We examine how founding conditions shape the proliferation of management and administration in a sample of young technology start-up companies in California's Silicon Valley. Analyzing quantitative and qualitative information, we examine the enduring imprint of two aspects of founding conditions: (1) the initial gender mix in start-ups and (2) the founder's employment model. Both factors influence the extent of managerial intensity that develops over time. In particular, firms with bureaucratic-model founders subsequently became more administratively intense than otherwise similar companies, particularly when compared with companies with “commitment-model” founders. Also, firms with proportionately more women during the first year subsequently bureaucratized less than otherwise similar firms. Our analyses thus support notions of path-dependence in the evolution of organizational structures and underscore the importance of the “logics of organizing” that founders bring to new enterprises.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarnettWilliam P. and CarrollGlenn R.. 1995. “Modeling Internal Organizational Change.” Annual Review of Sociology21: 217–36.
2.
BaronJames N., Diane BurtonM., and HannanMichael T.. 1996. “The Road Taken: The Origins and Evolution of Employment Systems in Emerging High-Technology Companies.” Industrial and Corporate Change5: 239–76.
3.
BaronJames N., Diane BurtonM., and HannanMichael T.. 1999. “Engineering Bureaucracy: The Genesis of Formal Policies, Positions, and Structures in High Technology Firms.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization15: 1–41.
4.
BaronJames N., Davis-BlakeAlison, and BielbyWilliam T.. 1986. “The Structure of Opportunity: How Promotion Ladders Vary within and among Organizations.” Administrative Science Quarterly31: 248–73.
5.
BaronJames N., HannanMichael T., and Diane BurtonM.. 1999a. “Determinants of Managerial Intensity in the Early Years of Organizations.” Research Paper No. 1550, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
6.
BaronJames N., HannanMichael T., and Diane BurtonM.. 1999b. “Labor Pains: Organizational Change and Employee Turnover in Young, High-Tech Firms.” Research Paper No. 1556, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
7.
BeckerGary. 1957. The Economics of Discrimination. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
8.
BielbyWilliam T. and BaronJames N.. 1986. “Men and Women at Work: Sex Segregation and Statistical Discrimination.” American Journal of Sociology91: 759–99.
9.
BlauPeter M.1970. “A Formal Theory of Differentiation in Organizations.” American Sociological Review35: 201–18.
10.
BlauPeter M. and SchoenherrRichard A.. 1971. The Structures of Organizations. New York: Basic Books.
11.
BoekerWarren. 1988. “Organizational Origins: Entrepreneurial and Environmental Imprinting at the Time of Founding.” Pp. 33–51 in Ecological Models of Organizations, edited by CarrollG. R.. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
12.
BoekerWarren. 1989. “Strategic Change: The Effects of Founding and History.” Academy of Management Journal32: 489–515.
13.
BurtonM. Diane. 1995. The Evolution of Employment Systems in High Technology Firms. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Sociology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
14.
BurtonM. Diane. 1999. “Employment Models in Entrepreneurial Companies.”Harvard Business School, Cambridge, MA. Unpublished manuscript.
15.
BurtonM. Diane. Forthcoming. “The Company They Keep: Founders' Models for Organizing High-Technology Firms.” In The Entrepreneurship Dynamic in Community Perspective, edited by SchoonhovenC. B. and RomanelliE.. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
16.
CarrollGlenn R. and Richard HarrisonJ.. 1994. “On the Historical Efficiency of Competition between Organizational Populations.” American Journal of Sociology100: 720–49.
17.
DeephouseDavid L.1996. “Does Isomorphism Legitimate?”Academy of Management Journal39: 1024–39.
18.
DobbinFrank, SuttonJohn R., MeyerJohn W., and Richard ScottW.. 1994. “Equal Opportunity Law and the Construction of Internal Labor Markets.” Pp. 272–300 in Institutional Environments and Organizations: Structural Complexity and Individualism, edited by W. R. Scott, J. W. Meyer and Associates. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
EdelmanLauren B.1990. “Legal Environments and Organizational Governance: The Expansion of Due Process in the American Workplace.” American Journal of Sociology96: 1401–40.
20.
EdwardsRichard C.1979. Contested Terrain: The Transformation of the Workplace in the Twentieth Century. New York: Basic.
21.
FligsteinNeil. 1987. “The Intraorganizational Power Struggle: The Rise of Finance Presidents in Large Corporations.” American Sociological Review52: 44–58.
22.
FligsteinNeil. 1990. The Transformation of Corporate Control. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23.
GoldenBrian R.1997. “Further Remarks on Retrospective Accounts in Organizational and Strategic Management Research.” Academy of Management Journal40: 1243–52.
24.
HaireMason. 1959. “Biological Models and Empirical Histories of the Growth of Organizations.” Pp. 272–306 in Modern Organization Theory, edited by HaireM.. New York: Wiley.
25.
HannanMichael T., Diane BurtonM., and BaronJames N.. 1996. “Inertia and Change in the Early Years: Employment Relations in Young, High-Technology Firms.” Industrial and Corporate Change5: 503–36.
26.
HannanMichael T. and FreemanJohn. 1977. “The Population Ecology of Organizations.” American Journal of Sociology82: 929–64.
27.
HannanMichael T. and FreemanJohn. 1984. “Structural Inertia and Organizational Change.” American Sociological Review49: 149–64.
28.
MartinJoanne, KnopoffKathy, and BeckmanChristine. 1998. “Seeking an Alternative to Bureaucratic Impersonality and Emotional Labor: Bounded Emotionality at The Body Shop.” Administrative Science Quarterly43: 429–69.
29.
McPhersonJ. Miller and Smith-LovinLynn. 1987. “Homophily in Voluntary Associations: Status Distance and the Composition of Face-to-Face Groups.” American Sociological Review52: 370–79.
30.
MeyerJohn W. and RowanBrian. 1977. “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony.” American Journal of Sociology83: 340–63.
31.
MeyerJohn W. and Richard ScottW.. 1992. Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality. Updated ed. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
32.
PolachekSolomon. 1979. “Occupational Segregation among Women: Theory, Evidence, and Prognosis.” Pp. 137–57 in Women in the Labor Market, edited by LloydC. B., AndrewsE. S., and GilroyC. C.. New York: Columbia University Press.
33.
PughD. S., HicksonD. R., HiningsC. R., and TurnerC.. 1968. “Dimensions of Organizational Structure.” Administrative Science Quarterly13: 65–91.
34.
ReskinBarbara F. and RoosPatricia A.. 1990. Job Queues, Gender Queues: Explaining Women's Inroads into Male Occupations. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
35.
SaxenianAnnaLee. 1994. Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
36.
ScottW. Richard. 1992. Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. 3d ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
37.
ScottW. Richard. 1995. Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38.
ShenhavYehouda. 1995. “From Chaos to Systems: The Engineering Foundations of Organization Theory, 1879–1932.” Administrative Science Quarterly40: 557–85.
39.
StinchcombeArthur L.1965. “Social Structure and Organizations.” Pp. 142–93 in Handbook of Organizations, edited by MarchJ. G.. Chicago, IL: Rand-McNally.
40.
StrangDavid and BaronJames N.. 1990. “Categorical Imperatives: The Structure of Job Titles in California State Agencies.” American Sociological Review55: 479–95.
41.
TushmanMichael L. and MurmannJohann Peter. 1998. “Dominant Designs, Technology Cycles, and Organizational Outcomes.” Pp. 231–66 in Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20, edited by StawB. M. and CummingsL. L.. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
42.
WaltonRichard E.1985. “From Control to Commitment in the Workplace.” Harvard Business Review63: 76–84.
