The drivers of imprinting

A key feature embodied in the idea of imprinting is the persistence of various organizational traits acquired at the time of founding. Hannan and Freeman (1984) argue that once organizations adopt specific strategies and practices, it is difficult to dismantle these due to the difficulty of reversing investments and structural inertia. Simply put, in order to secure reliability and accountability agents repeat the same decisions as were made in the past.

Ͷͺ

These ideas have been further developed by organizational ecologists who argue that the persistence of various organizational features can be attributed to three powerful and complementary forces (Marquis and Tilcsik 2013).

Forces of inertia play a major role in the persistence of organizational imprints by locking-in organizational traits.

The institutionalization of norms, beliefs and practices contributes to the persistence and reproduction of organizational imprints.

Other traditionalizing forces including vested interests may perpetuate the existing organizational structures and processes. Furthermore, these forces are not mutually exclusive and may either work alone or in tandem to induce persistence of various attributes of an organization.

“Structural inertia” is defined as the persistent resistance of an organization to change in response to a changing environment (Hannan and Freeman 1984).

However, there is no fixed theory that explicitly explains the causes of structural inertia. Some of the main historical approaches employed to understand inertia include path dependence, imprinting, or commitment with an organization.

According to Hannan and Freeman (1984), the forces that contribute to structural inertia may be internal and/or external to the organization. There are several internal factors that can lead to structural inertia in organizations. For example, an organization may have incurred sunk costs in its systems, work methods, and personnel training which may force the organization to adhere to its original structures and processes. Similarly, the dynamics of political coalitions within an organization may prevent change in business strategies and modes of operations.

Another important force that is internal to an organization and contributes to

Ͷͻ

structural inertia is the tendency for established norms, processes and values to become normative standards and hence difficult to change. The external factors that can lead to structural inertia include regulations that govern the activities of an organization, inter-organizational relations, and the threat of losing legitimacy in response to radical change.

A multi-disciplinary literature under the rubric of ‘new institutionalism in organizational analysis’ draws on economic, social and cultural explanations for the institutionalization and hence persistence of various organizational norms, beliefs, strategies, attitudes and routines (Powell and DiMaggio 1991). Meyer and Rowan (1991) delineate the institutionalization processes through which organizational traits and behaviours assume a rule-like status and become embedded in social thought and action. Organizations tend to incorporate these institutionalized rules in their structures to acquire resources and legitimacy that could lead to better chances for their survival. Jepperson (1991, p. 145) views the process of institutionalization as a social pattern that has a built-in reproductive process that resists change. Seen in this light, institutions can reproduce themselves not by action but by ‘self-activating social processes’ that contribute to the persistence of organizational characteristics.

Powell (1991), on the other hand, takes a broader view of institutional reproduction and highlights four avenues of institutional reproduction including the exercise of power, complex inter-dependencies, taken-for-granted assumptions, and path-dependent development processes. To elaborate, organizational characteristics may persist through the deliberate efforts of individuals who have the power to control organizational processes and who have an interest in maintaining the system. Organizational routines and processes may also persist due to

ͷͲ

organizational inter-dependencies that create complex linkages making it difficult to change one aspect without disturbing the whole chain. One example of such persistence of organizational forms is the reluctance of US automakers to revamp their assembly lines even in the face of declining demand for big cars (Powell 1991).

Similarly, organizational routines can persist as taken-for-granted rules, which become accepted practice. Finally institutional arrangements may become difficult to move due to path-dependence that makes such arrangements increasingly viable due to increasing returns and positive feedback mechanisms.

To sum up, a diverse body of literature has explored how the external environmental context imprints organizations and how such imprints tend to persist over time. Organizations are particularly sensitive to imprints of the external environment at the time of founding because they are not saddled by any historical baggage and hence are open to the adoption of new forms, practices and strategies. The social and institutional context prevailing at the time of founding dictates the viability of particular organizational forms and defines the constraints and resources that determine operational scope, strategies and capabilities of the organizations. As organizations strive to achieve a fit with their external environment, they acquire specific attributes that range from organizational hardware such as technological apparatus and routines, human resources and business methods, right up to the software of the organizations such as norms, values, attitudes and beliefs. With the passage of time, such organizational characteristics become embedded in the organizational culture and tend to persist because of the forces of structural inertia and institutionalization. These insights have been applied not only to understand the genesis of organizational forms,

ͷͳ

structures and attributes in terms of their historical and institutional contexts but also to seek plausible explanations for why organizations exhibit a tendency to remain locked-in to their past structures, routines and practices despite the availability of better options. By using a multi-disciplinary approach that incorporates economic, sociological and organizational perspectives, the literature on organizational imprinting contributes to a broader understanding of the role of historical and institutional factors in shaping organizations.