1 / 16

BUS 374 – Organization Theory Session 5

BUS 374 – Organization Theory Session 5. Consequences of acting differently. Jack of all trades and master of none – the case of generalist. Generalists vs Specialists Niche width broader for generalists Broader the niche more the audience But a ppeal is lower for broader niche occupants

baruch
Download Presentation

BUS 374 – Organization Theory Session 5

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. BUS 374 – Organization TheorySession 5 Consequences of acting differently

  2. Jack of all trades and master of none – the case of generalist • Generalists vs Specialists • Niche width broader for generalists • Broader the niche more the audience • But appeal is lower for broader niche occupants • So there is a trade-off • How to resolve this? • Audience assessment is the key

  3. Audience expectations and legitimacy • Audience set expectations • They evaluate organizations based on level of fitness to their expectations – greater fitness, greater legitimacy • i.e., conforming to audience expectations provides legitimacy

  4. A study of Hollywood movie makers’ appeal to gatekeepers and audience • Producers have limited resources • Producers can choose to focus on limited or broad audience • i.e., producers could use the same amount of resources to either cater to one genre or multiple genres • All producers aim to cater to a wider audience • But is it acceptable behavior?

  5. The role of the film critics • Critics influence audience interest in a film • How do critics evaluate? • Step 1: Decides if he/she will evaluate a movie • Asks if film is within any of the genres he evaluates • Step 2: Evaluates the movie • Asks how the film fares in comparison to other films in its genre • So a film producers should • First, gain the attention of the critics • Second, increase their appeal

  6. No engagement, no audience • A film caters to a genre only if it engages with the audiences in that genre through different types of promos • Critics will consider a movie for evaluation only if they have been engaged by the film producer • If a film doesn’t engage audience of a genre, it doesn't cater to that audience • So if a genre can be seen as a niche, a film occupies a niche only if it engages with the audience in that genre • Film producers want to engage a wide range of audience • But engagement is a costly affair.

  7. More engagement, more appeal • Given limited resources, film producer have to allocate their engagement with audience carefully • The more genres they engage with, the less they can engage with each. • The less genres they engage with, the more they can engage with each. • i.e., more engagement with a limited audience increases their appeal and less engagement with a wide audience limits their appeal

  8. Some predictions about number of audience and appeal • The more the niches occupied, the larger the audience • The more the niches occupied, the lesser the appeal

  9. Role of consensus • All critics should agree that a movie belongs to a certain genre • But more genres the film producer engages with, the less the consensus among critics • Greater the consensus among critics, the more the number of audience • The greater the consensus among critics, the greater the appeal to focal audience

  10. The model

  11. Limits of new institutionalism – Kraatz and Zajac, 1996 • So is spanning genres always harmful? • A new institutional answer would be, yes!

  12. New institutional expectations • In highly institutionalized organizational fields • Organizations do not deviate from institutional expectations • Organizations do not pay attention to technical environment • If there is any deviation at all, it reinforces homogeneity • Organizations tend to copy high status players • Diversity in local environment does not predict change • Illegitimate change (deviance) is punished • Technical considerations only predict early adopters, late adopters are merely copying the high status early adopters.

  13. Non-profit liberal arts colleges and change in curriculum • They operate under highly structured environments • They are very similar to one another in practices • But… technical requirements are changing in the environment • Shift in student life goals – from meaningful life to wealth • Emphasis on specialized skills • Decline in college-age students • But adapting to such technical changes will be viewed as deviant

  14. Did they deviate? • Yes, they did… • Towards a more vocational curriculum • More in tune with changing student life expectations • But less homogeneity due to this change • Greater variation in types of vocational programs offered • Increasing divide between identity of low and high status liberal arts colleges • Low status became more professionalized • Organizational change did result from diversity in environmental demand • Greater reliance on fee based income than endowments adapted most to new student expectations • Deviance did not significantly decrease survival rate • Motivation for early and late adopters of change was not significantly different

  15. So does deviance hurt? • Audience is the key! • Audience provide vital resources for survival • Appealing to audience is crucial • More so, when an organization is more reliant on its audience • If audience want predictability, deviance hurts • If audience demand change, deviance pays, or at least doesn't hurt

  16. That’s it for today • For next session: How do organizations evolve?

More Related