Abstract

We wish to thank James Baron, Mary Douglas, Elisabeth Hansot, Meryl Louis, James March, Jeffrey Pfeffer, Edgar Schein, Art Stinchcombe, and Eugene Webb fortheir helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Organizational cultures, and in particular stories, carry a claim to uniqueness-that an institution is unlike any other. This paper argues that a culture's claim to uniqueness is, paradoxically, expressed through cultural manifestations, such as stories, that are not in fact unique. We present seven types of stories that make a tacit claim to uniqueness. We show that these seven stories occur, in virtually identical form, in a wide variety of organizations. We then suggest why these stories have proliferated while others have not.

Keywords

UniquenessSociologyInstitutionWishVariety (cybernetics)Organizational cultureEpistemologyLawManagementSocial sciencePhilosophyPolitical scienceAnthropologyMathematicsEconomics

Related Publications

Dynamic Programming

Richard Bellman

Little has been done in the study of these intriguing questions, and I do not wish to give the impression that any extensive set of ideas exists that could be called a "theory."...

2010 Science 13053 citations

Scattered Data Approximation

Holger Wendland

Many practical applications require the reconstruction of a multivariate function from discrete, unstructured data. This book gives a self-contained, complete introduction into ...

2004 Cambridge University Press eBooks 2534 citations

Publication Info

Year
1983
Type
article
Volume
28
Issue
3
Pages
438-438
Citations
747
Access
Closed

External Links

Download PDF (Free) View on DOI.org Semantic Scholar

Social Impact

Altmetric
PlumX Metrics

Social media, news, blog, policy document mentions

Citation Metrics

747
OpenAlex
14
Influential
494
CrossRef

Cite This

Joanne Martin, Martha S. Feldman, Mary Jo Hatch et al. (1983). The Uniqueness Paradox in Organizational Stories. Administrative Science Quarterly , 28 (3) , 438-438. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392251

Identifiers

DOI
10.2307/2392251

Data Quality

Data completeness: 77%