Isomorphism in the Nonprofit Sector
Nonprofit organizations have similarities and differences. However, the differences and similarities may or may not be related. The comparison of nonprofit organizations is done through different aspects and not only aims at seeking for structures of overcoming inefficiency but also creating a legitimate environment. Initially, bureaucratization and rationalization used to exist in the competitive marketplaces. However, the state and professional sectors have witnessed a growing wave of rationalization and bureaucratization. The emergence of paradox institutions is associated with competition of existing institutions.
Moreover, similarity among institutions grows as actors attempt to change their institutions using structures employed by other institutions. Isomorphism occurs in three different ways: coercive, mimetic and normative (AbouAssi & Bies, 2018). The employment of isomorphism in the analysis of sameness in organizations uses the assumption that external factors are responsible for the pressure that institutions go through. Nonprofit organizations need to come up with strategies of conforming to legitimacy to survive the wave of isomorphism. Isomorphism explains the way nonprofit institutions develop internal structures in a bid to survive while considering the impact of external factors.
Isomorphic conformity is crucial in the survival of nonprofit organizations. Generally, nonprofit organizations work with precautions of running out of finances since the activities of the organizations are not expected to provide revenue. Although isomorphism processes negatively impact the substantive performance of nonprofit organizations, the symbolic performance of the institutions is significantly improved. The assumption that external factors are responsible for the changes in nonprofit organizations ensures that strategies are put in place for accepting change. Moreover, the preparation for change leads to the creation of real change and rational myths. Therefore, organizations are always determined to build effective quality management systems to deal with external factors. Nonprofit organizations are subject to meeting competition from profit-making organizations.
Nonprofit organizations operate under challenging circumstances due to competition. Generally, the competition faced by nonprofit organizations comes both from profit-making businesses and fellow nonprofit organizations. Therefore, building a nonprofit organization requires internal strategies for beating external factors such as competition and lawsuits. One of the nonprofit organizations to meet such challenges is the Locast, which is known for offering free streaming services to customers. The New York Times (2019) reports that Locast was forced to sue other profit-making organization such as the Fox, ABC, CBS and NBC for interfering with their signals. The main goal of the profit-making organization is believed to be an attempt to force Locast out of the broadcasting business. The challenges are, however, managed if the management of the nonprofit organizations takes into consideration the expectations on external factors. Locast’s case represents the application of the three forms of isomorphism.
Coercive isomorphism is applied in the way legal procedures are followed to solve issues arising from external factors. The coercive approach is founded on the ability of an organization to cope with legal procedures (Gazley, 2017). The expectations of an organization come together to create an environment within which external pressures can be handled. Therefore, coercive isomorphism deals with the attempts that an organization makes to conform to the changes brought about by legal procedures. Moreover, the coercive isomorphism takes into consideration the impacts of political intervention and regulations. Besides, laws and regulations put organizations under pressure to comply in a bid to avoid the consequences accompanied. Also, an organization can utilize the opportunity of laws and legal procedures to put other organizations under pressure. Although coercive isomorphism may pressure organizations to comply, real change may not be guaranteed. The case of the Locast organization presents an organization that uses coercive isomorphism to deal with pressure caused by other organizations.
Locast Organization has decided to sue ABC, NBC, Fox and CBS for attempting to interfere with its nonprofit activities. The primary activities of Locast include providing streaming services to customers. Generally, the move by Locast relieves customers from licensing costs and harms the premium providers of streaming services (New York Times, 2019). The conflict between Locast and profit-making organizations has existed for a long time. At some point, Locast had a case to answer after a lawsuit from the profit-making organizations. A win for Locast shows the extent to which the organization has built sufficient internal strategies to deal with external pressure. The current lawsuit appears as a fightback against the profit-making organization for attempting to block Locast out of business. Generally, Locast operates under the provision of the law that citizen should be allowed access to free streaming services.
Mimetic isomorphism sets in when an organization has to deal with pressure from uncertain and ambiguous occurrences. Generally, the only certainty in the operation of an organization is that problems are set to occur. However, the methods of dealing with the issues cause uncertainty and ambiguity. For example, the employment of a certain problem-solving strategy does not guarantee success or failure. The most common method of dealing with problems is thus a comparison of strategies used to deal with problems in different organizations. Generally, problem-solving procedures are similar in several organizations. Locast has applied mimetic isomorphism by using the strategies used by the profit-making organizations against the same organizations.
The response from Locast on the collusion of ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox is copied from the strategy used by the same organizations against Locast in July. Locast was accused of violating copyright regulations that were used by the profit-making organizations for business (New York Times, 2019). Locast, however, argued that its operation was lawful since Locast is a nonprofit organization. Also, Locast used the excuse of operating as a signal booster for broadcaster programs. Events have however turned, and Locast is found on the complainant’s side. Locast has sued the four profit-making organizations for colluding in an attempt to cause unnecessary pressure in the operations of Locast. Generally, the July lawsuit against Locast has formed the basis for a countersuit that has come with an additional lawsuit and thus Locast has copied the strategies of competitors. Locast is generally choosing what others are doing, and professionalism is employed.
Normative isomorphism comes out immensely on the Locast case. In normative isomorphism, legitimate professionalism causes normative pressure on the organization (Hansen, McDonald & Mitchell, 2017). Generally, normative isomorphism involves a combination of professionalism and educational background of the organization. Moreover, the use of normative isomorphism motivates the introduction of new ideas and narratives. Furthermore, normative isomorphism attempts to change the mindset of the actor through twisted strategies and professional experience. The case of Locast applies a great bit of normative isomorphism.
Locast employs services from professional lawyers in the lawsuit. The use of lawyers shows the seriousness and determination of the organization to beat the pressure caused by ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox on the operations of Locast (New York Times, 2019). Besides, the presentation of the case shows the employment of wise strategies that appear promising in the pursuance of victory for Locast. For example, Locast decides to use an existing lawsuit as the basis for creating the countersuit instead of bringing a new lawsuit. Moreover, the countersuit has been twisted to include the interests of Locast before the court. Therefore, Locast, as the actors, has twisted the mentality created in the case to overcome the pressure placed on them by the July lawsuit. Isomorphism is generally interested in what creates sameness in organizations and legitimacy.
The differences among organizations do not form part of the interests of isomorphism. Locast and profit-making organizations are built under different management. However, the similarities and legitimacy are considered in isomorphism. For example, problem-solving procedures are similar in organizations. Moreover, the internal strategies of offsetting pressure are similar in organizations.
In sum, isomorphism explains the way nonprofit institutions develop internal structures in a bid to survive while considering the impact of external factors. Building a nonprofit organization requires internal strategies for beating external factors such as competition and lawsuits. One of the nonprofit organizations to meet such challenges is the Locast, which is known for offering free streaming services to customers. Locast’s case represents the application of the three forms of isomorphism: coercive, normative and mimetic. Generally, isomorphism is concerned with the similarities and legitimacy of organizations and not the differences between the organizations.
References
AbouAssi, K., & Bies, A. (2018). Relationships and resources: the isomorphism of nonprofit organizations’(NPO) self-regulation. Public Management Review, 20(11), 1581-1601.
Gazley, B. (2017). Theories of the nonprofit sector. In The nonprofit human resource management handbook (pp. 15-28). Routledge.
Hansen, J. M., McDonald, R. E., & Mitchell, R. K. (2017). Marketing benchmarking, triangulated isomorphism, and firm strategy. In Creating Marketing Magic and Innovative Future Marketing Trends (pp. 533-543). Springer, Cham.
New York Times (September, 2019). Locast, a Free Streaming Service, Sues ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox