Walter W. Powell

The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields

What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organizations emerges as a field, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them. We describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative—leading to this outcome. We then specify hypotheses about the impact of resource centralization and dependency, goal ambiguity and technical uncertainty, and professionalization and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, we suggest implications for theories of organizations and social change.

Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology.

This research was supported by grants provided to the first author by the Social and Behavioral Sciences Research Institute, University of Arizona, and the Aspen Institute Nonprofit Sector Research Fund and by grants to the second author by the College of Business and Public Administration, University of Arizona. We have benefited from productive exchanges with numerous audiences to whom portions of this paper have been presented: a session at the 1994 Academy of Management meetings, the Social Organization workshop at the University of Arizona, the Work, Organizations, and Markets workshop at the Harvard Sociology Department, the 1994 SCOR Winter Conference at Stanford University, and colloquia at the business schools at the University of Alberta, UC-Berkeley, Duke, and Emory, and the JFK School at Harvard. For detailed comments on an earlier draft, we are extremely grateful to Victoria Alexander, Ashish Arora, Maryellen Kelley, Peter Marsden, Charles Kadushin, Dick Nelson, Christine Oliver, Lori Rosenkopf, Michael Sobel, Bill Starbuck, Art Stinchcombe, and anonymous reviewers at ASQ. We thank Dina Okamoto for research assistance and Linda Pike for editorial guidance. Address correspondence to Walter W. Powell, Department of Sociology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721. We argue in this paper that when the knowledge base of an industry is both complex and expanding and the sources of expertise are widely dispersed, the locus of innovation will be found in networks of learning, rather than in individual firms. The large-scale reliance on interorganizational collaborations in the biotechnology industry reflects a fundamental and pervasive concern with access to knowledge. We develop a network approach to organizational learning and derive firm-level, longitudinal hypotheses that link research and development alliances, experience with managing interfirm relationships, network position, rates of growth, and portfolios of collaborative activities. We test these hypotheses on a sample of dedicated biotechnology firms in the years 1990-1994. Results from pooled, within-firm, time series analyses support a learning view and have broad implications for future theoretical and empirical research on organizational networks and strategic alliances.*

Knowledge Networks as Channels and Conduits: The Effects of Spillovers in the Boston Biotechnology Community

We contend that two important, nonrelational, features of formal interorganizational networks-geographic propinquity and organizational form-fundamentally alter the flow of information through a network. Within regional economies, contractual linkages among physically proximate organizations represent relatively transparent channels for information transfer because they are embedded in an ecology rich in informal and labor market transmission mechanisms. Similarly, we argue that the spillovers that result from proprietary alliances are a function of the institutional commitments and practices of members of the network. When the dominant nodes in an innovation network are committed to open regimes of information disclosure, the entire structure is characterized by less tightly monitored ties. The relative accessibility of knowledge transferred through contractual linkages to organizations determines whether innovation benefits accrue broadly to membership in a coherent network component or narrowly to centrality. We draw on novel network visualization methods and conditional fixed effects negative binomial regressions to test these arguments for human therapeutic biotechnology firms located in the Boston metropolitan area.

Network dynamics and field evolution: The growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences

A recursive analysis of network and institutional evolution is offered to account for the decentralized structure of the commercial field of the life sciences. Four alternative logics of attachment—accumulative advantage, homophily, follow‐the‐trend, and multiconnectivity—are tested to explain the structure and dynamics of interorganizational collaboration in biotechnology. Using multiple novel methods, the authors demonstrate how different rules for affiliation shape network evolution. Commercialization strategies pursued by early corporate entrants are supplanted by universities, research institutes, venture capital, and small firms. As organizations increase their collaborative activities and diversify their ties to others, cohesive subnetworks form, characterized by multiple, independent pathways. These structural components, in turn, condition the choices and opportunities available to members of a field, thereby reinforcing an attachment logic based on differential connections to diverse partners.

Learning From Collaboration: Knowledge and Networks in the Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Industries

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical fields are rife with a wide range of collaborative relationships intended to access knowledge, skills, and resources that cannot be produced by organizations internally in a timely fashion. As more firms rely on external relationships for knowledge, the ability to process, transfer, and transmit knowledge gained in one context to other activities becomes critical. This article examines the capability for learning both how and what to learn in the context of these inter-organizational relations, and it surveys various practices developed by companies for accessing and distributing knowledge. The key challenge in innovation-intensive fields is to develop organizational routines for learning that are robust, flexible, and durable.

A Comparison of U.S. and European University-Industry Relations in the Life Sciences

We draw on diverse data sets to compare the institutional organization of upstream life science research across the United States and Europe. Understanding cross-national differences in the organization of innovative labor in the life sciences requires attention to the structure and evolution of biomedical networks involving public research organizations (universities, government laboratories, nonprofit research institutes, and research hospitals), science-based biotechnology firms, and multinational pharmaceutical corporations. We use network visualization methods and correspondence analyses to demonstrate that innovative research in biomedicine has its origins in regional clusters in the United States and in European nations. But the scientific and organizational composition of these regions varies in consequential ways. In the United States, public research organizations and small firms conduct R&D across multiple therapeutic areas and stages of the development process. Ties within and across these regions link small firms and diverse public institutions, contributing to the development of a robust national network. In contrast, the European story is one of regional specialization with a less diverse group of public research organizations working in a smaller number of therapeutic areas. European institutes develop local connections to small firms working on similar scientific problems, while cross-national linkages of European regional clusters typically involve large pharmaceutical corporations. We show that the roles of large and small firms differ in the United States and Europe, arguing that the greater heterogeneity of the U.S. system is based on much closer integration of basic science and clinical development.

To Patent or Not: Faculty Decisions and Institutional Success at Technology Transfer

We draw on qualitative data derived from field work on two university campuses to develop an explanation for widely disparate rates of new invention disclosure. We argue that faculty decisions to disclose are shaped by their perceptions of the benefits of patent protection. These incentives to disclose are magnified or minimized by the perceived costs of interacting with technology transfer offices and licensing professionals. Finally, faculty considerations of the costs and benefits of disclosure are colored by institutional environments that are supportive or oppositional to the simultaneous pursuit of academic and commercial endeavors.

Networks, Propinquity, and Innovation in Knowledge-Intensive Industries

Industrial districts and regional clusters depend on the networks that arise from reciprocal linkages among co-located organizations, while physical proximity among firms can alter the nature of information and resource flows through networks. We consider the joint effects of geographic propinquity and network position on organizational innovation using negative binomial count models of patenting activity for U.S.-based life science firms in industrial districts and regional clusters across a 12-year time period, 1988–1999. We find evidence that regional agglomeration and network centrality exert complementary, but contingent, influences on organizational innovation. Results show that in the high-velocity, research-intensive field of biotechnology, geographic and network positions have both independent and contingent effects on organizational innovation. The influence of centrality in local, physically co-located partner networks depends on the extent to which firms are also embedded in a global network comprising physically distant partners. Such global centrality, however, alters how proximity to two important classes of organization-other biotechnology firms and public sector research organizations, such as universities, research institutes, and teaching hospitals—influences innovation. Regional agglomeration shapes the character of information and resource flows through networks, while much of what makes industrial clusters region-like involves the structure of their internal networks. We conclude that network effects persist both independently and interdependently with geographic variables, and regional characteristics influence the degree to which centrality enhances innovation.

The expanding role of university patenting in the life sciences: Assessing the importance of experience and connectivity

Abstract We extend debates about the sources of university capabilities at research commercialization. Drawing upon quantitative data for a panel of 89 research-intensive US universities and interview data from two academic licensing offices, we model the relationship between technology transfer experience, embeddedness in biotechnology industry networks, basic science quality and capacity, and citation impact measures of university life science patents. Technology licensing officers draw upon the expertise of corporate partners to evaluate the potential impact of invention disclosures. The information gleaned through network ties to industry enables well-connected institutions to develop higher impact patent portfolios. Reaping the benefits of such connections, however, requires experience in balancing academic and corporate priorities to avoid the danger of ‘capture’ by industrial interests as overly tight connections limit patent impact. This pattern of diminishing returns to connectivity is robust across multiple citation measures of patent quality.

From Smoke and Mirrors to Walking the Talk: Decoupling in the Contemporary World

The pervasive spread of rationalizing trends in society, such as the growing influence of managerial sciences and increasing emphases on accountability and transparency, has created significant changes in organizations’ external environments. As a result, there is growing pressure on organizations to align their policies and practices, and to conform to pressures in an expanding array of domains, from protecting the natural world to promoting employee morale. In this context, we reconsider the concept of decoupling as it applies to organizations. Through a review and critique of existing research, we argue that the common understanding of decoupling—as a gap between policy and practice—obscures the rise of a more prevalent and consequential form of decoupling—a gap between means and ends. We describe when to expect both policy–practice and means–ends decoupling, and we indicate promising areas for research. The major consequences of this overlooked form of decoupling are that in an effort to monitor and e...