Institutional Sources of Practice Variation: Staffing College and University Recycling Programs

Administrative Science Quarterly, March, 2001 by Michael Lounsbury

In this paper, I examine how variation arises in the staffing of recycling programs at colleges and universities. Through initial fieldwork, I identified two basic recycling program forms. Some schools adopted recycling programs that entailed the creation of new, full-time recycling manager positions that were filled by ecological activists. Other schools adopted more minimalist programs that were staffed by current employees who were more ecologically ambivalent and assumed recycling management responsibilities as a part-time, additional duty. Results of a subsequent survey of a population of colleges and universities show that this variation in staffing was importantly shaped by the Student Environmental Action Coalition, a national social movement organization that provided resources and support to student environmental groups at particular schools. Implications for the study of how field-level organizations shape the content of organizational practices are discussed.

Although neoinstitutionalists have demonstrated how broader cognitive, normative, and regulative forces shape how new practice models emerge and diffuse throughout organizational populations (e.g., Scott, 1995), we have little understanding about why organizational responses to institutional pressures differ (Friedland and Alford, 1991; Powell, 1991; Oliver, 1991). There have been two general approaches to the study of variation in the institutional diffusion of new practices or structures. One line of research has focused on understanding how temporal (Tolbert and Zucker, 1983; Thornton and Ocasio, 1999) or spatial (e.g., Strang and Tuma, 1993; Davis and Greve, 1997) differences in institutional processes shape diffusion, leading to variation in the organizational adoption of a single or similar practice. Another stream of research, rooted in organizational adaptation perspectives (e.g., Thompson, 1967; Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978), has focused more explicitly on explaining variation in organizational practic es (e.g., Kraatz and Zajac, 1996; Westphal, Gulati, and Shortell, 1997). In this second line of research, scholars often distinguish conceptually between institutional pressures for conformity and the more idiosyncratic characteristics and technical demands of organizations, which are theorized as counterposing forces that lead to practice diversity.

Over the past decade, however, there have been a number of efforts to develop more integrative conceptual approaches to the study of institutional and organizational dynamics that focus attention on the interconnections between institutional context and variation in organizational behaviors and practices. Oliver (1991), for instance, has called for the study of how organizations employ different kinds of strategies in response to institutional pressures for both legitimacy and efficiency. In a similar vein, Greenwood and Hinings (1996) developed a framework that aims to extend the neoinstitutional perspective by highlighting how the internal dynamics of organizations may lead some organizations to respond differently than others despite exposure to the same institutional pressures. Ruef and Scott (1998) demonstrated the fruitfulness of a more detailed multilevel approach to institutional and organizational change in their study of how the legitimacy of hospitals with different ownership characteristics shifte d in tandem with a transformation in logics. There has been virtually no empirical research, however, directed toward understanding how variation in the content of organizational practices is systematically shaped by institutional forces (see Edelman, 1992, for an exception).

In an effort to shed light on how heterogeneity in organizational practices is institutionally shaped, I report on a study of a population of colleges and universities in the Great Lakes states that varied in how they staffed authorized recycling programs upon adoption. By authorized, I mean that the recycling program is formally sponsored and funded by a school's administration. At some universities, authorized recycling programs were staffed by ecological activists who filled newly created full-time recycling coordinator positions. At other schools, authorized recycling programs were mainly staffed by ecologically ambivalent custodial directors who assumed responsibilities for recycling as an additional, part-time duty.

Focusing on staffing is a useful way to probe differences in organizations' responses to their environments because resource commitments to staffing can provide a visible signal to stakeholders about organizational compliance to demands (Rao and Sivakumar, 1999). For instance, in developing her explanation of organizational variation in the creation of Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action offices (EEO/AA), Edelman (1992) noted that government agencies, which experienced the greatest degree of normative pressure, created EEO/AA offices with a mean of 7.1 full-time salaried employees, whereas colleges and business organizations, which experienced less normative pressure, staffed offices with an average of two or fewer full-time salaried employees. While variation in staffing was not a central focus for Edelman, her analysis suggests that linkages to field-level organizations may importantly shape the implementation of diffusing practices. I build on the insights of Edelman's work as well as other ins titutional research that has highlighted how field-level associations and organizations such as professions actively promote specific kinds of practices (e.g., DiMaggio, 1991; Dobbin et al., 1993) by studying how field-level organizations may provide a mechanism by which variation in the content of organizational practices emerges.