Mark C. Suchman

Mark C. Suchman (born 1960s) is an American sociologist, Professor in Sociology at Brown University, known for his work on Institutional theory, and particularly on "managing legitimacy."[1][2]

Biography

Suchman obtained his AB in Sociology at Harvard University in 1983 and his MA in sociology in 1985 at Stanford University. At Stanford he also obtained his PhD in Sociology in 1994 with the thesis, entitled "On Advice of Counsel: Law Firms and Venture Capital Funds as Information Intermediaries in the Structuration of Silicon Valley," under supervision of W. Richard Scott.[3]

Suchman started his academic career as Research Assistant under Harrison White at Harvard University in 1982. At Stanford University from 1985 to 1989 he was teaching assistant, subsequently, of Morris Zelditch, Ann Swidler, Nancy Tuma and Lawrence Wu. In 1993 he started at the University of Wisconsin–Madison as Assistant Professor of Sociology and Law, was promoted Associate Professor in 1998, and Full professor of Sociology and Law in 2003. in 2008 he moved to Brown University, Rhode Island where he is appointed Professor of Sociology.[3]

Suchman was awarded a National Merit Scholarship in 1979, a Harvard College Scholarship in 1980, the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship from 1984 to 1988, and was Fellow in residence at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences in 2001-03.[3]

Work

Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches, 1995

In his article Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches, Suchman defines legitimacy as "a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions."[4]

He later adds to this definition, stating that because legitimacy is socially conferred, legitimacy is independent of individual participants, while dependent upon the collective constituency. In other words, an organization is legitimate when it enjoys public approval, even though the actions of an organization might deviate from particular individual interests.[4]

Suchman states three types of legitimacy:

Pragmatic legitimacy

Pragmatic legitimacy relies upon the self-interests of an organizations constituencies, in which the constituency scrutinizes actions and behaviors taken by the organization in order to determine their effects.[4] This is further broken down into three sub-sections:

Suchman defines exchange legitimacy as the support for organizational policies due to the policy's benefit to the constituencies.[4][5]

Influence legitimacy is the support for the organization not due to the benefits that constituencies believe they will receive, but rather due to their belief that the organization will be responsive to their larger interests.[4][5]

Dispositional legitimacy is defined as support for an organization due to the good attributes constituencies believe the organization has, such as trustworthy, decent, or wise.[4][5] This is due to the fact that people typically personify organizations and characterize them as being autonomous.[4]

Moral legitimacy

Moral legitimacy is dependent upon whether the actions of an organization or institution are judged to be moral.[4] In other words, if the constituency believe the organization is breaking the rules of the political or economic system for immoral reasons, then this can threaten moral legitimacy.[6] Suchman breaks moral legitimacy down into four sub-sections:

Consequential legitimacy relates to what an organization has accomplished based on criteria that is specific to that organization. Procedural legitimacy can be obtained by an organization by adhering to socially formalized and accepted procedures (e.g. regulatory oversight). In the case of structural legitimacy, people view an organization as legitimate because its structural characteristics allow it to do specific kinds of work.[4][5][7]

Suchman refers to this organization as being the "right organization for the job."[4] Lastly, personal legitimacy refers to legitimacy that is derived from the charisma of individual leaders.[4][5][7]

Cognitive legitimacy

Cognitive legitimacy is created when an organization pursues goals that society deems to be proper and desirable.[7] Constituency support for the organization is not due to self-interest, but rather due to its taken-for-granted character.[4][8][9] When an organization has reached this taken-for-granted status, an organization is beyond dissent.[4][8] While moral and pragmatic legitimacy deal with some form of evaluation, cognitive legitimacy does not. Instead, with cognitive legitimacy society accepts these organizations as being necessary or inevitable.[7][8]

Selected publications

Articles, a selection:

References

  1. ↑ Mitchell, Ronald K., Bradley R. Agle, and Donna J. Wood. "Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts." Academy of management review 22.4 (1997): 853-886.
  2. ↑ Aldrich, Howard. Organizations evolving. Sage, 1999.
  3. 1 2 3 Mark C. Suchman, CV, at brown.edu, Accessed 03.02.2015
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Suchman, Mark (1995). "Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches". The Academy of Management Review. 20 (3): 571–610. doi:10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 Heidhues, Eva; Patel, Chris (2012). Globalization and Contextual Factors in Accounting: The Case of Germany. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. pp. 86–92.
  6. ↑ Yankelovich, Daniel (1974). "A Crisis of Moral Legitimacy": 5.
  7. 1 2 3 4 Brinkerhoff, Derick (2005). "Organizational Legitimacy, Capacity, and Capacity Development". Public Management Research Association: 1–22.
  8. 1 2 3 Chaison, Gary; Bigelow, Barbara (2002). Unions and Legitimacy. Cornell University Press. p. 10.
  9. ↑ Sun, William; Louche, Céline; Pérez, Roland (2011). Finance and Sustainability: Towards a New Paradigm? A Post-Crisis Agenda. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. p. 152.

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 9/10/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.