Competing for Being the Representative Field-Level Organization: When the Representative Role of A Meta-Organization is Contested by an Individual-Based Organization

How meta-organizations (MOs) can be engaged in competitive settings remains an underexplored issue, largely because scholars have traditionally emphasized MOs' tendency toward monopoly (Ahrne & Brunsson, 2005) and focused on potential internal tensions between MOs and their members. However, it is not uncommon for an MO to find itself in competition with other organizations, including nonmember, individual-based organizations. In this paper, adopting an MO theory perspective and drawing on insights from the literatures on competition and representational legitimacy, we investigate competitive tensions within a health policy-related field. Our research question is as follows: how does representational legitimacy become a central object of competition when the representative role of an MO is contested by another organization in a public-policy-related field? Our empirical study focuses on two organizations – one an MO, the other an individual-based organization – that compete for status and authority, ultimately seeking recognition by public authorities as the central, if not official, representative of their field. We highlight the importance of representational legitimacy alongside more classical dimensions of authority based on expertise and knowledge. We also emphasize the meta-organizational form as a distinct type of representative structure, owing to its specific membership composition. Finally, we outline the central role played by policymakers as pivotal third and fourth actors in this competition, having created the conditions for its emergence and persistence.