Refraining from Imitation: Professional Resistance and Limited Diffusion in a Financial Market

Abstract

Why do some practices not spread? Although this is an important question for both diffusion theorists and those interested in institutional change, we know surprisingly little about the limitations on diffusion because most diffusion studies sample on successful diffusion. I address the question of why some practices fail to spread by introducing the concept of a “deviance discount.” A deviance discount is a systematic downgrading of the observed adoption performance of controversial practices, which limits the contagion of such practices. I test and find qualitative and quantitative support for my thesis in the product introduction behavior of Swedish mutual fund firms. My findings hold implications for diffusion theory and theories of endogenous institutional change.

Identity Claims and Diffusion of Sustainability Report: Evidence from Korean Listed Companies, 2003–2010

“…This study provides evidence of how organizational identity dynamics and diffusion process are deeply interrelated in macro-level organizational field dynamics (Glynn and Abzug 2002). As social identity theory suggests, identification is a process that serves as a bridge across different levels in organization theory (Hogg and Terry 2000;Ravasi and van Rekom 2003); this study links organizational-level identification process with inter-organizational level diffusion outcome (Jonsson 2009). …”

Made to Fit: How Practices Vary as They Diffuse.

“…Such research would not only connect to themes of abandonment in diffusion research (Greve, 1995;Strang & Macy, 2001) but also would extend such themes by attending to questions of interrupted, incomplete, or even failed diffusion processes (Jonsson, 2009), which have so far received very little attention. Our framework suggests that factors associated with technical, cultural, and political (mis)fit may be important predictors of such outcomes.…”

Complex field-positions and non-imitation: Pioneers, strangers, and insulars in australian fine-wine

“…Oliver (1991) initiated this stream of research by identifying various organizational responses to institutional pressures-ranging from acquiescence, compromise, and avoidance to defiance and active manipulation of institutions. Some studies have conceptualized non-imitation as a form of resistance to dominant institutional pressures (e.g., Jonsson, 2009;Marquis & Lounsbury, 2007), whereas others have addressed non-imitation in terms of the optimal distinctiveness of innovations promoted by institutional entrepreneurs (e.g., Alvarez, Mazza, Pedersen, & Svejenova, 2005;Maguire, et al, 2004). Other studies have focused on the diversity of institutionalized practices in fields (e.g., Ansari, Fiss, & Zajac, 2010;Fiss, Kennedy, & Davis, 2012;Fiss & Zajac, 2004;Jonsson & Regner, 2009;Kennedy & Fiss, 2009;Lounsbury, 2001;Powell, 1991), or have addressed successful and exemplary practices not broadly imitated (Colyvas & Jonsson, 2011;Croidieu & Monin, 2010;Negro, Hannan, & Rao, 2011;Washington & Ventresca, 2004).…”