Like mooring on a ship’s motion, the influence of organizational identity and the

moderating impact of the environment on strategic responses

Abstract

Strategic responses of organizations can be triggered by both environmental and organizational

antecedents. Even though environments impose some constraints on organizations, they still have

a range of response specifically as mooring provides range of motion for ship. We find that

newspapers have three different identities. One rooted in journalistic values. One rooted in running

the newspaper as a business. And one rooted in maintaining its leadership role. These identities

trigger three different transitive strategic responses. A transitive response is one in which an

organization has a dominant and a fallback position. Further, we show how the link between an

organization’s identity and its strategic response is moderated by the relative dominance between

institutional and technical environment and tested these ideas in two qualitative and one

quantitative study of national newspapers in Turkey.

Keywords

Institutional theory, organizational identity, strategic response

Introduction

Early contributions to institutional theory state that “templates for organizing” given by institutional

environment are accepted without question and assessed as proper, right and appropriate way by

organizations (Greenwood and Hinings, 1996, p.1027). These powerful templates direct

organizations to comply with the institutional pressures without thinking strategically and become

more similar to one another (DiMaggio and Powell, 1991).

However, although there are isomorphic processes, multiple and competing demands of

environment feed institutional complexity (Greenwood, Raynard, Kodeih, Micelotta, & Lounsbury,

2011). Different interests, different values and different interpretations direct organizations to

response strategically in different ways to deal with institutional complexity. Resistance or

compliance alternatives may emerge as an output of their different interpretations and strategic

thoughts. Studies that have explicitly studied strategic response variety focused on organizational

activeness instead of organizational passivity to environmental pressures and demands. Oliver

(1991, p.160) suggested ten institutional antecedents (legitimacy, efficiency, multiplicity,

dependence, consistency, constraint, coercion, diffusion, uncertainty and interconnectedness) that

influence strategic responses that vacillate between resistance to conformity. Sohrab (2009, p.1-2)

pointed out the importance of openness to institutional forces (it was defined as “institutional

receptiveness”) and the effect of compliance on organizational identity. In addition, the intended

image was emphasized as the triggering factors to decide strategic responses. Greenwood et al.,

(2011) addressed how field level structures and processes influence strategic response preferences

of organizations to deal with conflicting, incompatible demands of multiple institutional logics.

The triggering point of generating different strategic responses can be explained by a concern of

organizations to gain more with less concession. Identity is a factor organizations consider in

making concession like legitimacy, efficiency, effectiveness and survivability. On the other hand,

environmental pressures may force organizations to make concession. Because, environment can

both be enabler and preventive for organizations. Circumstances that organizations subject to

environment may bring pressure to bear upon gaining with more concession. Based on these ideas,

the purpose of this study is to examine the influence of organizational identity on strategic

responses of the organizations based on the relative dominance between institutional and technical

environment. Even though, in different ways, both technical and institutional environment suggest

that environmental pressures shape and structure organizations, Perrow (1985) suggests that

organizations are more subject to one kind of environment rather than other environment.

Additionally, D'Aunno, Sutton, & Price (1991) stated that not all environmental demands are equally

important and strong for organizations. The relative dominance between institutional and technical

environment explains to what extent the organization is more embedded to institutional or

technical environment. Proximity of relations, strength of relations, impact of relations on decisions

and impact of relations on running the business give sign about the relative dominance between

environments.

If the relations with the institutional environment is more dominant, organizations may prioritize

protection of organizational identity at the expense of other interests and prefer to implement more

active resistance among strategic responses. Various reasons can explain this expectation. As

stated by Delmas, Toffel (2008) institutional environment sourced pressures can be perceived as a

way of imposing cost for organizations. Or, making concession to its identity can be seen more

damaging for organizational legitimacy and resistance to pressures can be preferred. However, if

the dominance of technical environment is higher than institutional environment, organizations may

prefer to make concessions from their organizational identity (Oliver, 1991). Strategic response

choice may become more passive because of some concerns like profitability and cost reduction.

There are prior studies that reveal the influence of organizational identity on strategic responses.

Fox-Wolfgramm et al. (1998) explained the role of strategic orientations (defender or prospector) of

banks to change pressures. The defender bank’s resistance to change was linked to conflict with its

hometown bank identity. The reason for resistance to change for prospector bank was top

management’s belief that it was fulfilling institutional expectations consistent with its identity and

therefore change was not needed. Livengood, Reger (2010, p.49) defined “identity domain” as the

perceptual filter for competitive action. They advocated that the more focused organizations were

on their identity domain, the less tendency to respond to threats and opportunities outside its

identity domain regardless of performance implications. Reger et al., (1994, p.565) proposed the

role of organizational identity on managing change. Instead of thinking that organizational identity

constraints understanding and interpretations of radical change, Reger et al., (1994, p.571) stated

that gap between ideal identity and current identity may influence the change acceptance.

Different from prior studies, this study takes into consideration relations with the environment to

explain how organizational identity influences strategic response variety. The dominance of

relations with the institutional environment or technical environment has potential lead to decisions

regarding organization’s effort to protect its identity or making concessions to its identity.

Another difference of our study is bear upon organizational identity. Albert, Whetten (1985, p.265)

defined organizational identity based upon the central, distinctiveness and enduring attributes as a

response to “who are we as an organization?” Unlike Albert and Whetten (1985), who conceive of

organizational identity as enduring, this study explains a) organizations have multiple identities;

and b) these identities are more plastic than Albert and Whetten assume. (See Fox-Wolfgramm et

al., 1998; Kimberly and Bouchikhi, 1995)

Strategic responses of organizations are classified in different ways. For instance; Hoyer (2004,

p.168) classified strategic responses of media firms to public regulations as: 1) Influencing

environment and authorities; 2) Optimal (or convenient) adaptation; 3) Evasion; and 4) Neglecting

and deliberately violating law. Oliver (1991, p.152) thought that organizations respond strategically

against institutional pressures that directly affect them depending on the nature and context of the

pressures. These strategic behaviors are classified from passive to active as “acquiescence,

compromise, avoidance, defiance, manipulation”. Different from studies that advocate strategic

response variety, this study reveals transitive structure of strategic responses. Organizations have a

dominance and a fall back response in terms of their identity much like individuals have a dominate and fallback position

when it comes to handling conflict resolution (Pondy, 1995). Transitive structure denotes that strategic responses should not

have to be completely passive, completely active or somewhere between these two poles. Organizations may integrate

different strategic responses to gain more with less concession.

Finally, this study differentiates itself from prior studies examining by focusing on newspapers.

Usually national daily newspapers are given importance as organizational stakeholders, opinion

makers, or gatekeepers in the institutional environment that exert pressure on other organizations

to conform to public exposure. Investigating the strategic response of newspapers themselves to

environmental and technological pressures begins to help us understand who/what influences the

opinion makers. Thus, by repositioning newspapers at the center of this study, the “influential

position” of newspapers on other organizations is transformed to “be influenced position” in this

study.

There are three main reasons for studying on newspapers. First, compatible with the variable

“organizational identity”, the identity of chosen organization should be reflective. Newspapers have

strong core attitudes and they reflect their attitudes publicly. The reflective attribute of

organizational identity of newspapers is one of the decisive factors to prefer one newspaper over

another. This reflective side of organizational identity determines the reader for whom the

newspaper is intended. Readers may analyze the identity of the newspapers to choose to read and

buy. Reflectivity of the newspapers’ identities make it possible to analyze the central, enduring and

distinctive attributes publicly. Second, compatible with the variable “strategic responses”,

newspapers should have the power to resist certain environmental pressures. Counter movement

requires having a powerful hand and power in generating public opinion. While newspapers have

power, owners of economic and political interests want to share or own this power. When different

shareholders with different interests become the part of this power, the response of newspapers

toward different issues move away from “should be done” and the autonomy of newspaper may be

weakened. In that case, deciding on strategic response gains more importance. Third, newspapers

have technical, managerial and institutional layers (Parsons, 1956). While they are required to

conform to a variety of institutional rules and demands, newspapers also have concerns regarding

profitability, efficiency, effectiveness and their available resources to survive. All these layers

contribute to examining how newspapers strategically respond to their identities needed.

This paper is organized as follows. In the next section we highlight the significance of neo

institutional theory to explain heterogeneity of strategic responses based on the assumptions

regarding legitimacy and isomorphism. Next we explore organizational identity and strategic

responses. By focusing on the antecedents of strategic responses, we explain the logic underlying

the relationship between organizational identity and strategic responses. From there we consider

the relative dominance between institutional and technical environment and its effect on strategic

responses. We continue by explaining sample, data collection, and measurement instruments.

Analysis procedure is elaborated with three stages as pilot study, qualitative study and quantitative

study. Results are discussed. After that, we discussed organizational identity, strategic response

and environment relationship for newspapers by taking into consideration the context. Finally,

contributions of the paper, limitations and future study suggestions are indicated.

Theory and hypotheses

The relationship between environment and organization is an issue studied by various

organizational theories like institutional theory. Two basic proposals of neo institutional theory

direct us to think about strategic response variety to the organizational field. First, organizational

legitimacy, necessary for organizational survival, is gained by adapting to either the technical

environment or to the institutional environment (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Meyer and Rowan,

1977). Second, isomorphic processes (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983) will push organizations in the

similar institutional environments to respond similarly.

This study, however, suggests that organizations may choose strategically to resist or comply with

isomorphic processes. Not only different values, different interests, different interpretations of

organizations but also, conflicting demands that organizations confront are effective on their

strategic response preferences. Some predictors (e.g., structure of the industry, relationship

between government, complexities in the public management systems, resource dependence, and

characteristics of the top management) explain why there are differences in strategic response

variety (Powell, 1991; Kraatz and Zajac, 1996; Martinez and Dacin, 1999). Mayer, Whittington

(2004) explored the effect of organizational and national level factors in influencing isomorphic

pressures. Economic efficiency, political interests of different stakeholders within the organization,

different institutional arrangements of countries were found significant to explain differences in

resistance to multidivisional form. Oliver (1991) added different framework to explain strategic

response variety and indicated that characteristics of the pressures (cause, constituents, content,

control and context) influence strategic responses. On the other hand, Greenwood et al., (2011)

indicated organizations response differently based on their position in the field (central or

peripheral), characteristics of the organizations (ownership, identity, structure, governance),

visibility, status in the market, size and resources.

Organizational identity

Similar to individuals, organizations have their own identities that lead to debates within the

organization. Through the debating process, emergence of disagreement, and confusion reveal

questions “Who are we?” “What kind of business are we in?” “What do we want to be?” (Albert and

Whetten, 1985, p.265). In addition to responding to these questions, organizations require

organizational identity because of their obligation to internal and external stakeholders to point out

the position of the organization among the others (Albert et al., 2000). Internal and external

stakeholders want to get information about the organization that will help them to evaluate and

understand the organization. Poor or weak identities can result in poor reputation, lack of

recognition, lack of legitimacy, confused strategy and weak identification and commitment

(Foreman and Parent, 2008). Albert and Whetten (1985, p.265) defined organizational identity

based upon the central, enduring and distinctiveness attributes as a response to “who are we as an

organization”.

Prior studies have explored how organizational identity influence decisions and strategic choices.

Elsbach and Kramer (1996) searched for the responses to events that threaten organizational

identity of US business schools. They proposed that threats to organizational identity direct

organization members to use cognitive tactics to sustain their perceived identity and construed

external identity. Fiol (1991, p.191) examined the role of identity in managing cognitive processes

between behaviors and underlying beliefs to maintain competitive advantage. Behaviors reflect

identities and these identities help to understand the relationship between behavior and underlying

beliefs (Fiol, 1991, p.208). Dutton and Dukerich (1991) explained the influence of organizational

identity and image on interpretations of the situation by the New York Port Authority’s relationship

to the issue of homelessness. They stated that identity and image as organizational context affect

patterns of change by helping to understand the link between cognition and behavior.

Greenwood et al., (2011, p.339) mentioned that organizational identity provides a frame “how

organizations experience institutional complexity and how they perceive and construct the

repertoire of responses available to them”. Organizational identity is thought as a filter for

responses and interpretations of environmental changes and institutional logics (Gustafson and

Reger, 1995; Fox-Wolfgramm et al., 1998; Brickson, 2007, Kraatz, Block, 2008). Similarly, in this

study, newspapers claim to be the owner of strong identity as a guide for their decisions and

strategic choices. They reflect their identities publicly and may refrain to making strategic

concessions from their identities. But sometimes pressures that newspapers face can be

contradictory with their identities. This study asks for influence of organizational identity on

strategic responses under the relative embeddedness of newspapers to institutional and technical

environment.

Strategic responses

Organizations face fragmented environments that denote conflicting demands and incompatible

values. To handle inconsistencies and satisfy the demands, organizations generate different

strategic responses. Oliver (1991, p.152) defined strategic response as choice behavior of

organizations that have potential to advance its own interests, performance and competitive

advantage. Additionally, Chen and Hambrick (1995, p.456) defined response as “a specific and

detectable countermove, prompted by an initial action, that a firm takes to defend or improve its

share or profit position in its industry.”

Strategic responses of organizations are classified in different ways (e.g. Oliver,1991; Hoyer, 2004).

In this study, we follow Oliver’s (1991) classification that strategic responses change between

active resistance to passive conformity (acquiescence, compromise, avoidance, defiance,

manipulation).

Organizations can manifest active defiance to institutional pressures because of perceived low cost

of defiance to institutional environment, non-compliance between internal interests and external

values, believing to demonstrate rationality, lose little for opposing to institutional environment

(Oliver, 1991, p.156). D'Aunno, Sutton, & Price (1991) stated that organizations evaluate

importance of the institutional demands to response strategically. Because, not all institutional

demands equally contribute to gain legitimacy. On the other hand, they mentioned that

organizations choose their strategic response based on its visibility to external groups. Thus,

visibility of practices helps organizations to create the impression of conformity. DiMaggio and

Powell (1991) examined the role of efforts by professionals to shape strategic responses of

museums related to conditions that support the art museums. Ruef and Scott (1998) explained that

the influence of institutional pressures on hospitals varies based on the dominant institutional logic

in the organizational field. Binder (2007, p.567) concluded that even there is a resource

dependency, different subunits of the organization generate “heterodox ways” to respond to the

environmental demands. These creative responses both satisfy the demands of technical

environment and institutional logic. Pache and Santos (2010) indicated that the nature of demands

and internal representation of demands influence organization’s responses. Barman and MacIndoe

(2012) explained the relative importance of adapting to institutional pressure, strength of

relationships with external actors and internal ability of organizations to influence adoption of

institutional pressures.

Hypotheses Associated with Major Effect of Organizational Identity on Strategic Responses

Organizational identity frames a managers’ interpretation thus determining the appropriate

cognitive map that will be used for strategic issues (Fiol and Huff ,1992). In line with Fiol and Huff

(1992), Rughase (2006) pointed out two reasons for impacts of identity on strategy making. First,

identity is a mental constraint to evaluate external opportunities, threat and internal organizational

capabilities. Second, identity influences the motivation of people to which strategic issues they will

deal with. Kraatz, Block (2008) indicated four different strategic responses compatible with the

tactics on identity when organizations face multiple environmental demands. First, deleting or

removing the importance of institutionally occurred identities can be preferred to resist or ignore

the complexity. Second, adjusting to differences among organizational identities in order to obtain

agreement can be appropriate to provide balance among demands. Third, enduring identities can

help to make organizations immune against to compliance pressures. “Compartmentalizing”

identities is the last proposed to deal with multiple demands.

To explain the influence of organizational identity on responses to institutional pressures,

mechanisms like “organizational receptiveness” (Sohrab,2009) and “identity domain” (Livengood

and Reger, 2010) have been used in the literature.

The role of organizational identity on managing change is another perspective take place in the

literature (e.g., Fox Wolfgramm et al.,1998; Reger et al.,1994). Organizational identity guides and

influences of interpretations of strategic issues that organization faces (Dhalla, 2007). Collectively,

these arguments are reflected in Hypothesis 1.

Hypothesis 1. Organizational identity influences strategic responses of the organizations.

Relative dominance between institutional and technical environment

This paper suggests the focus points of the institutional environment and technical environment are

different, even though the separation of the institutional environment from the technical

environment is difficult. Reasons of this difficulty can be summarized under four conflicts. First,

Zucker (1987) pointed out organizations will lose their technical efficiency when organizations

adapt to institutional pressures for legitimacy and social approval of organizations will be hampered

when organizations pursue efficiency and effectiveness. But, the institutional environment is not

necessarily in opposition to technical environment (Scott, 1987). For instance, relations with actors

in the technical environment can increase the legitimacy and prestige of the organization (Oliver,

1997). Likewise, good relations with government authorities can facilitate obtaining resources and

attract qualitative labor force (Oliver, 1997). Second, the relation between institutional and

technical environment manifests varying combinations. Some sectors can deal with high

institutional pressures, low technical pressures; or low institutional and high technical pressures. A

sector may display simultaneously high institutional and high technical pressures or a sector may

exhibit both low institutional, low technical pressures (Scott and Meyer, 1992). Third, the cultural

value of technologies can be higher than their contributions to performance of the technical tasks

(Scott, 1992, p.160). Finally, meeting the demands of institutional environment may not be fit with

the logic of efficiency (Meyer and Rowan, 1977). Therefore, instead of separating both of them,

they should be studied together to develop a more realistic perspective (Orru et al., 1991; North,

1991). This mentioned suggestion in the literature is reflected through the variable “the relative

dominance between institutional and technical environment” in this study. The relative dominance

points out embeddedness of organizations to institutional or technical environments. Proximity of

relations, strength of relations, impact of relations on decisions and impact of relations on running

business are examined to reveal the relative dominance of environments.

Hypotheses Associated with Major Effects of Relative Dominance Between Institutional and

Technical Environment on Strategic Responses

Different types of organizations face different pressures and they perceive their importance

differently relative to business activities. Phua (2005) concluded that the task environment factors

are more important than the institutional environment in evaluating project performance in the

construction industry.

To search for the relative dominance, actors in the institutional and technical environment are

determined and relations with these actors are examined in this study. Organizations interpret their

environments based on these relationships to infer which one is dominant. If the relations with

actors in the institutional environment are relatively more dominant, the impact of relations on

decisions and running the business is stronger than relations with actors in technical environment.

Dominance of relations with the institutional environment may conclude with resistance of

organizations. Because, demands of institutional environment perceived more formal, compulsive

and cost loader even though adoption to demands of institutional environment contributes to

legitimacy. In contrast, if the relations with actors in the technical environment are relatively more

dominant, the organization may prefer to implement a more passive strategic response. As stated

by Delmas,Toffel (2008), demands of technical environment are perceived as rewarding because of

contribution to profit, efficiency, effectiveness. Not to lose these economic based gaining,

organizations may prefer to response in a more conformist manner. The major effect of relative

dominance between institutional and technical environment on strategic responses is reflected as

in the Hypotheses 2a and 2b;

Hypothesis 2a. The relative dominance of the institutional environment directs strategic responses

of the organizations toward active resistance.

Hypothesis 2b. The relative dominance of the technical environment directs strategic responses of

the organizations toward passive compliance.

To reveal role of “relations with institutional environment” and “relations with technical

environment” separately helps to understand explicitness of environments in the chosen industry.

Different from the relative dominance relationship, another major effect related to institutional and

technical environment is represented as in the Hypotheses 3a and 3b;

Hypothesis 3a. Relations with institutional environment directs strategic responses of the

organizations toward active resistance.

Hypothesis 3b. Relations with technical environment directs strategic responses of the

organizations toward passive compliance.

Hypotheses Associated with Interaction Effect of Relative Dominance between Institutional and

Technical Environment on Strategic Responses

Organizational identity contributes to gain and maintain legitimacy (Glynn and Abzug, 2002). If

organizational identity deviates from the institutional norms, it will risk losing legitimacy and risk

losing limited strategic resources (Foreman and Parent, 2008). Managers should be aware of the

two sided characteristic of the organizational identity; “a strategic enabler” or “a core of rigidity”

(Lerpold et al., 2007, p.244). Both individuals and organizations may benefit from having a strong

organizational identity (Fiol, 2002). But on the other hand, a strong identity can be a source of

barrier to constrain changes (Fiol, 2002; Lerpold, et al., 2007). The widely disseminated shared

interpretative schemas prevent moves away from the current situation and reinforce the inertia

(Rughase, 2006).

This two sided characteristic of organizational identity may help to understand the interaction effect

of the relative dominance between institutional and technical environment. When institutional

environment is more dominant, organizations may have more tendencies to keep their

organizational identity. “A core of rigidity” aspect of organizational identity may trigger more active

resistance strategies. When the technical environment is more dominant, organizational identity

may remain in the secondary importance and the organization may risk of making concessions from

their organizational identity referring to its “strategic enabler” characteristic. So the organization

may prefer to implement more passive compliance among strategic responses. Therefore, the

interaction effect of relative dominance between institutional and technical environment on

strategic responses is reflected as in the Hypotheses 4a and 4b;

Hypothesis 4a. The relative dominance of the institutional environment moderates the relationship

between organizational identity and strategic response of the organization.

Hypothesis 4b. The relative dominance of the technical environment moderates the relationship

between organizational identity and strategic response of the organization.

Method

The main research question of this study is whether organizational identity influences strategic

responses of the organizations and whether the relative dominance between institutional and

technical environment moderates this relationship. The purpose of the study is to explain

relationships among variables with mix of quantitative and qualitative research. Unique strengths

and weaknesses of each method facilitate to ensure rigor of the study. This study was grounded in

three stages. In stage 1, a pilot study was conducted to test measurement instruments of the

variables. In stage 2, a qualitative study was used to examine effectiveness of the pilot study and

learn more about newspapers, importance of the environments on reactions and how they allocate

themselves against to pressures, demands and requirements of environment. Finally, in stage 3, a

quantitative study was performed to test hypotheses.

Sample and data collection

National and daily newspapers in Turkey were chosen as a sample of this study. The newspapers

list published by “Head office of Prime Ministry Press, Publication and Information” was used. In

total, 30 national, daily newspapers were sampled. Sports newspapers were eliminated because of

their specific issue orientation. 1574 potential respondents from 30 different newspapers that

contain people from managerial positions, columnists and reporters were chosen as data sources.

When determining which columnist to include, continuity of their writings in the newspapers was

taken into consideration. For instance, if columnist has not written since January, 2013, columnists

were not included to the data sources. Data sources included respondents from both lower level

and upper level of newspapers. Ravasi and Van Rekom (2003) pointed out that source of data to

measure organizational identity influences interpretations of research. If only top managers are the

source of data, the results may be different than if the whole workforce is source of the data.

Therefore, list of e-mails belonging to potential respondents were collected from website of

newspapers. E-mails that belong to potential respondents of managerial positions were reached by

communicating with the manager’s assistants. A questionnaire that provided the aim of the

research, response instructions and guaranteeing anonymity was e-mailed to each potential

respondent.

Measures

Measurement instrument of organizational identity. To measure this variable, the identity

orientation approach used by Ciuchta (2010) to explain the impact of organizational identity on

learning was employed. For the measurement of identity orientation, Ciuchta (2010, p.51) stated

that “researchers identify the attributes they are interested in and assess the strength of these

attributes in one organization as compared to others.” Brickson (2007, p.867) stated that “An

organization’s identity orientation is determined by its locus of self-definition (p.867)…the locus of

self-definition can be assessed by considering the traits and characteristics most salient to

members when describing their organization (p.867)”. The identity orientation approach is also

used by Gioia and Thomas (1996, p.370). They used Albert and Whetten’s (1985) framework to

measure universities’ organizational identities by using normative and utilitarian dimensions.

To generate items, a comprehensive literature review about organizational identity and newspapers

was done. Subsequent to the literature review, mission, vision, strategic objectives, values and

principles of publication and profile of each 30 newspaper suggested the following dimensions were

appropriate for examining the identity of newspapers. Being reader focused, having widespread

distribution channels, creating economic value, giving importance to marketing operations, honest

interpretations of news, supporting benefit of society, respecting human rights, being neutral

against to all ideologies, keeping away from the pressures of interest groups, being independent

from political environment are some of the statements that were mentioned in the profiles of the

newspapers. After that, a professor of journalism and editor of the local newspaper were

interviewed about the items generation process.

In totally 25 items were generated. Only 5 items of 25 items were adapted from prior studies (four

items were adapted from Gioia and Thomas’s (1996, p.401) study, one item was redesigned based

on the Foreman and Whetten’s (2002, p.618) study. Other items of organizational identity

orientation of newspapers were generated based on literature review about newspapers, the

statements that were mentioned in the profiles of the newspapers and the interviews with professor

of journalism and editor of the local newspaper. Items to measure organizational identity

orientation were measured by using a Likert scale (1=None; and 5=Very High).

Measurement instrument of strategic responses. The strategic responses variable of this

study follows Oliver’s (1991, p.151) study as “acquiescence”, “compromise”, “avoidance”,

“defiance”, “manipulation”. Clemens and Douglas (2005, p.1205) evaluated Oliver’s (1991)

framework empirically to understand strategic responses using the cause, constituents, content,

control and context framework in the steel industry. They designed items based on tactics that

appointed to Oliver’s (1991) five strategic responses. Six items per each strategic response,

totalling 30 items to measure strategic response, were generated by Clemens and Douglas (2005).

We adapted existing items of Clemens and Douglas’ (2005) study as necessary to fit the newspaper

context. Only small word changes were done according to newspapers. Respondents were asked to

evaluate effectiveness of the tactics in their newspapers when they face environmental pressures

and using a Likert scale (1=None, and 5=Very High).

Measurement instrument of the relative dominance between institutional environment

and technical environment. To measure the relative importance of institutional and task

environment, Oliver (1997, p.104) used the quality of a relationship instead of frequency or

duration of relationship, because frequency or duration of relationships may not always be

positively related with the organizational performance. Thus, she asked, to what extent the

relationship is assessed “harmonious or helpful”; and, to what extent the relationship “facilitates or

constrains” business functions gives an idea about quality of a relationship (Oliver, 1997, p.104).

In this study, to identify the relationships with institutional and technical environment, the

newspaper literature was examined to determine the actors that have a role in the institutional and

technical environment of newspapers and Oliver’s (1997) study directed the preparation of the

items.

The institutional environment of newspapers was identified based on the definitions of institutional

theory. Actors in the institutional environment that creates institutional rules and sources of the

coercive, mimetic and normative pressures were all taken into consideration to measure relations

with actors in the institutional environment. Chosen actors to determine the relations with

institutional environment are; (1) Press and publication auditors, (2) Head office of Prime Ministry

Press, Publication and Information, (3) Press Associations and Communities, (4) Press Labor Union,

(5) Stakeholders (e.g., international journalism associations. chamber of commerce).

The technical environment of newspapers was identified based on the actors that have direct

economic relations with the organizational productivity, efficiency and profitability. Relations with

technical environment were measured in the same way as the relations with institutional

environment. Chosen actors to determine the relations with technical environment are; (1) Printing

houses, (2) Data Distribution Channels, (3) Labor Sources, (4) Suppliers, (5) Financial Resource

Providers, (6) Advertising Agencies, (7) Competitor Newspapers.

The relative dominance between institutional and technical environment measures strength,

proximity, benefit or interventionist aspects of relations between newspaper and actors in the

environment with mainly four to seven items per each actor (e.g. (1) How does newspaper feel to

get along with these actors?; (2)To what extent does newspaper have strength relations with these

actors?; (3) How often does newspaper feel that actors keep it from doing things the way the

newspaper wanted?; (4) How often do actors cause the newspaper delays in starting or completing

newspaper operations?). The average value of responses that evaluate relations with actors in the

institutional environment and average value of responses that evaluate relations with actors in the

technical environment were calculated separately. The higher value indicated the relative

dominance.

Items of all three measurement instruments were translated from English by a bilingual native of

Turkey and then back translated into English by an independent bilingual speaker. In addition, a

different native of Turkey read and suggested minor word changes.

Stage 1. Pilot study

Approximately 23 percent of 1574 potential respondents (n=362) that represent 30 different

newspapers were used for the pilot study. A questionnaire was e-mailed to each potential

respondent of the pilot study. Although we sent multiple e-mails three times, only 41 usable

questionnaires were collected for pilot study.

Exploratory factor analysis of pilot study for organizational identity generated 3 factors. The first

factor called “Openness oriented organizational identity” was represented by 8 items (Cronbach’s

alpha value is .919). These variables measure attitude of the newspapers towards to freedom of

opinion, conscience and expression; respect of newspapers to all ideologies and different ethnics;

isolation of newspapers from interests of political and economic environment and avoidance of

newspapers to trigger polarization and hostility among different ideologies.

The second factor called “Truthfulness oriented organizational identity” was represented by 6 items

(Cronbach’s alpha value is .929). These variables measure concern of newspapers to publish

qualified news, to support benefit of the society by honest interpretation and assessments, to

reflect the truths without any exaggeration.

The third factor called “Leadership oriented organizational identity” was represented by 5 items

(Cronbach’s alpha value is .861). These 5 variables reflect the leadership oriented organizational

identity by asking what extent “being the most read newspaper”, “having greater market share”,

“having widespread distribution channels”, “having professional staff and better circulation”, “being

aware of technological developments” are important to make decision and gain competitive

advantage.

Exploratory factor analysis of pilot study for strategic responses generated 3 factors. Factors of the

strategic response specify newspapers that face pressures and demands from their environment.

First, they resist and then they reduce their reaction and approaches to a less reactive position in

their strategies. This duality manner of newspapers’ strategic responses we called “transitive

strategies”. By this we mean each strategy has two components; a dominant component and a fall

back component while deciding on strategic responses. Interviews with executive editors of the

newspapers suggested us to call this structure as “transitive”. When they are asked about their

reactions against to pressures, first, they advocate their resistance manner. Afterwards, they use

more moderate words to approximate their reactions to passive reactions because of their concerns

about legitimacy, survival and penalties. Moreover, there is no chance to go back from compliance

response. But, newspapers may force their chance to go back from resistance to compliance

response.

“From compromise to acquiescence” strategic response (8 items; Cronbach’s alpha value is .908)

was one of the transitive strategies. In this strategy, newspapers first attempt to obtain a

consensus. And then, this compromiser approach gives place to acquiescence. This time newspaper

thinks about the evaluation of the requirements and decide to comply with them. To imitate other

successful newspapers or adopt effective approach used in the past are some of the tactics that can

be performed for acquiescence strategy.

“From defiance to manipulation” was the third transitive strategy (8 items; Cronbach’s alpha value

is .859). Newspapers attack aggressively if they do not want to comply with demands of their

environment. They can bring to trial their unjust treatment; they can search for support from the

media to announce heavy pressures of their environment; or newspapers can choose the way of

dismiss the requirements and continue to do their business as usual. And then they reduce their

reactions against to pressures and they prefer to manipulate requirements or demands by

influencing public perceptions or taking support of the readers and suppliers.

The final transitive strategy was “from avoidance to compromise” (7 items; Cronbach’s alpha value

is .808). Newspapers attempt to be far from the oversight. They elaborate to conceal their

intentions and strategies from the oversight of regulators and actors of their environment.

Newspapers pass from these escape and concealment tactics to compromise approach. They prefer

to partially conform to the most important demanded processes at least.

As a result of pilot study, the strategic responses of newspapers were shaped different than Oliver’s

(1991) study. The transitive structure of strategic responses was stated with three dimensions.

Stage 2. Qualitative study

In this stage, interviews with executive editors of each newspaper was the goal. All executive

editors of 30 newspapers were called to get an appointment for interview. Eighteen newspapers

volunteered to participate in this study. Participants included 3 editors in chiefs, 4 assistant of

executive editors, 11 executive editors.

During the interviews, 5 open ended questions were asked. To what extent, is the institutional and

technical environment important to their strategic responses, where they locate their newspapers

on two extreme reactions, how defines their organizational identity and its effect on strategic

responses. Their responses were recorded. Because of ethical principles, no information was given

that could identify the name of newspaper. Newspapers were mentioned based on the given code

(e.g.; Newspaper_1; Newspapers_2).

In total 538 minutes were recorded. The main topics of interviews were determined based on the

content analysis of interviews. In the first stage, 278 themes that mostly repeated and point to

same topic were listed separately. In the second stage, these themes were classified into 10

different categories as (1) Sensitivity to society, (2) Financial sensitivity, (3) Journalism mindset, (4)

Commercial enterprise, (5) Independence, (6) Ownership form, (7) Loyalty to own principles, (8)

Competition, (9) Reader focused, (10) Subjectivity.

To prevent researcher’s bias in the coding process 3 independent judges are instructed to assign

each of 278 themes to category which best describes its content. The number and percentage of

themes assigned to the same category by independent 3 judges are compared dyadically. And then

inter-rater reliability is calculated. It indicated that the number of matches achieved for three pairs

of judges is significantly greater than number of matches by chance.

Based on these mentioned titles, 6 items were added for organizational identity orientation; in

addition, 3 items were added for strategic response before distribution of the questionnaire to the

sample of the study. These items are a major contribution of interviews to reflect industry view to

the questionnaire.

Stage 3. Quantitative study

The questionnaire as a result of the pilot study and qualitative study was administered to

managerial positions, columnists and reporters. The remaining 1212 (of 1574) potential

respondents were used for the full study. After two reminder emails, 158 responded questionnaires

were received. 12 of the original 158 respondents had more than 50% missing data. These 12 cases

were excluded from the analysis. All other analyses were conducted based on 146 usable

questionnaires without any missing values.

Analysis

Before testing hypotheses, exploratory factor analysis was executed for organizational identity and

strategic response. Descriptions of variables for the full study are listed as in the below;

Openness and truthfulness oriented organizational identity (ORGID1): Different from pilot

study, “openness oriented organizational identity” and “truthfulness oriented organizational

identity” were represented under the same factor and called “openness and truthfulness oriented

organizational identity”. It represented with 8 items (Cronbach’s alpha value is .921). This factor

measures concerns of the newspapers towards to honest interpretation and assessment of news;

publishing qualified news; freedom of opinion, conscience and expression; being judgmental. Also,

effect of democratic values and human rights on decisions; assessment of newspapers as

organizations that give public service; concern about benefit of society are examined under this

factor. This dimension emphasizes journalism values.

Business oriented organizational identity (ORGID2): It includes 3 items different from pilot

study (Cronbach’s alpha value is .781). Giving importance to revenue from advertisements and

announcements, assessing newspaper as a commercial enterprise, making decision based on the

financial concerns are subject of this factor. Content of this factor mainly asks to what extent

newspaper evaluates itself as a business as part of its central, enduring and distinctive

characteristics.

Leadership oriented organizational identity (ORGID3): This factor is represented by 3 items

(Cronbach’s alpha value is .756). These items examine to what extent being the most read

newspaper, having greater market share and widespread distribution channels as a leader are part

of the organizational identity orientation of newspapers.

From compromise to acquiescence strategic response (STR1_CA): This transitive strategic

response represented with 5 items (Cronbach’s alpha value is .911). In this strategy, newspapers

first attempt to obtain a consensus. They try to negotiate with the regulators; they try to get

mutually agreeable solution by bargaining. And then, this compromise approach gives place to

acquiescence. This time newspapers think about the evaluation of the requirements and decides to

comply with them. To make a conscious evaluation, to determine the best way to comply with the

spirit and intent of the requirements are some of the tactics that can be performed for

acquiescence strategy.

From avoidance to compromise strategic response (STR2_AC): 5 items represent this

strategic response (Cronbach’s alpha value is .854). Newspapers attempt to be far from the

oversight. They elaborate to conceal their intentions and strategies from the oversight of regulators

and actors of their environment. Newspapers pass from these escape and concealment tactics to

compromise approach. They prefer to partially conform to the most important demanded processes

at least.

From defiance to manipulation strategic response (STR3_DM): It includes 5 items

(Cronbach’s alpha value is .878). Newspapers attack aggressively if they do not want to comply

with demands of their environment. They can bring to trial their unjust treatment; they can search

for support from the media to announce heavy pressures of their environment; or newspapers can

choose the way of dismiss the requirements and continue to do their business as usual. And then

they reduce their reactions against to pressures and they prefer to manipulate requirements or

demands by influencing public perceptions or taking support of the readers and suppliers.

Relative dominance between institutional environment and technical environment

(DOMINANC): This variable states relative dominance between “relations with institutional

environment” and relations with technical environment”. It is a dummy variable (1= Dominance of

relations with institutional environment; 0= Dominance of relations with technical environment). In

addition to this variable, hypothesis 3 designed to reveal influence of “relations with institutional

environment (INS_ENV)” and “relations with technical environment (TECH_ENV)” on strategic

responses.

Based on the hypotheses of this study, research model is represented as in the Figure 1.

[INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE]

In this study, two level hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) was used to define the nature of the

relationships. Hierarchical linear models (HLM) make it possible to analyze nested data, assess

relationships among variables at multiple levels and partition variance in dependent variable into

between and within group components (Castro, 2002, p.74).

The research problem of this study consists of data on individuals nested within newspapers. The

sample size of this study to implement hierarchical linear model is 144 individuals for level-1 and 23

newspapers for level-2(2 of 146 questionnaires were belong to two separate newspapers). Average

individual per newspaper is 6. Level-1 variables are determined as three dimensions of

organizational identity orientation and three dimensions of strategic response. Outcome variable in

the hierarchical linear modeling should be in level-1 variables. Level-2 predictor variables are

organizational level variables. Although definition of organizational variable changes according to

organizational theory and HLM, Davison et al., (2002, p.232) defined organizational variable for HLM

as “any variable that is a constant for every individual within a given organization but that varies

across organizations.” Based on this definition; relations with actors in the institutional environment

and technical environment, the relative dominance between institutional and technical environment

characterized as organizational level variables. The underlying assumption is that individuals in a

given newspaper are exposed to similar environment. The relationship with actors of the

institutional and technical environment is a shared relationship within the newspaper. Thus,

perceptions of relationships between institutional and technical environment will show relatively

less variance within organization. Individual level perception of relationship with institutional and

technical environment is aggregated to organizational level measures of shared perceptions of

relationship with institutional and technical environment.

Results

The Null Model

To execute analyses, necessity of hierarchical linear modeling is tested with a null model. Intra-

class correlation coefficient is the basic indicator to mention about differences at the organization

level on the outcome variable. It is the ratio of group level variance to total variance (Hox, 2002,

p.15).Intra-class correlation coefficient can be suggestive in deciding a whether multilevel modeling

approach is more appropriate or single level modeling approach is more appropriate (Raykov,

2011,p.75).

Intra-class correlation (ICC) value is calculated for each strategic response. Nineteen percent (19%)

of the variance in “from compromise to acquiescence” strategic response is explained by

differences between newspapers. In another model, intra-class correlation coefficient represents

that 13% of the variance in “from avoidance to compromise” strategic response is at the

newspaper level. In the last model, 34% of the variance in “from defiance to manipulation”

strategic response is between newspapers. Also between group variance for each strategic

response is found significantly different from zero (χ2(STR1_CA)=52.73; p<0.001;

χ2(STR2_AC)=42.83; p<0.01; χ2(STR3_DM)=94.86; p<0.001).

After evaluation of appropriateness of HLM for our model, hypotheses are modeled in different

equations.

Model 1 (Random Coefficient Regression Model)

This model tests Hypothesis 1. Relationship between organizational identity orientations and strategic responses

within the 23 newspapers is analyzed in this model.

The centering of decision responses is important before testing model. Centering is an approach that rescales

level-1 predictors (Hofmann, 1997). Woltman et al.,(2012, p.63) stated that group mean centering

of predictor variables makes it possible to examine the effects of level-1 and level-2 predictors

independently and makes possible to estimate intercepts more accurately. Also, group mean

centering is appropriate to investigate moderator effect of level-2 variables (Hofmann et al.,2003,

p.173). All models in this study are group mean centered.

Results indicate that Hypothesis 1 is partially supported. The relationship between “openness and

truthfulness oriented organizational identity (ORGID1)” and “from compromise to acquiescence

strategic response(STR1_CA)” are supported (β1=0.38; p<0.001). A marginally significant

relationship (p< 0.10) between “business oriented organizational identity (ORGID2)” and “from

compromise to acquiescence strategic response (STR1_CA)”, was found (β2 = -0.21; p< 0.10).

When the outcome variable is “from avoidance to compromise strategic response (STR2_AC)”, only

“openness and truthfulness oriented organizational identity (ORGID1)” had a marginally significant

negative relationship (β1=-0.23; p<0.10). However, a significant relationship was found between

“openness and truthfulness oriented organizational identity (ORGID1)” and “from defiance to

manipulation strategic response (STR3_DM)” (β1=0.31; p<0.05).

The relationship between “leadership oriented organizational identity” and strategic responses was

not confirmed for any of the strategic responses. On the other hand, “openness and truthfulness

oriented organizational identity” has significant relationship with all of the strategic responses.

Also variance components confirm significant differences exist among the 23 newspaper means for

each of the strategic responses (variance component of u0(STR1_CA)=0,198; p<0.001; variance

component of u0(STR2_AC)=0,104; p=0.004; variance component of u0(STR3_DM)=0,386;

p<0.001).

Model 2 (Intercepts as Outcomes Model)

This step includes main effects of level-2 predictor variables on outcome variables. In other words,

Hypothesis 2a and 2b are tested. The relative dominance between institutional and technical

environment is a categorical variable (1= relative dominance of institutional environment; 0=

relative dominance of technical environment).

A statistically significant relationship between the relative dominance of technical environment and

three different strategic responses is confirmed (three of p-value<0.001). Hypothesis 2b is partially

supported. Another significant relationship is available between “the relative dominance of

institutional environment” and “from defiance to manipulation strategic response (STR3_DM)” (p-

value= 0.006). In that case, hypothesis 2a that signifies the influence of the relative dominance of

institutional environment on strategic responses is partially supported.

Model 3 (Intercepts as Outcomes Model)

Influences of “relations with institutional environment” and “relations with technical environment”

on strategic responses are predicted by Hypothesis 3a and 3b.

According to final estimation of fixed effects output, only “relations with technical environment

(TECH_ENV)” and “from compromise to acquiescence strategic response (STR1_CA)” has significant

relationship (p-value= 0.006). While hypothesis 3b is partially supported, hypothesis 3a that tests

relationship between institutional environment and strategic responses is not supported.

Model 4 (Slopes as Outcomes Model)

Interactions between level-1 and level-2 predictor variables and outcome variables are tested in

this model. Hypothesis 4 predicted that relationship between organizational identity orientation and

strategic responses will vary as a function of the relative dominance between institutional and

technical environment.

While level-1 predictor variables are group centered, level-2 predictor variable, the relative dominance between institutional

and technical environment is uncentered because of its categorical structure. If the relation with institutional environment is

relatively more dominant, it is coded as “1”. If relation with technical environment is relatively more dominant, it is coded as

“0”.

The relative dominance of technical environment has a moderator effect between all organizational

identity orientations and “from compromise to acquiescence strategic response(STR1_CA)”(p-

value(ORGID1xDOMINANC_TE)<0.001;

p-value(ORGID2xDOMINANC_TE)<0,001; p-value (ORGID3xDOMINANC_TE) =0,082). The relationship between “openness

and truthfulness oriented organizational identity (ORGID1)” and “from avoidance to compromise

strategic response (STR2_AC)” is contingent on the relative dominance of technical environment as

a moderator (p-value(ORGID1xDOMINANC_TE) =0,004). Another moderator effect of the relative dominance of

technical environment is between “openness and truthfulness oriented organizational identity

(ORGID1) and “from defiance to manipulation strategic response (STR3_DM)” (p-

value(ORGID1xDOMINANC_TE) =0,061). Hypothesis 4b that predicts moderator effect of the relative

dominance of technical environment is substantially supported.

The interaction effects indicates that “the relative dominance of institutional environment” is moderator variable between

“leadership oriented organizational identity (ORGID3)” and “from compromise to acquiescence strategic response

(STR1_CA)” (p-value (ORGID3xDOMINANC_IE)= 0.090**). Another moderating effect of “the relative dominance of

institutional environment” is between “leadership oriented organizational identity (ORGID3)” and “from avoidance to

compromise strategic response (STR2_AC)” (p-value (ORGID3xDOMINANC_IE)<0.001***). Thus, Hypothesis 4a is

partially supported. Sum of the results is indicated as in the Table I.

[INSERT TABLE I ABOUT HERE]

Discussion

Different from prior studies (e.g., Hoyer, 2004; Oliver,1991), strategic responses of newspapers represented a transitive

structure in this study. Newspapers exhibited duality manner when they face pressures and demands from their environment.

Each strategic response has two components; a dominant component and a fall back component. First, newspapers may prefer

to react in a more active resistance and then may pass to passive resistance as a strategic response.

“Openness and truthfulness oriented organizational identity” represents journalism values.

Newspapers that assess openness and truthfulness as part of their central, enduring, distinctive

characteristics prefer to behave in a moderate manner or struggle on account of their truth and

principles. Although, the newspaper industry is defined as highly domestic and highly stable, rapid

changes, internet and mobile activities increased newspaper alternatives and circulation pattern of

newspapers altered (Nordqvist et al., 2010). Loyalty to journalism values direct newspapers to

follow compromiser, acquiescence perspective or newspaper prefers to struggle not to adopt and

attempt to manipulate. Newspapers face pressures to manage marketing perspective without losing

journalism values.

The weight of journalism values in the openness and truthfulness oriented organizational identity does not confirm “from

avoidance to compromise strategic response”. May be, newspapers may think that this “avoidance to compromise strategic

response” may weaken their organizational identity. Organizational identity connects newspapers to readers. If newspapers

make concession from their identities, they may face loss of readers and loss of circulation. Thereby, economic loss

concludes with less independency.

Business oriented organizational identity brings closer newspapers to active resistance. Newspapers that give importance to

revenues; make decisions according to financial concerns; namely newspapers that evaluate themselves as commercial

enterprise, keep away from representing passive resistance as a strategic response. Business oriented newspapers are

expected to struggle for their economic power. When they have economic power, they feel more

independence to resist actively. Another possible reason may be related to difference between

mission newspapers and main stream newspapers as stated in the interviews. Business orientation

of mission newspapers is expected less than business orientation of main stream newspapers. To

sustain their mission though less revenues, mission newspapers do not prefer to spend their scarce

power for active resistance and they prefer to represent passive compliance. Leblebici et al.,(1991,

p.333) indicated that the more peripheral organizations are, the less committed to templates

imposed by institutional environment. But, in this study, peripheral newspapers outside of the main

stream may have more tendencies for adoption. Lack of capacity for action and power dependency

stated by Greenwood and Hinings (1996, p.1037) may discourage newspapers outside of the

mainstream from active resistance. When we interpret this finding based on the ownership

structures of newspapers in Turkey, passive resistance may be the more expected strategic

response because, owners that have various companies in different sectors may have tendency to

protect their interests in different sectors and prefer to comply.

The dominance of institutional environment on technical environment directs newspapers to

implement more active resistance in line with the purpose of this study. The dominance of

institutional environment has significant effect on “from defiance to manipulation strategic

response” as an indicator of active resistance. Beck, Walgenbach (2005, p.846) stated that

proximity to the sources of institutional pressures enhance pressure to adopt institutional

environment. Different from Beck and Walgenbach’s research (2005), newspapers prefer to

struggle against to pressures and demands. On the other hand, Delmas and Toffel (2008)

mentioned that pressures exerted by institutional environment are perceived as negative that

impose costs for organizations and organizations attempt to avoid from imposed costs. Similar to

Delmas and Toffel‘s (2008) research, newspapers may benefit from their relations with these actors

to manipulate imposed requirements. Proximity of relations with actors in the institutional

environment gives opportunity to newspapers to explain displeasure arising from pressures.

Displeasure may find meaning in the eyes of actors.

When organizational identity orientation is added to this relationship, strategic responses of

newspapers change direction from active resistance to passive compliance. Especially, leadership

oriented organizational identity has influence on passive compliance strategic responses under the

moderator effect of the relative dominance of institutional environment. Newspapers with

leadership oriented organizational identity are aware of importance of being supported by the

environment. In that case, effort to get along well with institutional environment makes less active

resistance more preferable for newspapers. For instance, prohibition of advertisement of alcoholic

drink weakens revenues of newspaper. Berte and Bens (2008) studied the Belgium newspaper

market and confirmed that loses on the advertising market force newspapers to increase their retail

price that causes negative effect on readers.

Under the effect of the dominance of technical environment on institutional environment,

newspapers have no certain tendency toward active resistance or passive compliance regarding

their strategic response. Delmas and Toffel (2008) stated that pressures exerted by technical

environment are perceived more positively because of their relation with market share, profit,

efficiency and effectiveness. So, adopting management practices demanded by technical

environment is evaluated as “garnering rewards” (Delmas and Toffel, 2008, p.1049). Although there

is positive perspective toward technical environment, under this condition, newspapers may prefer

to use three of the strategic responses irrespective of active or passive resistance without any

concern about adhering to organizational identity. Instead of responding in one way, evaluation on

a case by case basis and chosing the appropriate strategic response is more preferable for

newspapers.

When organizational identity orientation is included as another variable in addition to moderator

effect of the relative dominance of technical environment, strategic response of newspapers

becomes more certain especially for newspapers with leadership oriented organizational identity.

Being a leader, concerns for managing scarce resources in the market lead newspaper to response

in a passive compliance manner compatible with expectation of being supported by actors in the

technical environment.

This finding cannot be evaluated independent from context in Turkey. Political, economic and legal

contexts influence decision making process of organizations. Actors in economic, political and legal

environment have dominant role in life of newspapers. Strategic responses of newspapers that

have leadership oriented organizational identity shape in passive strategic responses irrespective of

relative dominance of institutional or technical environment. Being a leader requires having

connections with both institutional and technical environment in Turkey. The dominant threat to

autonomy in the institutional environment is “government intervention”, whereas, the dominant

threat to autonomy in the technical environment is having a “resource exchange partner (Oliver,

1997, p102). If government becomes the resource exchange partner at the same time, all sources

for legitimacy and survival accumulate only in one hand. Thus, newspapers take care to have

connections with both institutional and technical environment.

Understanding the response of newspapers which influence environment and are influenced by

environment requires being aware environmental context in Turkey. When we look at the

newspaper industry in Turkey, until the 1950’s, state control over the press was available. Between

1950 and 1970, in corporatization of the press started. Nineteen-eighty was a critical point for

media in Turkish political life. The dominant forces triggered development of mass communication.

Investments in communication were in upward movement (Köylü, 2006, p.36). Structural

transformation of Turkish media started in 1980’s until the 1990’s (Köylü, 2006, p.43).

Sustainability of newspaper industry required financial support and bosses from different industries

whose real profession is not journalism came into play. These developments triggered restructuring

of newspaper industry based on market conditions. This situation is stated by Kaya and Çakmur

(2010, p.528) as “instrumentalization of the Turkish media by business interests”. In 1990’s, the

media owners use their power driven by media to influence political decisions to create benefit

themselves (Kaya and Çakmur, 2010). The late 1990’s and early 2000’s commercialization of media

transformed towards conglomeration (Kaya and Çakmur, 2010, p.526).

Özgüneş and Terzis (2000, p.405) summarized some constraining factors for media industry as

commercialization of the media, changes in media ownership, the interlocking interests between

the media, politicians and the business sector, the inherent media ideology and culture and the new

media format and technologies. These factors are also significant to interpret strategic responses of

newspapers.

Changes in the ownership structure of newspapers triggered commercialization of newspapers. The

owner of the newspaper may have businesses in different sectors like textile, construction, banking,

automobiles. The real profession of the owner is business. They assess operations of newspapers

based on profit, circulation, advertisement revenues and consumer demand. Conclusions of this

kind of ownership structure can be summarized under four titles. First, editorial and commercial

operations of newspapers are separated. Second, the right to speak related to publishing policy

increased on behalf of the owner instead of executive editors. Third, concentration on commercial

aspects of newspaper operations and marketing perspective alienate newspapers from journalism

values. Finally, the motives of owners to protect their own interests economically and politically in

different businesses are based on their power on publishing industry damage public interest.

The interlocking interests between the media, politicians and the business sector are valid not only

in Turkey. The International Federation of Journalists stated that pressure to be servant of big

business and political masters is internationally accepted issue for newspapers and journalists

(White, 2008, p.i). The dilemma between interests of journalism and business stand out

organizational identity orientations of newspapers in this study. At one side, openness and

truthfulness oriented organizational represented journalism values. On the other side, business

oriented organizational identity and leadership oriented organizational identity represented

commercial side of newspapers. The variety of strategic responses of newspapers was attempted to

explain based on these orientations. The concern about losing circulation rates and consequently

losing jobs, ownership structure, size of newspapers, political conjuncture, as well as the concern

about receiving considerable subsidies and convenient bank loans may be other antecedents of

strategic response heterogeneity of newspapers in Turkey.

Conclusions

The significance of the study can be summarized: first strategic responses of the organizations can

be predicted based on their organizational identity orientation. The influence of adherence to

organizational identity on alteration of strategic response from active resistance to passive

resistance is confirmed. Second, strategic response variety in the organizational field makes it

possible to predict homogeneity and heterogeneity level in the organizational field. This prediction

gives an idea about legitimacy potential of the pressure and organizations can predict contribution

of compliance on legitimacy. As Deephouse (1996, p.1024) stated that the endowed legitimacy by

actors in the institutional environment triggers isomorphism in strategies. The more legitimacy is

given, the more isomorphism is possible. Third, different from prior studies, the transitive structure

of strategic responses represented that each strategic response has two components; a dominant

component and a fall back component. Instead of one component, strategic response of

newspapers comprises from two components. Organizations may prefer to react in a more active

resistance and then may pass to passive resistance as a strategic response. Fourth, different from

Oliver’s (1991) classification, strategic response called “manipulation” was positioned less active

resistance than strategic response called “defiance”. Based on the transitive structure of strategic

response “from defiance to manipulation”, manipulation is the fall back component of strategic

response. Fifth, relations with actors of institutional environment and technical environment give an

idea about strategic responses of organizations. Regarding this contribution, Hoyer (2004, p.166)

emphasized that “power, attitudes and behavior of the regulators” as effective as other Porter’s five

forces of competition (industry rivalry, bargaining power of suppliers, threat of new entrants,

bargaining power of buyers, threat of substitutes) especially in a strongly regulated industry. These

forces influence strategic responses of organizations when they face threats, opportunities. Sixth,

effects of organizational and environmental factors on strategic responses are revealed in the

different sector in Turkey as a periphery country. Seventh, quantitative research is supported by

collection of qualitative data by interviews. Interviews helped to provide justification of findings.

Last, revealing strategic responses of newspapers brings perspective and insight to discuss more

effective regulations, laws and other inferences. This is the contribution of this study not to

newspapers, but to actors who makes regulations in the environment.

The limitation of this study is that the organizational identity orientation of newspapers is measured

internally. Respondents from internal and external sources may reflect organizational identity

orientations of newspapers differently. To reduce this limitation, respondents from different

hierarchical positions within the newspaper are chosen and executive editors are also interviewed.

Another limitation is related to nature of the environment. Although relationship between

institutional and technical environment is included to research model, nature of the environment

did not take into consideration in this study. Political, economic stability in the country, perspective

of government related to newspapers may influence strategic responses. The findings of the study

may not be replicable in different countries. But each organization has identity and operates in the

environment. These are not only broadly relevant variables but also significant for other

organizations. Another limitation can be related to sample size. Representative of 23 newspapers in

the whole sample is not equal to each other. Through data collection process, respondents are

informed and requested repeatedly. Although, we expect to be helped by people who are aware of

difficulties to reach information as journalist, the response rate is low. To deal with this limitation

and to increase representative of newspapers with small response rate, interviewing executive

editors of these newspapers was required.

Conclusions of this study triggered many potential research questions. For instance; while there are

newspapers that complain about pressures and sanctions, others accept this situation as normal,

usual situation. This understanding may point institutionalization of struggles against to pressures.

Another future study can examine the influence of ideologies on strategic response variety in the

organizational field. Ideology can be preventive in isomorphic processes for newspapers. If there is

ideological difference between a newspaper and others, the newspaper can disregard their doings.

Future study may compare strategic responses of newspapers based on different government

periods in Turkey. Intra-national political processes may differentiate preferences of organizations.

Transitive structure of strategic responses may change their direction. Instead of from active to

passive resistance, newspapers may be locked to passive component of strategic responses.

References

Albert, S., Ashforth, B., & Dutton, J. (2000). Organizational Identity and Identification: Charting New

Waters and Building New Bridges. Academy of Management Review , 25 (1), 13-17.

Albert, S., & Whetten, D. (1985). Organizational Identity. Research in Organizational Behavior , 7,

263-295.

Barman, E., & MacIndoe, H. (2012). Institutional Pressures and Organizational Capacity: The Case of

Outcome Measurement. Sociological Forum , 27 (1), 70-93.

Beck, N., & Walgenbach, P. (2005). Institutionalized expectations? The adoption of ISO 9000

standards in the German mechanical engineering industry. Organization Studies , 26 (6), 841-866.

Berte, K., & Bens, E. (2008). Newspapers Go for Advertising. Journalism Studies , 9 (5), 692-703.

Binder , A. (2007). For Love and Money: Organizations' Creative Responses to Multiple

Environmental Logics. Theory and Society, 36(6), 547-571.

Brickson, S. (2007). Organizational Identity Orientation: The Genesis of the Role of the Firm and

Distinct Forms of Social Value. Academy of Management Review , 32 (3), 864-888.

Castro, S. (2002). Data analytic methods for the analysis of multilevel questions: A comparison of

intraclass correlation coefficients, rwg(j), hierarchical linear modeling, within and between analysis,

and random group resampling. The Leadership Quarterly , 13, 69-93.

Chen, M., & Hambrick, D. (1995). Speed, stealth and selective attack: how small firms differ from

large firms in competitve behavior. The Academy of Management Journal , 38 (2), 453-482.

Ciuchta, M. (2010). The Impact of Organizational Identity on Learning from Initial Experiences.

Madison: Universtiy of Wisconsin.

Clemens, B., & Douglas, T. (2005). Understanding Strategic Responses to Institutional Pressures.

Journal of Business Research , 58, 1205-1213.

D'Aunno, T., Sutton, R., & Price, R. (1991). Isomorphism and External Support in Conflicting

Institutional Environments: A Study of Drug Abuse Treatment Units. The Academy of Management

Journal, 34(3), 636-661.

Davison, M., Kwak, N., Seo, Y., & Choi, J. (2002). Using hierarchical linear models to examine

moderator effects:Person by organization interactions. Organizational Research Methods , 5 (3),

231-254.

Delmas, M., & Toffel, M. (2008). Organizational Responses to Environmental Demands: Opening the

Black Box. Strategic Management Journal , 29, 1027-1055.

Deephouse, D. (1996). Does Isomorphism Legitimate? Academy of Management Journal , 39, 1024-

1039.

Dhalla, R. (2007). The Construction of Organizational Identity: Key Contributing External and Intra-

Organizational Factors. Corporate Reputation Review , 10, 245-260.

DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective

Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review , 48 (2), 147-160.

DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1991). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective

Rationality in Organizational Fields. W. Powell, & P. DiMaggio in, The New Institutionalism in

Organizational Analysis (p. 63-82). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Dutton, J., & Dukerich, J. (1991). Keeping an Eye on the Mirror: Image and Identity in Organizational

Adaptation. Academy of Management Journal , 34 (3), 517-554.

Elsbach, K., & Kramer, R. (1996). Members' Responses to Organizational Identity Threats:

Encountering and Countering the Business Week Rankings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41

(3), 442-476.

Fiol, C. (1991). Managing Culture as a Competitive Resource: An Identity Based View of Sustainable

Competitve Advantage. Journal of Management , 17 (1), 191-211.

Fiol, C. (2002). Capitalizing on Paradox: The Role of Language in Transforming Organizational

Identities. Organization Science , 13 (6), 653-666.

Fiol, C., & Huff, A. (1992). Maps for manager:Where are we? Where do we go from here. Journal of

Management Studies , 29, 267-285.

Foreman, P., & Parent, M. (2008). The Process of Organizational Identity Construction in Iterative

Organizations. Corporate Reputation Review , 11 (3), 222-244.

Foreman, P., & Whetten, D. (2002). Members' Identification with Multiple Identity organizations.

Organization Science , 13 (6), 618-635.

Fox-Wolfgramm, S., Boal, K., & Hunt, J. (1998). Organizational Adaptation to Institutional Change: A

Comparative Study of First-Order Change in Prospector and Defender Banks. Administrative Science

Quarterly , 43 (1), 87-126

Gioia, D., & Thomas, J. (1996). Identity, Image and Issue Interpretation: Sense Making During

Strategic Change in Academia. Administrative Science Quarterly , 41 (3), 370-403.

Glynn, M., & Abzug, R. (2002). Institutionalizing Identity: Symbolic Isomorphism and Organizational

Names. Academy of Management Journal , 45 (1), 267-280.

Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. (1996). Understanding Radical Organizational Change: Bringing

Together the Old and the New Institutionalism. Academy of Management Review , 21 (4), 1022-

1054.

Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional Complexity and Organizational Responses. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317-371.

Gustafson, L., & Reger, R. (1995). Using Organizational Identity to Achieve Stability and Change in High Velocity Environments. Academy of Management Journal , 464-468.

Hofmann, D. (1997). An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models. Journal of

Management , 23 (6), 723-744.

Hofmann, D., Morgeson, F., & Gerras, S. (2003). Climate as a moderator of the relationship between

leader-member exchange and content specific citizenship: Safety climate as an exemplar. Journal

of Applied Psychology , 88 (1), 170-178.

Hox, J. (2002). Multilevel Analysis: Techniques and Applications. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Hoyer, R. (2004). Strategic Responses to Changing Media Regulations-the Case of Norwegian TV2.

R. Picard in, Strategic Responses to Media Market Changes (p. 165-176). Jönköping: Jönköping

International Business School.

Kaya, R., & Çakmur, B. (2010). Politics and the Mass Media in Turkey. Turkish Studies , 11 (4), 521-

537.

Kimberly, John R., and Hamid Bouchikhi (1995). The dynamics of organizational development and change. Organization

Science, 6: 9-18.

Köylü, H. (2006). Press Ethics and Practice of Journalism in Turkey: A Case Study on Turkish

Journalists' Self Evaluation of Their Codes of Practice. Ankara, Turkey: Middle East Technical

University.

Kraatz, M., & Block, E. (2008). Organizational Implications of Institutional Pluralism. R. Greenwood,

C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby in, The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (s. 243-

275). London: Sage.

Kraatz, M., & Zajac, E. (1996). Exploring the Limits of the New Institutionalism: The Causes and

Consequences of Illegitimate Organizational Change. American Sociological Review , 61, 812-836.

Leblebici, H., Salancik, G., Copay, A., & King, T. (1991). Institutional Change and the Transformation

of Interorganizational Fields: An Organizational History of the U.S. Radio Broadcasting Industry.

Administrative Science Quarterly , 36, 333-363.

Lerpold, L., Ravasi, D., Van Rekom, J., & Soenen, G. (2007). Organizational Identity in Practice.

London: Routledge.

Livengood, R., & Reger, R. (2010). That's Our Turf!Identity Domains and Competitive Dynamics.

Academy of Management Review , 35 (1), 48-66.

Martinez, R., & Dacin, M. (1999). Efficiency Motives and Normative Forces: Combining Transactions

Costs and Institutional Logic. Journal of Management , 25, 75-102.

Mayer, M., & Whittington, R. (2004). Economics, Politics and Nations: Resistance to the

Multidivisional Form in France, Germany and the United Kingdom, 1983-1993. Journal of

Management Studies, 41(7), 1057-1082.

Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and

Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology , 83, 340-363.

Nordqvist, M., Picard, R., & Pesamaa, O. (2010). Industry Associations as Change Agents: The

Institutional Roles of Newspaper Associations. Journal of Media Business Studies , 7 (3), 51-69.

North, D. (1991). Institutions. Journal of Economic Persectives , 5, 97-112.

Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes. Academy of Management Review ,

16 (1), 145-179.

Oliver, C. (1997). The influence of institutional and task environment relationships on organizational

performance: The Canadian construction industry. Journal of Management Studies , 34 (1), 99-124.

Orru, M., Biggart, N., & Hamilton, G. (1991). Organizational Isomorphism in East Asia. W. Powell, &

P. DiMaggio in, The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (p. 361-389). Chicago: The

University of Chicago Press.

Özgüneş, N., & Terzis, G. (2000). Constraints and Remedies for Journalists Reporting National

Conflict: The Case of Greece and Turkey. Journalism Studies , 1 (3), 405-426.

Pache, A., & Santos, F. (2010). When Worlds Collide: The Internal Dynamics of Organizational

Responses to Conflicting Institutional Demands. Academy of Management Review , 35 (3), 455-476.

Parsons, T. (1956). Suggestions for a Sociological Approach to the Theory of Organizations-II.

Administrative Science Quarterly , 1 (63-85), 225-239.

Perrow, C. (1985). Overboard with Myth and Symbols. American Journal of Sociology, 91:151-155.

Phua, F. (2005). Determining the relationships between fee structure and project performance

between firms: An empirical study based on institutional and task environment perspectives.

Construction Management and Economics , 23, 45-56.

Pondy, L. R. (1995) Organizational conflict: Concepts and models. Administrative Science Quarterly 12 (2), pp. 296-320

Powell, W. (1991). Expanding the Scope of Institutional Analysis. W. Powell, & P. DiMaggio in, The

New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (p. 183-203). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ravasi, D., & Van Rekom, J. (2003). Key Issues in Organizational Identity and Identification Theory.

Corporate Reputation Review , 6 (2), 118-132.

Raykov, T. (2011). Intraclass correlation coefficients in hierarchical designs: Evaluation using latent

variable modeling. Structural Equation Modeling , 18, 73-90.

Reger, R., Gustafson, L., DeMarie, S., & Mullane, J. (1994). Reframing the organization:Why

implementing total quality is easier said than done. Academy of Management Review , 19, 565-584.

Ruef, M., & Scott, W. (1998). A Multidimensional Model of Organizational Legitimacy: Hospital

Survival in Changing Institutional Environments. Administrative Science Quarterly , 43, 877-904.

Rughase, O. (2006). Identity and Strategy: How Individual Visions Enable the Design of a Market

Strategy that Works. Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Scott, W. (1987). The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly , 32 (4),

493-511.

Scott, W. (1992). The Organization of Environments: Network, Cultural and Historical Elements. J.

Meyer, & W. Scott in, Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality (p. 155-175). California:

Sage Publications Inc.

Scott, W., & Meyer, J. (1992). The Organization of Societal Sectors. J. Meyer, & W. Scott in,

Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality (p. 129-153). California: Sage Publications.

Sohrab, G. (2009). The Interplay Between Institutional Forces and Organizational Identity. ASAC , (p.

1-15). Ontario.

White, A. (2008). To Tell You The Truth: The Ethical Journalism Initiative. Belgium: International

Federation of Journalists.

Woltman, H., Feldstain, A., MacKay, J., & Rocchi, M. (2012). An introduction to hierarchical linear

modeling. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology , 8 (1), 52-69.

Zucker, L. (1987). Institutioal Theories of Organization. Annual Review of Sociology , 13, 443-464.

Strategic ResponsesOrganizational Identity

Openness and Truthfulness OrientedOrganizational Identity

Business Oriented Organizational Identity

Leadership Oriented Organizational Identity

From Compromise to Acquiescence

From Avoidance to Compromise

From Defiance to Manipulation

The Relative Dominace between Institutional

and Technical Environment

Figure 1. Research Model

Table 1. Results of Hypotheses TestingModel 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

From compromise to acquiescence strategic response (STR1_CA)

Intercept 2.93(<0.001)* (ORGID1) 0.38(<0.001)* (ORGID2) -

0.21(0.09)**** (ORGID3) 0.14 (0.23) (DOMINANC_IE) -0.08(0.75)(DOMINANC_TE) 2.9

6(<0.001)* (INS_ENV) 0.22(0.47) (TECH_ENV) 1.37(0.006)**(ORGID1X DOMINANC_IE)

-0.27(0.24)

(ORGID2X DOMINANC_IE)

0.24(0.28)

(ORGID3X DOMINANC_IE)

-0.25(0.09)****

(ORGID1X DOMINANC_TE)

0.48(<0.001)*

(ORGID2X DOMINANC_TE)

-0.33(<0.001)*

(ORGID3X DOMINANC_TE)

0.23(0.08)****

From avoidance to compromise strategic response (STR2_AC)

Intercept 1.96(<0.001)* (ORGID1) -

0.23(0.06)**** (ORGID2) -0.10(0.29) (ORGID3) 0.11(0.31) (DOMINANC_IE) 0.16(0.47)(DOMINANC_TE) 1.9

0(<0.001)* (INS_ENV) 0.37(0.13) (TECH_ENV) 0.61(0.20)(ORGID1X DOMINANC_IE)

0.13(0.55)

(ORGID2X DOMINANC_IE)

-0.09(0.69)

(ORGID3X DOMINANC_IE)

0.49(<0.001)*

(ORGID1X DOMINANC_TE)

-0.32(0.004)**

(ORGID2X DOMINANC_TE)

-0.07(0.63)

(ORGID3X DOMINANC_TE)

-0.03(0.66)

From defiance to manipulation strategic response (STR3_DM)

Intercept 2.77(<0.001)* (ORGID1) 0.31 (0.01)*** (ORGID2) -0.13(0.19) (ORGID3) 0.04(0.63) (DOMINANC_IE) 0.72(0.006)**(DOMINANC_TE) 2.5

4(<0.001)* (INS_ENV) 0.34(0.38) (TECH_ENV) -1.06(0.16)(ORGID1X DOMINANC_IE)

0.09(0.70)

(ORGID2X DOMINANC_IE)

-0.35(0.11)

(ORGID3X DOMINANC_IE)

0.09(0.63)

(ORGID1X 0.28(0.06)***

DOMINANC_TE) *(ORGID2X DOMINANC_TE)

0.02(0.87)

(ORGID3X DOMINANC_TE)

0.08(0.93)

*p< 0,001; **p< 0,01; ***p< 0,05; ****p< 0,10