Ruth Young, "Is Population Ecology a Useful Paradigm for the Study of Organizations?"
1988.

Let me answer that question before I go any further with this summary: No. Or at least, not very often.

This article represents a sharp, incisive attack on the idea of population ecology within organizational studies; it is done eloquently and resoundingly, and in the end you start to feel like a dope for ever thinking pop. ecol. had any useful ideas in it. Hannan and Freeman are trounced.

You get the feeling that Ms. Young has a strong background in biology herself. She is able to point out clearly where population ecology in the biological sense simply doesn't apply to human social behavior, and she does it in ways that few purely social scientists could possibly do. With that intro, let us begin.

What is a species?

Young asks this question, and demonstrates the glaring differences between animal/ plant populations and "populations" or organizations. H & F (Hannan and Freeman) have argued that orgs sharing formal structure, patterns of activity, and normative order (these are mentioned in my summary of H&F's article). Young points out that animals are grouped into a species if they are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring: some animals have drastically different male and female forms (witness the peacock or the termite) where at first glance the two might seem to belong to entirely different genetic pools. No such "neat and tidy" definition exists for organizations; for example, there are many ways to classify manufacturing industries: by product (all paper products, all steel products, etc.), by whether or not the members of the industry buy and sell from each other (shared markets), or by forms of ownership and concentration (United Airlines is employee-owned; British Airways is not- does this make them different species?). For every proposed form of defining an organizational species, there are other ways to view the arrangement.

What is a niche?

In the biological sense, a niche is a "multi-dimensional hypervolume" (try wrapping your head around that concept) defined by the sum total of all of the interactions of an organism and its environment (so temperature, moisture, and food are all different dimensions of most animals' niches, although, for example, moisture is a given for all aquatic life). These niches have definable limits, and these limits are knowable (e.g., if you take a fish out of water, it will suffocate- that is part of what makes it a fish). However, niches are only identifiable if we know what species occupy them- the corner of my bedroom is not a niche for rabbits because rabbits do not occupy the corners of bedrooms in general. In this way, niches are only meaningful in such a context. Thus, the terms "species" and "niche" are only definable in terms of each other, and in the context of each other.

Orgs, however, do not operate by the same rules. Often, orgs form the environment of other orgs, and can alter those orgs to "better" suit them in whatever sense. And if one org absorbs another (through whatever method), has that org altered its niche or changed its "genetic" structure? Where, specifically, does an org leave off and the environment begin? And if an org creates its own market (for example, in the case of the pet-rock craze), has that org actually "created" a niche? This idea is anathema to biology, and cannot stand up to scrutiny.

Birth and Death

Birth and death in the animal and plant worlds are fairly straightforward: either something is alive or it is dead, with the qualified exception of some crystalline viruses. But when does an org "die"? When two orgs join, H&F argue that the dominant one lives on while the subordinate one dies, but what about the gray area when both orgs join without a clearly dominant partner- can death fall "neatly" into such a gray area? Isn't it a little ludicrous to suggest that death can frequently be ambiguous? Is it like the larger org "ate" the smaller one? But the smaller one lives on under the auspices of the larger one- that isn't death, that's change. H&F also argue that perhaps when two orgs join, both "die" and a new "animal" is "born." Again, the analogy is weak; when a sperm and egg join, do they die? Hardly.

Some org deaths are obvious: a firm declares bankruptcy, and goes out of business. Death. Likewise, births are often relatively clear-cut: the founding of a new school or the establishment of a government in a newly formed country like Slovakia. But the gaping holes in the analogy are too large to ignore. When Czechoslovakia's government (yes, an organization) split into the Czech Republic and the country of Slovakia, did "Czechoslovakia" "die"? Was the Czech Republic really "born"? Didn't it exist all along? There is not clear biological analogy here.

Independence

In biological theory, every animal and plant (defined in terms of genetics) has clearly defined physical boundaries, and acts as an individual unit, completely independently. Even bees, which are part of the organization of the hive, can be clearly separated from each other (one is never confused about where one bee leaves off and another begins). Orgs are not so separable: the Department of Tobacco and Firearms is part of the U.S. Federal Government; the American Sociological Association (an org if there ever was one) contains members with affiliations with various universities in various countries (in which they are also members)-- where does the ASA leave off and the university begin?

Inertia and Change

Animals can change some (usually very few) behaviors over time, but their cellular genetic codes remains stable (with another qualified exception, I guess, in the form of cancerous cells). Orgs, on the other hand, are free to alter their formal structure and all other aspects of their existence, at the drop of the proverbial hat. No matter how much better it might be for a fish to take to the air (say, the lake, its "niche," is drying up) fish lack the ability to move to another lake (flopping around on the ground not withstanding). But if an org finds that its niche (say, its market) is "drying up," the org can switch to manufacturing another product or offering another service in order to "survive." Again, the analogy has broken down.

As a final dig at H&F, check this out: "The Hannan and Freeman articles are difficult to read, whereas the biological ecology literature from which their model is derived is not. The latter defines its terms precisely and unmistakably, and, if one comprehends, them, all that follows is clear. This is a major difference. In the population ecology of organizations, definitions are vague and difficult or else entirely lacking." One must conclude, therefore, that the match between the two concepts is an imperfect one at best.

Clearly the appeal of using a population ecology model is tempting: there are enough similarities between the social and biological models that the social scientist gets excited about creating a complete analogy. But the analogy breaks down, leaving future research in the lurch and preventing adequate or meaningful empirical progress. This is what Young is complaining about. Hannan and Freeman have taken from biology that which serves their purposes, and ignored that which does not; this makes their arguments weak at best, and misleading at worst. Young suggests that if the population ecology model has not proven its worth within the next ten years (a period of time which, by 1998, has elapsed) it should be discarded and a new paradigm pursued, one with more rigorous methodological standards. After reading this article, you have to agree with her.