Competing theories of organizational behavior offer a variety of reasons why organizations cease to exist. Some reasons are internal to the organization, such as losing control over financial matters and being unable to routinize procedures. Other reasons are environmental, such as changing market conditions, lacking social capital, outside regulation, and not being perceived as legitimate by external power holders. The authors interviewed representatives from dead nonprofit organizations to determine the extent to which these theoretical explanations match with respondent understandings of why their organizations closed. Respondents were more likely to attribute death to their smallness, youth, financial difficulties, personnel turnover, being perceived as unimportant, or decreased demand for their services. Organizations that said they were “too young” or “too small” were more likely to say that they were too disconnected from other organizations in the community, thus shedding light on why youth and smallness are such a liability for organizations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baum, J. A.C. , and C. Oliver.1991. Institutional linkages and organizational mortality. Administrative Science Quarterly36:187-218.
2.
Bielefeld, W.1992. Funding uncertainty and nonprofit strategies in the 1980's. Nonprofit Management and Leadership2:381-402.
3.
Bielefeld, W.1994. What affects nonprofit survival?Nonprofit Management and Leadership5:19-36.
4.
Bowen, W. , T. Nygren, S. Turner, and E. Duffy. 1994. The charitable nonprofits. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
5.
Burt, R. 1983. Corporate profits and cooptation: Networks of market constraints and directorate ties in the American economy. New York: Academic Press.
6.
Brüderl, J. , P. Preisendörfer, and R. Ziegler.1992. Survival chances of newly founded business organizations. American Sociological Review57:227-242.
7.
Brüderl, J. , and R. Schüssler.1990. Organizational mortality: The liabilities of newness and adolescence. Administrative Science Quarterly35:530-547.
8.
Carroll, G. R.1983. A stochastic model of organizational mortality: Review and reanalysis. Social Science Review12:303-329.
9.
Carroll, G. R. , and J. Delacroix.1982. Organizational mortality in the newspaper industries of Argentina and Ireland: An ecological approach. Administrative Science Quarterly27:169-198.
10.
Carroll, G. R. , and M. T. Hannan.1989. Density dependence in the evolution of populations of newspaper organizations. American Sociological Review54:524-541.
11.
Carroll, G. R. , and M. T. Hannan. 1994. Organizations in industry: Strategy, structure, and selection. New York: Oxford University Press.
12.
DiMaggio, P. , and W. Powell.1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review48:147-160.
13.
Estes, C. L. , E. A. Binney, and L. A. Bergthold. 1989. How the legitimacy of the sector has eroded. In The future of the nonprofit sector: Challenges, changes, and policy considerations, edited by V. A. Hodgkinson and R. W. Lyman. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
14.
Freeman, J. , G. R. Carroll, and M. T. Hannan.1983. The liability of newness: Age dependence in organizational death rates. American Journal of Sociology48:692-710.
15.
Galaskiewicz, J. 1985. Social organization of an urban grants economy: A study of business philanthropy and nonprofit organizations. Orlando: Academic Press.
16.
Galaskiewicz, J. 1990. Corporate-nonprofit linkages in Minneapolis-St. Paul: Findings from a longitudinal study 1980-1988. Research Report, University of Minnesota, Department of Sociology.
17.
Galaskiewicz, J. , and Bielefeld, W. 1990. Growth, decline, and organizational strategies: A panel study of nonprofit organizations 1980-1988. In The nonprofit sector (NGO'S) in the United States and abroad: Cross-cultural perspectives. Washington, DC: Independent Sector.
18.
Galaskiewicz, J. , and Bielefeld, W. Forthcoming. Nonprofit organizations in an age of uncertainty: A study of growth and decline. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
19.
Goss, K. A.1993. A crisis of credibility for America's nonprofits. Chronicle of Philanthropy (15 June.): 1, 38-41.
20.
Hager, M., and C. Jorgensen. 1996. Changes in the nonprofit sector 1980-1992: Evidence from four studies. Working paper, University of Minnesota, Department of Sociology.
21.
Hannan, M. T. , and G. R. Carroll. 1992. Dynamics of organizational populations: Density, legitimation, and competition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22.
Hannan, M. T. , and J. Freeman.1984. Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review49:149-164.
23.
Marple, D.1982. Technological innovation and organizational survival: A population ecology study of nineteenth-century American railroads. The Sociological Quarterly23:107-116.
24.
Meyer, M. , and L. Zucker. 1989. Permanently failing organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
25.
Millar, B.1991. United Way emphasizes donor choice. Chronicle of Philanthropy, (12 February): 23-25.
26.
Millar, B. and Moore, J.1991. Corporate Gifts Harder to Obtain. Chronicle of Philanthropy (2 July.): 1, 12-14.
27.
Milofsky, C. 1987. Neighborhood-based organizations: A market analogy. In The non-profit sector: A research handbook, edited by W. W. Powell, 227-195. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
28.
Pfeffer, J. , and G. R. Salancik. 1978. The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row.
29.
Selle, P. , and B. Oymyr.1992. Explaining changes in the population of voluntary organizations: The roles of aggregate and individual level data. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly21:147-179.
30.
Singer, M. I. , and J. A. Yankey.1991. Organizational metamorphosis: A study of eighteen nonprofit mergers, acquisitions, and consolidations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership1:357-369.
31.
Singh, J. V. , D. J. Tucker, and R. J. House.1986. Organizational legitimacy and the liability of newness. Administrative Science Quarterly31:171-193.
32.
Stinchcombe, A. L. 1965. Social structure and organizations. In Handbook of organizations, edited by J. G. March, 142-193. Chicago: Rand-McNally.
33.
Swaminathan, A. , and G. Wiedenmayer.1991. Does the pattern of density dependence in organizational mortality vary across levels of analysis? Evidence from the German brewing industry. Social Science Research20:45-73.
34.
Suchman, M.1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review20:571-610.
35.
Tsoukas, H.1991. The missing link: A transformational view of metaphors in organizational science. Academy of Management Review16:566-585.
36.
Tushman, M. L. , and E. Romanelli. 1985. Organizational evolution: A metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. In Research in organizational behavior, vol. 7, edited by L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw, 171-222. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
37.
Van de Ven, A. H. , and M. S. Poole.1995. Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review20:510-540.
38.
Wernet, S. P. , and S. A. Jones.1992. Merger and acquisition activity between nonprofit social service organizations: A case study. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly21:367-380.
39.
Wilson, E. K.1985. What counts in the death or transformation of an organization?Social Forces64:259-280.
40.
Wholey, D. R. , J. B. Christianson, and S. M. Sanchez.1992. Organizational size and failure among health maintenance organizations. American Sociological Review57:829-842.
41.
Young, R. C.1988. Is population ecology a useful paradigm for the study of organizations?American Journal of Sociology94:1-22.
