Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T15:10:23.839Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Organizational Imprinting and Response to Institutional Complexity: Evidence from Publicly-Traded Chinese State-Owned Firms in Hong Kong

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2017

Yifan Wei
Yifan Wei*
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study seeks to answer the following question: What are the organizational attributes that influence organizational responses to institutional complexity? Building on core ideas of organizational imprinting, I argue that organizational response is influenced by the imprint from the dominant logic of organizing during the founding period and from the institutional position an organization possessed at founding. Empirically, I examine the variation in board composition of Chinese state-owned firms listed in the Hong Kong Stock Exchange market. It is found that state-owned firms founded in the market logic dominant period tend to have more non-state directors on the board in that they were organized around the prescription of the market logic and more responsive to shareholders’ demands for legitimacy reasons. Besides, state-owned firms founded by central government agencies tend to have fewer non-state directors because they were born at the center of the socialist system to accomplish strategic goals of the central government and non-state directors may challenge the vested interests. This study contributes to the organizational imprinting and institutional literature and resonates with the contemporary call for a more systematic examination of organizational attributes that influence organizational responses to institutional complexity.

摘要:

摘要:

本研究试图回答以下这个问题:是什么组织属性影响对制度复杂性的组织反应༟在组织印记核心观点的基础上, 我认为, 组织反应受创建时期所主导的组织逻辑及创建时组织所拥有制度位置的印记的影响。实证上, 我考察在香港股票交易所上市的中国国有企业董事会组成的变化。研究发现, 在市场逻辑主导时期创建的国有企业的董事会里往往有更多的非国有董事, 它们是围绕市场逻辑的处方组织起来的, 同时对股东对合法性理由的需求有更多响应。此外, 由中央政府部门成立的国有企业往往拥有较少的非国有董事, 因为它们定位在社会主义制度的中心去完成中央政府的战略目标, 而非国有董事可能会挑战既得利益。这项研究对组织印记和制度文献做出了贡献, 与当代更系统地去研究影响对制度复杂性的组织反应的组织属性的呼吁共鸣。

यह शोध पत्र निम्न प्रश्न का उत्तर देने की चेष्टा करता है: कौन से संगठनात्मक गन संस्थागत जटिलता पर संगठनात्मक प्रतिक्रियाओं को प्रभावित करते हैं? संगठनात्मक अंकन के आधारभूत विचार को लेते हुए मेरा यह मत है की संगठनात्मक प्रतिक्रियाएं संस्थापना काल के गठन-परिप्रेक्ष्य के अंकन से और तत्कालीन संस्थागत परिस्थिति से प्रभावित होते हैं. मैंने होन्ग कोंग स्टॉक एक्सचेंज में सूचीबद्ध राज्य स्वामित्व वाली चीनी फर्मों के बोर्ड की संरचना का अनुभवजन्य आकलन किया है. शोध में यह पाया गया की बाज़ारपरक परिप्रेक्ष्य काल में संस्थापित राजकीय फर्मों में गैर-राजकीय निदेशकों की बहुलता है क्योंकि ये बाज़ारपरक निर्देशों पर आधारित हैं और वैधता के लिए शेयरधारकों की मांगों को ओर अधिक सजग हैं. साथ ही केहदृया सर्कार संस्थानों द्वारा संस्थापित राजकीय फर्मों में काम गैर-राजकीय निदेशक होते हैं क्योंकि वे समाजवादी संरचना के केंद्रबिंदु में हैं और सर्कार की रणनीतियों को पूरा करने के लिए हैं. इस कार्य मैं गैर सरकारी पात्र निहितार्थ को चुनौती दे सकते हैं. यह शोध संगठनात्मक अंकन और संस्थापरक शोध साहित्य में योगदान करता है और सम्प्रति संस्थागत जटिलता को प्रभाविक करने वाले संगठनात्मक गुणों का आकलन करने के आह्वान से गुंजायमान है.

Abstract:

ABSTRACT:

Este estudo procura responder a seguinte pergunta: Quais são os atributos organizacionais que influenciam as respostas organizacionais à complexidade institucional? Baseando-me em ideias centrais de marca organizacional, argumento que as respostas organizacionais são influenciadas pela marca da lógica dominante de organização durante o período de fundação e da posição institucional que uma organização possui na fundação. Empiricamente, examino a variação na composição do conselho de empresas estatais chinesas listadas na bolsa de valores de Hong Kong. Verifica-se que as empresas estatais fundadas no período dominante da lógica de mercado tendem a ter mais conselheiros não ligados ao governo os quais foram organizados em torno da prescrição da lógica de mercado e mais responsivos às demandas dos acionistas por motivo de legitimidade. Além disso, as empresas estatais fundadas pelas agências do governo central tendem a ter menos diretores não ligados ao governo porque eles foram posicionadas no centro do sistema socialista para cumprir os objetivos estratégicos do governo central, e diretores não ligados ao governo podem desafiar tais interesses. Este estudo contribui para a marca organizacional e literatura institucional e ressoa com o chamado contemporâneo para um exame mais sistemático sobre os atributos organizacionais que influenciam as respostas organizacionais à complexidade institucional.

Аннотация:

АННОТАЦИЯ:

Данное исследование ставит своей задачей дать ответ на следующий вопрос: каковы организационные особенности, которые предопределяют организационную реакцию на институциональную сложность? На основании главных идей организационного импринтинга, я утверждаю, что организационные реакции находятся под влиянием доминирующей логики организации в период основания, а также институционального положения, которое организация занимает при создании. Я эмпирически изучаю состав правления китайских государственных компаний, зарегистрированных на Гонконгской фондовой бирже. В результате, исследование показало, что государственные фирмы, которые были основаны в период доминирования рыночной логики, имеют тенденцию к тому, что в совете директоров будет больше негосударственных директоров, поскольку такие компании были организованы на основании рыночной логики и более восприимчивы к требованиям акционеров о легитимности. Кроме того, государственные фирмы, которые были созданы центральными правительственными агентствами, как правило, имеют меньше негосударственных директоров, поскольку они позиционируются в центре социалистической системы для достижения стратегических целей правительства, тогда как негосударственные директора могут бросить вызов кулуарным интересам. Это исследование вносит свой вклад в научную литературу по организационному импринтингу и институциональному подходу, а также отвечает на призыв к более систематическому изучению организационных атрибутов, которые предопределяют организационную реакцию на институциональную сложность.

Resumen:

RESUMEN:

Este estudio busca responder a la siguiente pregunta: ¿Cuáles son los atributos organizacionales que influencian las respuestas organizacionales a la complejidad institucional? Partiendo de las ideas centrales sobre la impronta organizacional, sostengo que las respuestas organizacionales son influenciadas por la impronta de la lógica dominante de la organización durante el período de su fundación y desde la posición institucional que una organización posee en su fundación. Empíricamente, examino la variación en la composición de la junta directiva de las empresas estatales chinas que cotizan en el mercado bursátil de Hong Kong. Fue encontrado que las empresas estatales fundadas en el período dominante de lógica de mercado tienden a tener más directores no estatales en la junta dado que fueron organizadas alrededor de la prescripción de la lógica de mercado y son más receptivas a los requerimientos de los accionistas por razones de legitimidad. Adicionalmente, las empresas estatales fundadas por las agencias del gobierno central tienden a tener menos directores no estatales puesto que estas fueron posicionadas en el centro del sistema socialista para lograr los objetivos estratégicos del gobierno central y los directores no estatales pudieran desafiar los intereses creados. Este estudio contribuye a la literatura sobre la impronta organizacional e institucional y hace eco al llamado por un examen más sistemático sobre los atributos organizacionales que influencian las respuestas organizacionales a la complejidad institucional.

Keywords

board compositioninstitutional complexityorganizational imprintingstate-owned firms
Type
Articles
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , June 2017 , pp. 345 - 373
Copyright
Copyright © The International Association for Chinese Management Research 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Baron, J. N., Burton, M. D., & Hannan, M. T. 1999. Engineering bureaucracy: The genesis of formal policies, positions, and structures in high-technology firms. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 15 (1): 1–41.Google Scholar
Battilana, J., Leca, B., & Boxembaum, E. 2009. How actors change institutions: Towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. In Walsh, J. P. & Brief, A. P. (Eds.), Academy of Management Annals, vol. 3: 65–107. Essex, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. 2010. Building sustainable hybrid organization: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53 (6): 1419–1440.Google Scholar
Beckman, C. M., & Burton, M. D. 2008. Founding the future: Path dependency in the evolution of top management teams from founding to IPO. Organization Science, 19 (1): 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bednar, M. 2012. Watchdog or lapdog? A behavioral view of the media as a corporate governance mechanism. Academy of Management Journal, 55 (1): 131–150.Google Scholar
Bremmer, I. 2010. The end of the free market: Who wins the war between states and corporations? New York: Portfolio/Penguin.Google Scholar
Burton, M. D., & Beckman, C. M. 2007. Leaving a legacy: Position imprints and successor turnover in young firms. American Sociological Review, 72: 239–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cannella, A. A. Jr., & Lubatkin, M. 1993. Succession as a sociopolitical process: Internal impediments to outsider selection. Academy of Management Journal, 36 (4): 763–793.Google Scholar
Carroll, G. R., & Hannan, M. T. 2004. The demography of corporations and industries., Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Child, J. 1994. Management in China during the age of reform. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, D. C. 2006. The independent director in Chinese corporate governance. Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, 31 (1): 125–228.Google Scholar
Dalton, D., Daily, C., Ellstrand, A., & Johnson, J. 1998. Metaanalytic reviews of board composition, leadership structure, and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal 19 (3): 269–290 3.0.CO;2-K>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, G. F., & Useem, M. 2002. Top management, company directors, and corporate control. In Pettigrew, A. M., Thomas, H., & Whittington, R. (Eds.), Handbook of strategy and management: 223–258. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Davis, G. F. 2009. Managed by the markets: How finance re-shaped America. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Deng, Y., Morck, R., Wu, J., & Yeung, B. 2011. Monetary and fiscal stimuli, ownership structure, and China's housing market. NBER Working Paper No. 16871. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48: 147–160.Google Scholar
Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. 1983. Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26 (2): 301–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firstenberg, P. B., & Malkiel, B. G. 1994. The twenty-first century boardroom: Who will be in charge? Sloan Management Review, 36 (1): 27–35.Google Scholar
Fligstein, N., & Zhang, J. 2009. A new agenda for research on the trajectory of Chinese capitalism. Management and Organization Review, 7 (1): 39–62 Google Scholar
Friedland, R., & Alford, R. 1991. Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In. Powell, W. W. & DiMaggio, P. J. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis: 232–263. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Glynn, M. A. 2008. Beyond constraint: How institutions enable identities. In Sahlin-Andersson, K., Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., & Suddaby, R. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism: 413–430. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Garud, R., Jain, S., & Kumaraswamy, A. 2002. Institutional entrepreneurship in the sponsorship of common technological standards: The case of Sun Microsystems and Java. Academy of Management Journal, 45 (1): 196–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., & Hinings, C. R. 2002. Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. Academy of Management Journal, 45 (1): 58–80.Google Scholar
Greenwood, R., & Suddaby, R. 2006. Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big five accounting firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49 (1): 27–48.Google Scholar
Greenwood, R., Diaz, A. M., Li, S. X., & Lorente, J. C. 2010. The multiplicity of institutional logics and the heterogeneity of organizational responses. Organization Science, 21 (2): 521–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. 2011. Institutional complexity and organizational responses. The Academy of Management Annals, 5 (1): 317–371.Google Scholar
Guthrie, D. 1997. Between markets and politics: Organizational responses to reform in China. American Journal of Sociology, 102 (5): 1258–1303 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. 2001. Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haveman, H. A., & Rao, H. 1997. Structuring a theory of moral sentiments: Institutional and organizational coevolution in the early thrift industry. American Journal of Sociology, 102 (6): 1606–1651.Google Scholar
Haveman, H. A., & Wang, Y. 2013. Going (more) public: Institutional isomorphism and ownership reform among Chinese firms. Management and Organization Review, 9 (1): 17–51.Google Scholar
Henderson, A. D., Miller, D., Hambrick, D. C. 2006. How quickly do CEOs become obsolete? Industry dynamism, CEO tenure, and company performance. Strategic Management Journal, 27 (5): 447–460.Google Scholar
Hillman, A. C., Cannella, A. A., & Paetzold, R. L. 2000. The resource dependence role of corporate directors: Strategic adaption of board composition in response to environmental change. Journal of Management Studies, 37 (2): 235–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillman, A. C. & Dalziel, T. 2003. Boards of directors and firm performance: Integrating agency and resource dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 28 (3): 383–396.Google Scholar
HKEx . 2005. Mainboard Listing Rules.Google Scholar
Johnson, V. 2007. What is organizational imprinting? Cultural entrepreneurship in the founding of the Paris Opera. American Journal of Sociology, 113 (1): 97–127.Google Scholar
Keister, L. A. 2000. Chinese business groups: The structure and impact of interfirm relations during economic development. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kraatz, M., & Block, E. 2008. Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. In Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Suddaby, R., & Sahlin-Andersson, K. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism: 243–275. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Kraatz, M. 2009. Leadership as institutional work: A bridge to the other side. In Lawrence, T., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (Ed.), Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kriauciunas, A., & Kale, P. 2006. The impact of socialist imprinting and search on resource change: A study of firms in Lithuania. Strategic Management Journal, 27 (7): 659–679.Google Scholar
Leblebici, H., Salancik, G., King, T., & Copay, A. 1991. Institutional change and the transformation of interorganizational fields: An organizational history of the U.S. Radio Broadcasting Industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36 (3): 333–363.Google Scholar
Liang, K.-Y., & Zeger, S. L. 1986. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika, 73 (1): 13–22.Google Scholar
Li, M., Cui, L., & Lu, J. 2014. Varieties in state capitalism: Outward FDI strategies of central and local state-owned enterprises from emerging economy countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 45 (8): 980–1004.Google Scholar
Lin, L-W., & Milhaupt, C. J. 2013. We are the (national) champions: Understanding the mechanisms of state capitalism in China. Stanford Law Review, 65: 697–760.Google Scholar
Lounsbury, M. 2007. A tale of two cities: Competing logics and practice variation in the professionalizing of mutual funds. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (2): 289–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lounsbury, M., & Ventresca, M. 2002. Social structures and organizations revisited. In Lounsbury, M. & Ventresca, M. (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations, 19: 3–26. New York: JAI/Elsevier.Google Scholar
Luo, X., Wang, D., & Zhang, J. 2016. Whose call to answer: Institutional complexity and firms’ CSR reporting. Academy of Management Journal, forthcoming.Google Scholar
McFarlan, F., Xu, J., & Manty, T. 2009. Corporate governance in China: Current practice, key problems. Harvard Business School Publishing Case Number, 9 : 309–058.Google Scholar
Marquis, C., & Huang, Z. 2010. Acquisitions as exaptation: The legacy of founding institutions in the US commercial banking industry. Academy of Management Journal, 53 (6): 1441–1473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marquis, C., & Lounsbury, M. 2007. Vive la reśistance: Competing logics and the consolidation of US community banking. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (4): 799–820.Google Scholar
Marquis, C., & Qian, C. 2014. Corporate social responsibility reporting in China: Symbol or substance? Organization Science, 25 (1): 127–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marquis, C., & Tilcsik, A. 2013. Imprinting: Toward a multilevel theory. The Academy of Management Annals, vol 7: 192–245. Essex, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83 (2): 340–363.Google Scholar
Mishra, R. K. 2009. State-owned enterprises in India: Reviewing the evidence. OECD Occasional Paper.Google Scholar
Musacchio, A., & Lazzarini, S. G. 2012. Leviathan in business: Varieties of state capitalism and their implications for economic performance. Working paper. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2070942 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nee, V., Opper, S., & Wong, S. 2007. Developmental state and corporate governance in China. Management and Organization Review, 3 (1): 19–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, M. 2005. Socialism: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, C. 1991. Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16 (1): 145–179.Google Scholar
Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. 2010. When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of Management Review, 35 (3): 455–476.Google Scholar
Peng, M. W. 2004. Outside directors and firm performance during institutional transitions. Strategic Management Journal, 25 (5): 453–71.Google Scholar
Pratt, M., & Corley, K. G. 2007. Managing multiple organizational identities: Identity ambiguity and members’ perceptions of uncertainty. In Bartel, C., Blader, S., & Wrzesniewski, A. (Eds.), Identity and the modern organization: 99–118. LEA: Organization & Management Series.Google Scholar
Ralston, D. A., Terpstra-Tong, J., Terpstra, R. H., Wang, X., & Egri, C. 2006. Today's state-owned enterprises of China: Are they dying dinosaurs or dynamic dynamos? Strategic Management Journal, 27 (9): 825–843.Google Scholar
Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. 2005. The recomposition of an organizational field: Health care in Alberta. Organization Studies, 26 (3): 351–384.Google Scholar
Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. 2009. Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies, 30 (6): 629–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commissions websitesGoogle Scholar
Shils, E. 1975. Center and periphery: Essays in macrosociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Shinkle, G. A., & Kriauciunas, A. P. 2012. The impact of current and founding institutions on strength of competitive aspirations in transition economies. Strategic Management Journal, 33 (4): 448–458.Google Scholar
Stinchcombe, A. L. 1965. Social structure and organizations. In March, J. G. (Ed.), Handbook of organizations: 142–193. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Thornton, P. H. 2004. Markets from culture. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. 1999. Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958–1990. American Journal of Sociology, 105 (3): 801–843.Google Scholar
Thornton, P., & Ocasio, W. 2008. Institutional logics. In Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin-Andersson, K., & Suddaby, R. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational institutionalism: 99–129. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Thornton, P., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. 2012. The institutional logics perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wang, J., Guthrie, D., & Xiao, Z. 2011. The rise of SASAC: Asset management, ownership concentration, and firm performance in China's capital markets. Management and Organization Review, 8 (2): 253–281.Google Scholar
Wang, S. G., & Hu, A. G. 2001. The Chinese economy in crisis: State capacity and tax reform. New York: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Weber, M. 1978. Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. In Roth, G. & Wittich, C. (Eds.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Google Scholar
Westphal, J. D., & Graebner, M. E. 2010. A matter of appearances: How corporate leaders manage the impressions of financial analysts about the conduct of their boards. Academy of Management Journal, 53 (1): 15–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, S. G. 2003. Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24 (10): 991–995.Google Scholar
Wong, S. M. L., Opper, S., & Hu, R. 2004. Shareholding structure, depoliticization and enterprise performance: Evidence from China's listed firms. Economics of Transition, 12 (1): 29–66.Google Scholar
Zhao, S. 1993. Deng Xiaoping's southern tour: Elite politics in post-Tiananmen China. Asian Survey, 33 (8): 739–756.Google Scholar
Zorn, C. 2001. Generalize estimating equation models for correlated data: A review with applications. American Journal of Political Science, 45 (2): 470–490.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Download undefined(File)
File 13.2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Download undefined(File)
File 14.2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Download undefined(File)
File 60.6 KB
Supplementary material: File

Download undefined(File)
File 13.2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Download undefined(File)
File 14 KB