Towards a Theory of Organizational Age

• In Event: 1184 - Section on Organizations, Occupations, and Work Refereed Roundtable Session
  In Refereed Roundtable 100min: Table 07. Organizational Theory

Abstract

Comparative organizational studies have focused on two basic, foundational characteristics: organizational size and age. The two have been found to be highly related. However, although many data sets of organizational characteristics have been created and studied, they are “left-censored” by not including small, emergent organizations. This distorts both size and age measures. In the study of organizational age, scholars focus on the date of incorporation or licensing, a measure readily available from legal sources but neglects earlier organizational forms and processes. The data sets created for this paper offers a comparison by examining museums, with museum association and the federal government data. The source of the organization’s age comes from a founding date determined by the organization’s representative and based on internal criteria, not legal requirements.
The results from study of 4731 and 37,114 museum listings provide the basis for a new understanding of the differentiation of organizations from their environment. A majority of museums are not independent, but are listed in official directories under the name of, or along with the name of a sponsor. The concept of organizational founding is fluid, depending on which event in the differentiation of the future museum is selected to supply the founding date. Organizational dynamics determine the event and the changed circumstances that lead to a different choice and consequent different age. Over decades of entries in official directories only 53 percent of listings providing more than one datum on their founding supply the same date over time. Of the other 47 percent, only 16 percent become “newer” while 31 percent become “older.”
The theory of museum differentiation articulated here is supported by findings that would otherwise appear contradictory and not in accord with other comparative studies.

Author

• Keith R. Johnson, Independent Scholar