Rapid Technology Changes Keep Industries Mimetic

Introduction

“The more things change, the more things stay the same” is a well-known proverb that applies strongly to business theory. DiMaggio and Powell's (1983) work highlights three pressures that keep organizations from acting uniquely: coercive isomorphism, which stems from “political influence and the problem of legitimacy”; normative isomorphism, which is “associated with professionalization”; and mimetic isomorphism, which occurs “when goals are ambiguous, or when the environment creates symbolic uncertainty.” With technology evolving faster than ever, organizations appear to be in a continuous state of mimetic isomorphism. To explore this idea, this paper examines three major technological eras, the boom of the internet, the social media surge, and the current AI environment, identifying mimetic drivers that surface when uncertainty and fear dominate.

The Dot-Com Era, Mimicry to Exist

The dot-com boom was one of the largest technological periods of uncertainty in the past century. Company websites appeared rapidly, and businesses didn't know how to keep up or determine whether the internet was worth the investment. Ultimately, as a way to stay competitive, companies chose to jump on the bandwagon as “the fear of lost legitimacy” overpowered the technological uncertainty (Flanagin, 2000, p. 620). By adopting the trend of creating websites, businesses believed they could signal to customers and shareholders that they were embracing the emerging digital environment (Flanagin, 2000). Technological change outpaced the ability of the boardroom to formulate coherent strategies, and the fear of missing competitors' actions, combined with the uncertainty of new technology, made mimicry an essential response.

Social Media, Mimicry to Operate

As social media platforms became more established, companies were faced with understanding how to best use them in their businesses. Mimicry was a driving factor for assimilation during this era, but strategic adaptation was not guaranteed (Bharati et al., 2014). Social media assimilation was most impactful when employees embraced the change and their skill sets improved, not purely from top-down directives (Bharati et al., 2014). Notably, while Bharati et al. (2014) confirmed that mimetic pressures positively influenced assimilation, they found that normative pressures were not statistically significant. Given that DiMaggio and Powell (1983) define normative pressure as stemming from the “collective struggle of members of an occupation to define the conditions and methods of their work,” the failure of normative pressures to dominate while mimetic pressures remained significant further strengthens the argument that mimicry continually steers organizations through technological turmoil.

AI in 2025–2026, Mimicry to Survive

There has arguably been no technological turmoil larger than the AI era of 2025. As AI diffuses more rapidly than previous technologies, the speed at which institutional pressures act on organizations has accelerated as well (Reis & Pinheiro Junior, 2025). Reis and Pinheiro Junior (2025) identify mimetic isomorphism as a key driver of AI adoption, noting that organizations are adopting AI to secure institutional legitimacy while determining their ROI strategies later. They warn of a pro-innovation bias, where adopting new tools is automatically assumed to be the only rational choice. In this environment, organizations perceive the uncertainty of AI outputs as a necessary gamble to avoid being seen as non-competitive.

Some highly regulated industries, such as healthcare, will continue to be driven primarily by coercive pressures (Reis & Pinheiro Junior, 2025). But during the internet era and the rise of social media, companies had years to understand and develop best practices. Today that time is a luxury. Because AI evolves weekly, organizational changes often stem from mimicry rather than expertise.

From Iron Cage to Silicon Cage

As every wave of new technology has reduced normative time cycles, mimetic isomorphism has become a stronger force than ever before. Companies must balance embracing new technologies to stay competitive with ensuring that employees are motivated to learn and apply AI effectively. The better an organization is at building absorptive capacity, the more likely it is to succeed (Bharati et al., 2014). Although the time available for learning is compressed, the importance of learning remains. Mimetic isomorphism is no longer a pillar of industry pressure; it is the foundation. During the early internet era, organizations mimicked to exist (Flanagin, 2000). During the rise of social media, organizations mimicked to operate (Bharati et al., 2014). Now, as AI shifts weekly, organizations mimic to survive (Reis & Pinheiro Junior, 2025).

If the rapid pace of change continues beyond any previous digital transformation, we may need to re-examine DiMaggio and Powell's work on the iron cage. More research is needed to understand how the antecedents of mimetic isomorphism affect organizations in this new digital wave, and to examine whether a new form of algorithmic isomorphism is emerging, potentially creating a “silicon cage” of automated standardization (Caplan & Boyd, 2018).