"Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches", 1995

In his article "Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches'", Suchman defines legitimacy as "a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions."^[5]

He later adds to this definition, stating that because legitimacy is socially conferred, legitimacy is independent of individual participants, while dependent upon the collective constituency. In other words, an organization is legitimate when it enjoys public approval, even though the actions of an organization might deviate from particular individual interests.^[5]

Suchman states three types of legitimacy:

• pragmatic legitimacy,
• moral legitimacy, and
• cognitive legitimacy.

Pragmatic legitimacy

Pragmatic legitimacy relies upon the self-interests of an organizations constituencies, in which the constituency scrutinizes actions and behaviors taken by the organization in order to determine their effects.^[5] This is further broken down into three sub-sections:

• exchange legitimacy,
• influence legitimacy, and
• dispositional legitimacy.

Suchman defines exchange legitimacy as the support for organizational policies due to the policy's benefit to the constituencies.^[5][6]

Influence legitimacy is the support for the organization not due to the benefits that constituencies believe they will receive, but rather due to their belief that the organization will be responsive to their larger interests.^[5][6]

Dispositional legitimacy is defined as support for an organization due to the good attributes constituencies believe the organization has, such as trustworthiness, decency, or wisdom. ^[5][6] This is due to the fact that people typically personify organizations and characterize them as being autonomous.^[5]

Moral legitimacy

Moral legitimacy is dependent upon whether the actions of an organization or institution are judged to be moral.^[5] In other words, if the constituency believe the organization is breaking the rules of the political or economic system for immoral reasons, then this can threaten moral legitimacy.^[7] Suchman breaks moral legitimacy down into four sub-sections:

• consequential legitimacy,
• procedural legitimacy,
• structural legitimacy, and
• personal legitimacy.

Consequential legitimacy relates to what an organization has accomplished based on criteria that is specific to that organization. Procedural legitimacy can be obtained by an organization by adhering to socially formalized and accepted procedures (e.g. regulatory oversight). In the case of structural legitimacy, people view an organization as legitimate because its structural characteristics allow it to do specific kinds of work.^[5][6][8]

Suchman refers to this organization as being the "right organization for the job."^[5] Lastly, personal legitimacy refers to legitimacy that is derived from the charisma of individual leaders.^[5][6][8]

Cognitive legitimacy

Cognitive legitimacy is created when an organization pursues goals that society deems to be proper and desirable.^[8] Constituency support for the organization is not due to self-interest, but rather due to its taken-for-granted character.^[5][9][10] When an organization has reached this taken-for-granted status, an organization is beyond dissent.^[5][9] While moral and pragmatic legitimacy deal with some form of evaluation, cognitive legitimacy does not. Instead, with cognitive legitimacy society accepts these organizations as being necessary or inevitable.^[8][9]