n various ways, studies address the idea of the formation of identity through uniqueness and the construction of legitimation

through uniformity as dual processes constituting the organization. In discussing individual identity, Gioia (1998) argued Strandgaard Pedersen, Dobbin / Identity & Legitimation 901 Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at Copenhagen Business School on May 20, 2012 Creative industries encompass individuals and collectives engaged in conceiving, developing, and distributing artifacts and experiences with aesthetic properties and symbolic functions, such as books, music, films, paintings, or dance and theatre performances, design, fashion, and architecture. Their strong dependence on originality and novelty for distinctiveness (Alvarez, Mazza, Strandgaard Pedersen, & Svejenova, 2005), as new genres and styles get conceived, theorized, legitimized, diffused and consumed by a range of audiences, makes them a valuable setting for advancing theory on the originators, genesis, and trajectories of innovation. (1) Who originates innovation? This can be individuals, teams, organizations, communities, or movements of the following kinds: - misfits who defy or bypass the rules of an established industry and remain isolated from existing art worlds; - mavericks who seek to transform a creative industry by reshaping existing art worlds or creating new ones; - mainstreams who engage in incremental innovation and exploit existing practices and structures in industries and/or art worlds. (2) What types of innovations shift the nature and value of: - ideas, such as new styles, genres, or practices; - structures, such as industry concentration, production and distribution roles and systems, or co-creation through online communities; - resources, such as symbolic and social capital, as well as business models? (3) How innovation occurs such as its processes in terms of stages and mechanisms: - conceiving novelty: drift, replication, improvisation; - creating novel products: meaning making and collaboration; - converting novelty into value: attaching and appropriating value from artistic innovation
But why the need for the seduction community in the first place? It was created to mitigate another equalizing movement: the original sexual revolution. In Make Love, Not War: The Sexual Revolution: An Unfettered History, Princetons David Allyn notes that the institution of marriage started to erode in the 1960s. Improved economic independence for women, the introduction of birth control boosted by Lyndon Johnsons endorsement of The Pill and an overarching liberal attitude helped reshape society. . In the current sexual climate, where females have prolonged, uninhibited access to a pool of alpha males, the betas and omegas can no longer brandish the veneer of marriage to secure a mate. Sex is apportioned disproportionately by a mating hierarchy. There is a fierce dichotomy: the alpha male and the AFC average frustrated chump. [14]

Consequently, as a material need, as a subjective aspect of the "real individual," sex is essentially the drive for sexual pleasure. It is, therefore, how society responds to the individual's attempt to satisfy his hunger and obtain sexual pleasure that determines the social organization of each epoch.16
Evolutionary psychologists like David Buss in The Evolution of Desire (1994) and Geoffrey Miller in The Mating Mind (2000) have elaborated on these theories, arguing that the human brain itself, with its capacity for consciousness, reasoning, and artistic creation, evolved as an entertainment device for male hominids competing to impress the females in the pack. Dennis Duttons new book, The Art Instinct, makes much the same argument. Evolutionary psychologists postulate that the same physical and psychological drives prevail among modern humans: Men, eager for replication, are

naturally polygamous, while women are naturally monogamous but only until a man they perceive as of higher status than their current mate comes along.
For the most part, attempts to fit cultural industries into our existing frameworks have therefore been stymied by anomalies. Kuhn (1970) suggests that the first response to anomalies is often to set them aside as curiosities, next to see them as interesting but irrelevant, and finally to see them as both interesting and relevant to the dominant paradigm. This special issue of Organization Science is based on the premise that although managerial and organizational practices in the cultural industries may have seemed anomalous until recently, they are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. Managers in cultural industries learn to harness knowledge and creativity in order to enhance the value of the experience that is provided by their products. The dilemmas that they face are becoming increasingly relevant to a broad cross section of managers across a wide range of industry contexts.

People do not simply learn about; they also learn, as the psychologist Jerome Bruner (1996) suggests, to be. Learning, that is, doesn't just involve the acquisition of facts about the world, it also involves acquiring the ability to act in the world in socially recognized ways. This last qualification, " in socially recognized wa y s ," acknowledges that it is not enough to claim to be a physicist or a carpenter; people, particularly other physicists or carpenters, have to recognize you as such. Extreme cases of uniqueness in a creative industry are mavericks who violate established conventions (Becker, 1982). Maverick film directors are articulate filmmakers with idiosyncratic approaches to filmmaking, away from ordinary practice. Beckers seminal work on art worlds defines maverickness in relational terms, i.e. how the person stands in relation to an organized art world (Becker, 1982: 228). Unlike work by integrated professionals whose collaborators have clear cues and expectations for action, maverick art is innovative and outside the limits of the existing art worlds productions. Hence, upfront understandings are difficult and task co-ordination improves with long-term collaboration. Creativity, both for mavericks and integrated professionals, is a social activity where the gifted person needs collaborative support to produce and diffuse works of art (Becker, 1982; Brass, 1995). It requires reconciliation of the expression of artistic values with the economics of mass entertainment (Lampel, Lant, and Shamsie, 2000). Academic inquiries have emphasised the critical role of a range of business activities and players (e.g., dealers, agents, production companies, distributors) as com-plementary to the artistic endeavour in producing and getting artwork to public (White and White, 1993; According to organizational culture theorists, meaning is socially constructed within organizations through the creation of unique practices and the collective attribution of significance and identity to those practices (Frost, Moore, Louis, Lundberg, & Martin, 1985; Martin, 1992, 2002; Pettigrew, 1979; Smi Despite their common point of departure in social constructionist thought, these two bodies of research have chronicled processes that seem to be at odds. This is a matter of focus and method, we argue. Being based in the sociological tradition, institutionalists look for similarities among organizations; being based in the symbolic anthropological and social psychological traditions, organizational culture

researchers look for similarities across individuals within organizations. Being built on the sociological tradition, institutional theorists treat the organization as the appropriate level of analysis; being built on the interpretive sociological tradition and being influenced by both anthropology and social psychology, culturalists treat the small group as the appropriate level of analysis. Their sociological method leads institutionalists to explain particular practices by tracking their spread across organizations with quantitative techniques; their anthropological method leads organizational culture researchers to examine holistic organizational cultures with ethnographic methods and qualitative techniques. Imitation occurs when new practices are copied wholesale. The case of IESE Business School at the University of Navarra, Spain, is illustrative. IESE sought to establish legitimacy by replicating the Harvard Business School MBA program as perfectly as possible (Mazza et al., 2005). Hybridization takes place when local organizational elements are combined with field-level elements. This process resembles bricolage (Campbell, 1997) and is best illustrated by the Copenhagen Business School MBA program, which combined local elementsfor example, the 13-point grading scale and the long-standing examination formatwith global elementsfor example, an alumni organization and admission based on the GMAT, the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), and interviews (see Boutaiba & Strandgaard Pedersen, 2003; Mazza et al., 2005). Transmutation is known from cultural theory and studies of religious symbols. It occurs when existing forms and practices are provided with new meaning and content. The MBA program at Uppsala University in Sweden illustrates this mechanism. The architects of that program rechristened an existing management training program the MBA program, changing virtually nothing about it (see Mazza et al., 2005). Immunization is the flip side of imitation. Organizational leaders recognize new models but reject them, harboring existing conventions. Late adopters often engage in immunization before joining a bandwagon, as in the cases of the MBA programs at the Copenhagen Business School and Uppsala University (Boutaiba & Strandgaard Pedersen, 2003; Mazza et al., 2005). Both schools defined the MBA as irrelevant to them and orthogonal to national needs until the early 1980s at Uppsala University and the late 1980s at Copenhagen Business School. Both schools had championed their alternative management education programs as functional substitutes suited to national needs. Yet when each school faced a crisis in its traditional management program, it jumped on the MBA bandwagon in search of legitimacy and an expanded client base

In this paper we addressed a less studied yet increasingly important duality between idiosyncrasy and isomorphism. We showed how creative action is intended to rebel against isomorphic pressure by building uniqueness through strong ties and local practice. In examining these cases of film directors having achieved recognition for their creative individuality, we also outline how uniqueness, over time, may become a cage made of rules and standards that constrain creativity. In this sense, it can be argued that creativity could become trapped by its own success. To avoid the reemergence of self-produced isomorphic pressures, creative actors must be able to pursue their own renewal and to promote the further heterogeneity in the field itself. Regarding the shielding and sustaining of

optimal distinctiveness, we add to the literature on creative industries by sketching out three domains roles, partnerships, and organisations - in which art and business are loosely coupled. We have examined how the pattern of coupling in each of these domains was conducive to protecting the directors distinctiveness from isomorphic pressures. In the domain of roles, we found in all three cases that control was regarded as important and that role combinations (i.e. the writer-director, and the director-producer hyphenates)