Population Ecology vs. Neoinstitutional Theory

The organization-environment relationships fully describe several areas of the UCSB, two of which contain population ecology and new institutional theory. Population ecology and new institutional theory are looking at the University of California, San Diego from another perspective. Population ecology considers UCSB as a species or a dying species. Using this, I will compare population ecology and new institutional theory with the University of California at Santa Barbara.

Population ecology believes that the environment is dominant and the organization has fought against it. Population ecology is based on Darwin's theory, which allows species species to mutate, select, maintain and modify. This theory assumes that the environment has been decided that environmental resources are limited and competition can not be avoided. Charles Darwin's 19th century writings are synonymous with this theory. His work emphasizes the survival of the fittest and the survival of the weak, and the race is getting stronger. And their weak elements are late. As resources are "non-renewable", organizations, the environment, and other organizations are continually struggling. Survival is considered the most important and most important goal for the organization. This ignores the fact that certain organizations such as ASH and the Red Cross do indeed want to die if possible. (Morgan, 1986)

The idea that "organizations are constantly fighting the environment" seems to fit these three theories. System theory, population ecology, and accidentality theory all emphasize the environment and clearly show that the organization never knows the environment. Therefore, they are forced to adapt, change and manage important areas of the organization, so they will continue to fight the environment.