a population may also vary in their conformity to rules or norms or cultural models. Much re- search has been devoted to examining legitimation at the level of the individual organization, as can be seen in the fol- lowing three examples, one for each type of legitimacy. Research by Kimberly (1975), examining the cultural models employed by rehabilitation centers in New York City, suggested that organizations must reflect changes in cognitive frameworks if they are going to receive community support. The importance of normative legitimacy was examined by Singh, Tucker, and House (1986) in their study of the influence of state registration and municipal directory listings on the survival of a sample of community service organizations. And Deephouse (1996) has examined regulative legitimacy,in particular, the effects of actions by state regulatory agencies on commercial banks, including endorsement based on the assessment of a bank's capital and the extent of enforcement actions taken against a bank.

Subunits or functions within an organization can also be the focus of legitimation processes. Accreditation agents may certify individual schools or departments as well as entire universities, and the NCAA provides normative guidelines for athletic programs within colleges (Stern, 1979). Edelman (1992) and Dobbin et al. (1993) have examined legitimacy effects associated with the presence and nature of affirmative action offices in organizations. The specialized and differentiated nature of modern organizations encourages the development of multiple, quasi-independent sources attending to one or another of these systems, and, conversely, diverse environmental sources simultaneously encourage differentiation within organizations as well.

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

Unit atau tingkat apa?Legitimation processes operating on organizations may be considered on several levels: (1) entire organizational populations, (2) individual organizations, or (3) subunits and specialized aspects of organizations, Ecological as well as many institutional approaches focus attention on the legitimation of organizational populations, collections of organizations exhibiting a given structure or form. Population ecologists such as Carroll and Hannan (1989) have used population density, or prevalence, as an indicator of cognitive legitimacy. They argued that organizational density serves as an indicator of the cognitive status of the form, the extent to which it is taken for granted, the degree to which "relevant actors regard it as the 'natural' way to organize for some purpose" (1989: 525), Critics of this interpretation (e.q. Zucker, 1989; Baum and Powell, 1995) have expressed concern about the indirect nature of this indicator legitimacy is inferred from density rather than directly assessed but to date there have been few attempts to develop more direct measures at this level. One notable exception is a recent study by Hybels, Ryan, and Barley (1994), which examined the impact of the numbers of articles in the business press dealing with biotechnology on the founding rates of U.S. biotechnology firms. They measured the net rate of favorable to unfavorable articles as an indicator of cumulative legitimacy during the period 1971 to 1989 and showed it to be positively correlated with founding rates. A different approach to assessing population-level legitimacy was developed by Baum and Oliver (1992), who examined the institutional embedding of day care centers the extent of relations between centers and various sources of legitimacy and resources and its effects on survival at both the overall population and individual organization levels.Whether or not an organizational form is regarded as legitimate, organizations within a population may also vary in their conformity to rules or norms or cultural models. Much re- search has been devoted to examining legitimation at the level of the individual organization, as can be seen in the fol- lowing three examples, one for each type of legitimacy. Research by Kimberly (1975), examining the cultural models employed by rehabilitation centers in New York City, suggested that organizations must reflect changes in cognitive frameworks if they are going to receive community support. The importance of normative legitimacy was examined by Singh, Tucker, and House (1986) in their study of the influence of state registration and municipal directory listings on the survival of a sample of community service organizations. And Deephouse (1996) has examined regulative legitimacy,in particular, the effects of actions by state regulatory agencies on commercial banks, including endorsement based on the assessment of a bank's capital and the extent of enforcement actions taken against a bank.Subunits or functions within an organization can also be the focus of legitimation processes. Accreditation agents may certify individual schools or departments as well as entire universities, and the NCAA provides normative guidelines for athletic programs within colleges (Stern, 1979). Edelman (1992) and Dobbin et al. (1993) have examined legitimacy effects associated with the presence and nature of affirmative action offices in organizations. The specialized and differentiated nature of modern organizations encourages the development of multiple, quasi-independent sources attending to one or another of these systems, and, conversely, diverse environmental sources simultaneously encourage differentiation within organizations as well.

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 2:

? Apa Satuan atau Tingkat proses Legitimasi operasi pada organisasi dapat dianggap pada beberapa tingkatan: (1) seluruh populasi organisasi, (2) organisasi individu, atau (3) subunit dan aspek khusus dari organisasi, Ecological serta banyak pendekatan institusional memusatkan perhatian pada legitimasi dari populasi organisasi, koleksi organisasi menunjukkan struktur tertentu atau bentuk. Ekologi populasi seperti Carroll dan Hannan (1989) telah menggunakan kepadatan penduduk, atau prevalensi, sebagai indikator legitimasi kognitif. Mereka berpendapat bahwa kepadatan organisasi berfungsi sebagai indikator status kognitif formulir, sejauh mana itu diambil untuk diberikan, sejauh mana "aktor yang relevan menganggapnya sebagai cara 'alami' untuk mengatur untuk beberapa tujuan" (1989 : 525), Kritik penafsiran ini (eq Zucker, 1989; Baum dan Powell, 1995) telah menyatakan keprihatinan tentang sifat tidak langsung legitimasi indikator ini disimpulkan dari kepadatan daripada dinilai secara langsung tetapi sampai saat ini telah ada beberapa upaya untuk mengembangkan lebih tindakan langsung pada tingkat ini. Satu pengecualian adalah sebuah penelitian terbaru oleh Hybels, Ryan, dan Barley (1994), yang meneliti dampak dari jumlah artikel di media bisnis yang berhubungan dengan bioteknologi pada tingkat pendiri perusahaan bioteknologi AS. Mereka mengukur tingkat bersih menguntungkan untuk artikel tidak menguntungkan sebagai indikator legitimasi kumulatif selama periode 1971-1989 dan menunjukkan berkorelasi positif dengan tingkat pendiri. Sebuah pendekatan yang berbeda untuk menilai tingkat populasi legitimasi dikembangkan oleh Baum dan Oliver (1992), yang meneliti embedding kelembagaan penitipan Pusat tingkat hubungan antara pusat dan berbagai sumber legitimasi dan sumber daya dan dampaknya pada kelangsungan hidup baik pada keseluruhan populasi dan tingkat organisasi individu. Apakah atau tidak bentuk organisasi dianggap sebagai sah, organisasi dalam suatu populasi juga dapat bervariasi sesuai untuk aturan atau norma-norma atau model budaya. Banyak riset telah dikhususkan untuk memeriksa legitimasi di tingkat organisasi individu, seperti dapat dilihat pada berikut ini tiga contoh, satu untuk setiap jenis legitimasi. Penelitian oleh Kimberly (1975), meneliti model budaya yang digunakan oleh pusat-pusat rehabilitasi di New York City, menyarankan bahwa organisasi harus mencerminkan perubahan dalam kerangka kognitif jika mereka akan menerima dukungan masyarakat. Pentingnya legitimasi normatif diperiksa oleh Singh, Tucker, dan Rumah (1986) dalam studi mereka dari pengaruh pendaftaran negara dan daftar direktori kota pada kelangsungan hidup dari sampel organisasi pelayanan masyarakat. Dan Deephouse (1996) telah memeriksa legitimasi regulatif, khususnya, efek dari tindakan oleh lembaga pengawas negara pada bank umum, termasuk pengesahan berdasarkan penilaian dari modal bank dan luasnya tindakan penegakan diambil terhadap bank. Subunit atau fungsi dalam suatu organisasi juga dapat menjadi fokus proses legitimasi. Agen akreditasi dapat mengesahkan sekolah atau departemen individual maupun seluruh universitas, dan NCAA memberikan pedoman normatif untuk program atletik dalam perguruan tinggi (Stern, 1979). Edelman (1992) dan Dobbin dkk. (1993) telah meneliti efek legitimasi terkait dengan keberadaan dan sifat kantor tindakan afirmatif dalam organisasi. Sifat khusus dan dibedakan dari organisasi modern mendorong pengembangan beberapa, sumber kuasi-independen menghadiri untuk satu atau lain dari sistem ini, dan, sebaliknya, sumber lingkungan beragam secara bersamaan mendorong diferensiasi dalam organisasi juga.