In contrast to the recently dominant nonrational approach to institutional structure, the authors posit that new institutional structures under most conditions must have net benefits for performance of the organization or they are significantly less likely to be adopted. Over the past 2 decades, the dedicated new biotechnology firm (NBF) emerged as a new institution—a new form of science-based firm in which venture capital support of basic research is legitimated. The authors show that the most productive “star” bioscientists, one of whom invented the form, played a central role in where and when NBFs were formed and that star involvement determines which ones are most successful. Furthermore, involvement with a NBF furthers the scientific and financial success of star scientists. The authors conclude that the NBF was a rational and successful innovation for its inventor and his imitators and that explains its becoming a new institutional form.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Blau, P. (1955). The dynamics of bureaucracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2.
Coleman, J. (1980). Power and the structure of society. New York: Norton.
3.
Coleman, J. (1993). The rational reconstruction of society. American Sociological Review, 58, 1-15.
4.
DiMaggio, P. (1982). Cultural entrepreneurship in nineteenth-century Boston: The creation of an organizational base for high culture in America. Media, Culture and Society, 4, 33-50.
5.
DiMaggio, P. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L. G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations: Culture and environment (pp. 3-22). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
6.
Elsbach, K. & Sutton, R. (1992). Acquiring organizational legitimation through illegitimate actions: A marriage of institutional and impression management theories. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 699-736.
7.
Gouldner, A. (1950). Patterns of industrial bureaucracy. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
8.
Jones, E. E. (1964). Ingratiation. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
9.
Jones, E. E. , & Wortman, C. B. (1973). Ingratiation: An attributional approach. Morristown, NJ: General Learning.
10.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11.
Merton, R. (1948). Manifest and latent functions. In R. Merton (Ed.), Social theory and social structure (pp. 37-59). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
12.
Meyer, J. , & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340-363.
13.
Selznick, P. (1949). TVA and the grassroots. Berkeley: University of California Press.
14.
Tolbert, P. S. , & Zucker, L. G. (1996). The institutionalization of institutional theory. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 175-190). London: Sage.
15.
Zucker, L. G. (1977). The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. American Sociological Review, 42, 726-743.
16.
Zucker, L. G. (1991). Postscript: Microfoundations of institutional thought. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 103-107). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17.
Zucker, L. G. , & Darby, M. R. (1995). Sociological analysis of multi-institutional collaborations in space science and geophysics. In J. Warnow-Blewett, A. J. Capitos, J. Genuth, & S. R. Weart (Eds.), AIP study of multi-institutional collaborations, Phase II: Space science and geophysics. Report No. 2: Documenting collaborations in space science and geophysics (pp. 149-178). College Park, MD: American Institute of Physics.
18.
Zucker, L. G. , & Darby, M. R. (1996a). Costly information in firm transformation, exit, or persistent failure. American Behavioral Scientist, 39, 959-974.
19.
Zucker, L. G. , & Darby, M. R. (1996b). Star scientists and institutional transformation: Patterns of invention and innovation in the formation of the biotechnology industry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 93, 12709-12716.
20.
Zucker, L. G., & Darby, M. R. (1996c). Star scientists, institutions, and the entry of Japanese biotechnology enterprises. Working Paper No. 5795, National Bureau of Economic Research.
21.
Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Armstrong, J. (1994). Intellectual capital and the firm: The technology of geographically localized knowledge spillovers. Working Paper No. 4946, National Bureau of Economic Research.
22.
Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Brewer, M. B. (1994). Intellectual capital and the birth of U.S. biotechnology enterprises. Working Paper No. 4653, National Bureau of Economic Research.
23.
Zucker, L. G. , Darby, M. R., Brewer, M. B., & Peng, Y. (1996). Collaboration structure and information dilemmas in biotechnology: Organizational boundaries as trust production. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations (pp. 90-113). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24.
Zucker, L. G. , & Kreft, I.G.G. (1994). The evolution of socially contingent rational action: Effects of labor strikes on change in union founding in the 1880s. In J.A.C. Baum & J. V. Singh (Eds.), Evolutionary dynamics of organizations (pp. 194-313). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
25.
Zuckerman, H. (1967). Nobel laureates in science: Patterns of productivity, collaboration, and authorship. American Sociological Review, 32, 391-403.
26.
Zuckerman, H. (1977). Scientific elite: Nobel laureates in the United States. New York: Free Press.
