Why are organizations sometimes so similar, and in other cases so different? For decades this question has been central to research on organizations, and two leading theories have answered the question very differently. Neo-institutional theory points to the importance of mimetic isomorphism, where organizations imitate one another as they navigate decisions in the context of uncertainty over what is regarded as legitimate action. By contrast, ecological theory argues that competitive exclusion explains the differences we see around us, as organizations repel one another when they vie for the same resources. Decades of empirical work have tended to confirm one or the other prediction, with little acknowledgement of their opposition. Furthermore, much of the existing empirical work is limited to descriptive studies that make little or no attempt to empirically identify their findings, leaving the empirical record open to concerns over endogeneity. This article conducts an identified empirical test in a context where the two arguments make opposing predictions. In an analysis of auditor selection after the collapse of Arthur Andersen, we find evidence of competitive exclusion but no evidence of mimetic isomorphism. Implications for the continued progress of organization theory are discussed.

中文翻译：

---

竞争排斥与拟态同构：一个确定的实证检验

为什么组织有时如此相似，有时又如此不同？几十年来，这个问题一直是组织研究的核心，两个主要理论对这个问题的回答截然不同。新制度理论指出了模仿同构的重要性，在这种情况下，组织在不确定什么被视为合法行为的背景下进行决策时会相互模仿。相比之下，生态理论认为竞争排斥解释了我们在我们周围看到的差异，因为组织在争夺相同资源时会相互排斥。数十年的实证工作倾向于证实一个或另一个预测，但很少承认他们的反对意见。此外，许多现有的实证工作仅限于描述性研究，很少或根本没有尝试从经验上确定他们的发现，使得经验记录容易引起对内生性的担忧。本文在两个论点做出相反预测的背景下进行了一项确定的实证检验。在对 Arthur Andersen 倒闭后审计师选择的分析中，我们发现了竞争排斥的证据，但没有发现模仿同构的证据。讨论了对组织理论持续进步的影响。我们发现了竞争排斥的证据，但没有发现模拟同构的证据。讨论了对组织理论持续进步的影响。我们发现了竞争排斥的证据，但没有发现模拟同构的证据。讨论了对组织理论持续进步的影响。