Advertisement

Civil Society Meta-organizations and Legitimating Processes: the Case of the Addiction Field in France

  • Adrien Laurent
  • Pierre Garaudel
  • Géraldine SchmidtEmail author
  • Philippe Eynaud
Original Paper
  • 15 Downloads

Abstract

To cope with the new challenges inherent to their political role, civil society organizations must convince their stakeholders about their legitimacy, and meta-organizations (MOs) appear to play a central role in such a context (Ahrne and Brunsson in Scand J Manag 21(4):429–449, 2005; Bonfils in Scand J Disabil Res 13(1):37–51, 2011). In this paper, we aim to better understand the legitimating processes of a specific kind of MOs—namely civil society MOs (CSMOs)—considering that CSMOs feature some characteristics that reinforce both internal and external legitimacy issues. Our research is based on an in-depth case study of a French national federation (Fédération Addiction) formed by the merger of two former federations originating in different fields, alcoholism treatment and drug addiction professionals. We confirm the importance of stakeholders’ representativeness in the governance of MOs and especially in multi-stakeholders CSMOs, and we corroborate the assertion that MOs closely relate to categorization-related issues and the categorization process itself in many ways: the legitimacy and the potential for action of MOs depend on the socially perceived appropriateness of the delimitation of the field that they claim to represent, and at the same time categorization is reinforced by the creation of MOs. We contribute to the current literature on MOs in two main ways. First, we show how a change in the relevant categorization may result from the dual and interacting actions of the MOs themselves and public authorities. Second, our case study illustrates how a restructuring of the MOs landscape may strengthen the salience of internal legitimacy issues federative actors are confronted with in order to maintain their representativeness and position in the expanded organizational field. In this dynamic context, external and internal legitimating processes appear closely intricate, and categorization and governance issues appear strongly interrelated.

Keywords

Legitimacy Legitimating process Meta-organizations Civil society organizations Merger Addictions Addictology 

Notes

References

  1. Ahrne, G., & Brunsson, N. (2005). Organizations and meta-organizations. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 21(4), 429–449.Google Scholar
  2. Ahrne, G., & Brunsson, N. (2008). Meta-organizations. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Ahrne, G., & Brunsson, N. (2011). Organization outside organizations: The significance of partial organization. Organization, 18(11), 83–104.Google Scholar
  4. Ahrne, G., Brunsson, N., & Kerwer, D. (2016a). The paradox of organizing states: A meta-organization perspective on international organizations. Journal of International Organization Studies, 7(1), 5–24.Google Scholar
  5. Ahrne, G., Brunsson, N., & Seidl, D. (2016b). Resurrecting organization by going beyond organizations. In Management Research (pp. 121–140). Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Bailey, D., & Koney, K. M. (2000). Strategic alliances among health and human services organizations: From affiliations to consolidations (Vol. 41). Thousand oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Bang, H., & Esmark, A. (2009). Good governance in network society: Reconfiguring the political from politics to policy. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 31(1), 7–37.Google Scholar
  8. Bergeron, H. (2001). Dispositifs spécialisés “alcool” et “toxicomanie”, santé publique et nouvelle politique des addictions. Paris: Observatoire français des drogues et des toxicomanies.Google Scholar
  9. Berkowitz, H. (2016). Les méta-organisations rendent-elles performatif le développement durable? Stratégies collectives dans le secteur pétrolier (Doctoral dissertation, Université Paris-Saclay).Google Scholar
  10. Berkowitz, H., & Bor, S. (2017). Why meta-organizations matter: A response to Lawton et al. and Spillman. Journal of Management Inquiry, 1056492617712895.Google Scholar
  11. Berkowitz, H., & Dumez, H. (2015). La dynamique des dispositifs d’action collective entre firmes: Le cas des méta-organisations dans le secteur pétrolier. L’Année Sociologique, 65(2), 333–356.Google Scholar
  12. Berkowitz, H., & Dumez, H. (2016). The concept of meta-organization: issues for management studies: The concept of meta-organization. European Management Review, 13(2), 149–156.Google Scholar
  13. Berkowitz, H., & Souchaud, A. (2017). Combler un vide organisationnel dans la fabrique d’une politique publique: l’émergence d’une méta-organisation. Politiques et Management public, 34(1–2), 43–60.Google Scholar
  14. Boléat, M. (1996). Trade association strategy and management. London: Association of British Insurers.Google Scholar
  15. Bolkeat, M. (2003). Managing trade associations. London: Trade Association Forum.Google Scholar
  16. Bonfils, I. S. (2011). Disability meta-organizations and policy-making under new forms of governance. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 13(1), 37–51.Google Scholar
  17. Bovaird, T. (2005). Public governance: Balancing stakeholder power in a network society. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 71(2), 217–228.Google Scholar
  18. Brankovic, J. (2018). How do meta-organizations affect extra-organizational boundaries? The case of university associations. In Towards permeable boundaries of organizations? Vol. 57.Google Scholar
  19. Brès, L., Raufflet, E., & Boghossian, J. (2018). Pluralism in organizations: Learning from unconventional forms of organizations. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(2), 364–386.Google Scholar
  20. Brown, L. D. (2008). Creating credibility. Legitimacy and accountability for transnational civil society. Sterling: Kumarian Press.Google Scholar
  21. Cotton, E., & Gumbrell-McCormick, R. (2012). Global unions as imperfect multilateral organizations: An international relations perspective. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 33(4), 707–728.Google Scholar
  22. Cropper, S., & Bor, S. (2018). (Un) bounding the meta-organization: co-evolution and compositional dynamics of a health partnership. Administrative Sciences, 8(3), 42.Google Scholar
  23. Deephouse, D. L., & Suchman, M. (2008). Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, 49, 77.Google Scholar
  24. DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Collective rationality and institutional isomorphism in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.Google Scholar
  25. Dumez, H. (2008). Les méta-organisations. Le Libellio d’Aegis, 4(3), 31–36.Google Scholar
  26. Ehlinger, S., Perret, V., & Chabaud, D. (2015). Quelle gouvernance pour les réseaux territorialisés d’organisations? Revue Française de Gestion, 41(253), 369–386.Google Scholar
  27. Einarsson, T. (2012). Membership and organizational governance. Stockholm: Stockholm School of Economics.Google Scholar
  28. Evers, A., & Laville, J. L. (2004). Defining the third sector in Europe. Cheltenham: The Third Sector in Europe.Google Scholar
  29. Fligstein, N. (2001). Social skill and the theory of fields. Sociological Theory, 19(2), 105–125.Google Scholar
  30. Fligstein, N. (2013). Understanding stability and change in fields. Research in Organizational Behavior, 33, 39–51.Google Scholar
  31. Fligstein, N., & McAdam, D. (2011). Toward a general theory of strategic action fields. Sociological Theory, 29(1), 1–26.Google Scholar
  32. Fortané, N. (2011). Genèse d’un problème public: les « addictions » . D un concept médical à une catégorie d’action publique ou la transformation des drug policies contemporaines. Lyon: Université Lyon 2.Google Scholar
  33. Frandsen, F., & Johansen, W. (2015). Organizations, stakeholders, and intermediaries: Towards a general theory. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 9(4), 253–271.Google Scholar
  34. Gadille, M., Tremblay, D. G., & Vion, A. (2013). La méta-organisation territorialisée, moteur d’apprentissages collectifs. Revue Interventions économiques. Papers in Political Economy, 48.Google Scholar
  35. Gimet, P., & Grenier, C. (2018). Gouvernance et leadership d’une méta-organisation innovante-Le cas d’un pôle dédié aux services médicosociaux à domicile. Revue Française de Gestion, 44(273), 11–27.Google Scholar
  36. Gulati, R., Puranam, P., & Tushman, M. (2012). Meta-organization design: Rethinking design in interorganizational and community contexts. Strategic Management Journal, 33(6), 571–586.Google Scholar
  37. Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2010). Discourse, field-configuring events, and change in organizations and institutional fields: Narratives of DDT and the Stockholm convention. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1365–1392.Google Scholar
  38. Johnson, C. (2004). Legitimacy processes in organizations. In Legitimacy processes in organizations (Vol. 22, pp. 1–24). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  39. Karlberg, E., & Jacobsson, K. (2015). A meta-organizational perspective on the europeanization of civil society: The case of the Swedish Women’s Lobby. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(4), 1438–1459.Google Scholar
  40. Kerwer, D. (2013). International organizations as meta-organizations: The case of the European Union. Journal of International Organizations Studies, 4(2), 40–53.Google Scholar
  41. Kluttz, D. N., & Fligstein, N. (2016). Varieties of sociological field theory. In Handbook of contemporary sociological theory, (pp. 185–204). Springer, Cham.Google Scholar
  42. König, A., Schulte, M., & Enders, A. (2012). Inertia in response to non-paradigmatic change: The case of meta-organizations. Research Policy, 41(8), 1325–1343.Google Scholar
  43. Lampel, J., & Meyer, A. D. (2008). Guest Editors’ introduction: Field-configuring events as structuring mechanisms: How conferences, ceremonies, and trade shows constitute new technologies, industries, and markets. Journal of Management Studies, 45(6), 1025–1035.Google Scholar
  44. Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691–710.Google Scholar
  45. Laville, J. L., Young, D., & Eynaud, P. (2015). Civil society, The Third Sector, Social Enterprise: Governance and democracy. Oxfordshire: The Third Sector, Social Enterprise.Google Scholar
  46. Lawton, T. C., Rajwani, T., & Minto, A. (2018). Why trade associations matter: Exploring function, meaning, and influence. Journal of Management Inquiry, 27(1), 5–9.Google Scholar
  47. McInerney, P.-B. (2008). Showdown at Kykuit: Field-configuring events as loci for conventionalizing accounts. Journal of Management Studies, 45(6), 1089–1116.Google Scholar
  48. Mena, S., & Suddaby, R. (2016). Theorization as institutional work: The dynamics of roles and practices. Human Relations, 69(8), 1669–1708.Google Scholar
  49. Meyer, M., Buber, R., & Aghamanoukjan, A. (2013). In search of legitimacy: Managerialism and Legitimation in Civil Society Organizations. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 24, 167–193.Google Scholar
  50. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (2003). Analyse des données qualitatives. Paris: De Boeck Supérieur.Google Scholar
  51. Mountford, N., & Geiger, S. (2018). Duos and duels in field evolution: How governments and interorganizational networks relate. Organization Studies.Google Scholar
  52. Pallas, C. L., Gethings, D., & Harris, M. (2015). Do the right thing: The impact of INGO legitimacy standards on Stakeholder input. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26, 1261–1287.Google Scholar
  53. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence approach. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.Google Scholar
  54. Powell, W., & Friedkin, R. (1987). Organizational change in nonprofit organizations. In W. Powell (Ed.), The nonprofit sector. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Radnejad, A. B., Vredenburg, H., & Woiceshyn, J. (2017). Meta-organizing for open innovation under environmental and social pressures in the oil industry. Technovation, 66, 14–27.Google Scholar
  56. Rajwani, T., Lawton, T., & Phillips, N. (2015). The “Voice of Industry”: Why management researchers should pay more attention to trade associations. Strategic Organization, 13(3), 224–232.Google Scholar
  57. Rodrigues, S., & Child, J. (2003). Co-evolution in an institutionalized environment. Journal of Management Studies, 40(8), 2137–2162.Google Scholar
  58. Spillman, L. (2018). Meta-organization matters. Journal of Management Inquiry, 27(1), 16–20.Google Scholar
  59. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications.Google Scholar
  60. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571.Google Scholar
  61. Wang, P. (2010). Restructuring to repair legitimacy—A contingency perspective. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 18(1), 6–82.Google Scholar
  62. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research design and methods third edition. Applied social research methods series, 5.Google Scholar
  63. Young, D. R. (2001). Organizational identity and the structure of nonprofit umbrella associations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 11(3), 289–304.Google Scholar
  64. Zilber, T. B. (2008). The work of meanings in institutional processes. The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, 18, 151–168.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sorbonne Graduate Business SchoolParisFrance

Personalised recommendations