Strategic Isomorphism: why do so many strategies look the same?
In many sectors and fields, lots of organisations’ strategies tend to look the same.
There are often good reasons for this - including outside pressures, a tendency for organisations to copy each other and the influence of standards.
We call this ‘isomorphic strategy’ - when organisations make choices shaped by similar forces and incentives.
Isomorphic behaviour is common in herd animals. It makes sense to try to be in the middle of the pack if there are predators around. Outliers get eaten.
If your strategy looks similar to your peers - was this intentional? Do you have more freedom than you think to break away from the herd?
What is isomorphic strategy?
“Strategy”, as an idea, is about choices. It is normally about what makes an organisation different and special, and how those features can help an organisation to be successful. Books about strategy confidently describe how a unique, differentiated approach will ensure success in a complex world.
In practice, the world doesn’t look like this. If you look at similar organisations, they often have very similar strategies. This might be intentional, but often it is because there are invisible pressures forcing organisations down similar pathways.
When strategies look the same because of unseen pressures, we call this 'isomorphic strategy'.
This is especially true in charities and mission-driven organisations. Although it is a sector that celebrates diversity in all its forms, there are very strong forces shaping the choices they make.
Universities are a good example of this. Leaders in Higher Education have described to us how the forcing functions of league tables and funding mechanisms drive similarity. There are strong incentives to mitigate areas of weakness, and few prizes for a differentiated strategy. As result, most university strategies boil down to “our strategy is to be a university”. Look at most university strategies and you'll find striking similarities: research ambitions, teaching quality, employability targets, and civic engagement all presented as distinctive priorities - yet commonplace across the sector.
In the natural world, isomorphic behaviour can make a lot of sense. An antelope on the savannah has very good reasons to stay in the middle of the herd, because isolation means vulnerability to predators. Herding is a good survival strategy. Outliers get eaten.
Isomorphism is an “iron cage”
At the risk of revealing an unhealthy interest in yellowing sociology journals, the seminal work on this topic comes from a 1983 paper called “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields”, by sociologists Paul DiMaggio and Walter Powell. (This work builds on Max Weber’s ideas of an “iron cage”)
DiMaggio and Powell proposed three distinct mechanisms that lead to isomorphic behaviour for different organisations.
Coercive isomorphism – is when there are common legal and political pressures.
Mimetic isomorphism – is when organisations copy each other, often in response to uncertainty.
Normative isomorphism – is when professionalisation and professional standards drives common behaviours.
Isomorphism in charities and mission-driven organisations
For civil society organisations, these pressures towards conformity are particularly acute, affecting everything from funding models to service delivery.
Coercive pressures - both formal and informal - create the strongest push towards uniformity in the charity sector.
The most obvious source is funding and the funding environment. As funding has moved from grants to contracts, money comes with more detailed requirements about service delivery, monitoring and outcomes. For charities providing regulated services like social care or education, there are also important quality safeguards. Yet these funds rarely come with space for innovation or experimentation.
Grant makers may favour specific approaches, while commissioners demand detailed service specifications. Organisations adapt their strategies to match these preferences, leading to what might be called 'funding-driven isomorphism'.
Legal and regulatory requirements create another layer of conformity. Beyond charity law compliance, organisations often face pressure to adopt similar governance structures, risk management approaches, and reporting frameworks. Even informal political pressures play a role. A regulatory and performance environment can drive everyone to the same place, where the magical idiosyncrasies of the sector are ironed out.
Mimetic isomorphism is particularly visible during times of uncertainty.
When organisations face novel challenges, they often look to their peers for direction. A successful fundraising campaign by one organisation spawns dozens of imitators. An innovative service delivery model quickly becomes sector standard practice. Even mission statements and strategic plans begin to echo one another.
This copying reflects a natural response to complexity - if a peer finds a solution that works, adopting it seems safer than experimenting. Yet this instinct, while understandable, can lead to missed opportunities. Local charities might adopt nationwide approaches that don't suit their communities. Small organisations might try to replicate programmes that only work at scale. And unique local solutions might be overlooked in favour of 'proven' methods from elsewhere.
Normative isomorphism emerges through professional networks and shared standards of practice.
Chief executives attend the same leadership programmes, read the same sector press, and network at the same events. Finance directors pursue similar qualifications and follow the same accounting standards. Programme staff share evaluation frameworks. Even board recruitment increasingly draws from the same pool of professionals. While this professionalisation has undoubtedly improved sector standards, it risks creating an echo chamber. When there are strong forces towards groupthink, genuine innovation becomes harder to spot and nurture. The challenge lies in maintaining professional standards while creating space for diverse perspectives and approaches.
In a landscape dominated by these factors, strategies will tend to look the same. Consider how many charities have nearly identical “strategic goals”, despite serving different communities or tackling different issues. Or how many funding applications seem to tick the same boxes. These are not bad approaches—indeed, they are often entirely sensible. But when every organisation adopts identical strategies, the sector's collective ability to innovate and respond to diverse community needs may suffer.
What should you ask yourself if your strategy is isomorphic?
Strategic isomorphism is neither inherently good nor bad. It is a response to the environment around you. Professional standards serve a purpose, external pressures are real, it makes sense to copy others’ success. None of this is wrong. The key is to notice it, and notice when your choices are shaped by it.
For leaders grappling with these issues, several questions deserve consideration:
Are you conforming to sector norms out of habit and safety, rather than necessity?
What unique value might you create by taking a different approach?
How much real freedom do you have to shape your own path? Are you overestimating the constraints and underestimating your agency?
Stepping away from the herd is a brave thing to do. There is safety in numbers. The challenge isn't to be different for the sake of it, but to make thoughtful choices about differentiation, ambition and risk.
This requires understanding your true operating environment, your genuine strengths, and your stakeholders' real (rather than assumed) requirements.
The key is ensuring that when your strategy looks remarkably like your peers, it's because that genuinely serves your purposes—not because you're simply following the herd for fear of getting eaten.
Understanding these forces is the first step - acting on them is another matter entirely.
If this resonates with your experience - if you're questioning whether conformity is helping or hindering your mission - we can help. Our team specialises in helping organisations find their distinctive edge while managing institutional pressures.
Get in touch to explore how your next strategy could better serve your specific purpose.