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