Deinstitutionalization Processes

As noted, persistence of institutional beliefs and practices cannot be pre- sumed. Deinstitutionalization refers to the processes by which institutions weaken and disappear. As we would expect, some analysts emphasize primarily the depletion and increasing disuse of regulative systems, not- ing enfeebled laws, diluted sanctions, and increasing noncompliance. Others stress eroding norms and evidence

Carriers and Institutional Mechanisms

Four types of carriers were identified in Chapter 4: symbolic systems, relational systems, activities, and artifacts. As I have emphasized, type of carrier affects the message being carried in multiple ways and, hence, the trajectory of institutionalization processes. 1. Symbolic Systems Attention to symbolic systems as carriers of institutional rules and beliefs emphasizes the

Organizations and Institutions: Three Views

Three views are encountered in current writings about the relation between organizations and institutions. The first, most clearly devel- oped by Douglas North (1990: 4–5) and embraced by many institu- tional economists, is based on a game analogy: Institutions provide the rules of the game, whereas organizations act as the players. Organiza- tions may

Institutional Processes: Legitimacy, Isomorphism, and Coupling

Suchman (1995b: 571) correctly points out that legitimacy has become “an anchor-point of a vastly expanded theoretical apparatus addressing the normative and cognitive forces that constrain, construct, and empower organizational actors.” The general concept of legitimacy is defined and discussed in Chapter 3. Weber was among the first social theorists to call attention to

Institutional Context and Organizational Structure

1. Imprinting Stinchcombe (1965) was the first theorist to call attention to the strong influences of social (including institutional) conditions present at the time of its founding on the structural form of an organization. He argued that “the organizational inventions that can be made at a par- ticular time in history depend on the

Interactive Institutional Processes

Although all organizations in a given institutional field or sector are subject to the effects of institutional processes within the context, not all experience them in the same way or respond in the same manner. Just as social psychologists call attention to “individual differences”— differences among individuals in their definition of and response to

Institutional Processes: Strategic Responses

Studies emphasizing institutional processes rather than effects, such as those described earlier, begin to suggest that organizations may not be quite so powerless or passive as depicted in earlier institutional accounts. Noting the oversocialized conception of organizations and the limited response repertoire proffered by early formulations—in effect, “Conform, either now or later!”—a number of

Institutional Processes: Sources of Divergence

Collecting arguments from this and previous chapters, we see that, although institutional pressures under many conditions conduce toward isomorphic organization structure and practices, there are many ways in which “identical” institutional forces can result not in convergent, but divergent outcomes. Among the mechanisms and pro- cesses discussed, consider the following: Varying carriers whose characteristics

Conceptualizing Organization Fields

Our discussion begins with the general concept of field and then moves to its application to organizations, considering both its contribu- tions to conceptualizing the environment within which a particular organization operates as well as its value as a new object of study. 1. Fields and Organization Fields Field Conceptions The concept of a

Key Components of Organization Fields

While it is possible to identify the presence of regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive elements at work in all organization fields, for empirical purposes it is helpful to focus attention on a number of key components that vary among fields. 1. Institutional Logics As discussed in Chapter 4 and elsewhere in this volume, institu- tional

Field Structuration Processes

1. Multiple Levels As described in Chapter 4, Giddens (1979; 1984) defines the con- cept of structuration quite broadly to refer to the recursive interdepen- dence or social structures and activities. The verb form is intended to remind us that structures exist only to the extent that actors engage in ongoing activities to produce

Institutional Processes: A Revised Agenda and Framework

Davis and Marquis (2005) have suggested that the time has come to seriously consider whether the organization is the appropriate level of analysis for most of the questions we social scientists want to address and the processes we seek to understand. The view of “an organiza- tion” as a relatively independent and self-contained actor

Institutional theory: Distinctive Features

Institutional theory differs from alternative approaches to the study of organizations in a number of ways that are important to identify. The following appear to be important: Institutionalists eschew a totalistic or monolithic view of organi- zational and societal structures and processes. The institutional perspective, more so than others, emphasizes the importance of the

The Maturation of Institutional Theory and Research

More than 25 years ago, I wrote an article titled “The Adolescence of Institutional Theory” (Scott 1987). In reexamining that article, I think it accurately portrayed, even more than I realized, the undeveloped state of theoretical development of the field at that time, while also recogniz- ing its promise and potential. Taking stock now,

Institutional theory: Fragmented by Fractals?

Andrew Abbott (2001) has pointed out that all academic disciplines become more complex over time, obviously differentiating among more specialized areas of study (e.g., the sociology of the family, the sociology of religion), but also, less obviously, by creating fractals. In this process, distinctions are created by the development of dichotomies (e.g., autonomy vs.

Institutional theory: A Cautionary Comment

If one examines the grand march of ideas across the centuries, it is pos- sible to make a case for the regular repetition, and alternating domi- nance, of either more liberal or more conservative accounts of the human condition. Thus, for example, European intellectual circles dur- ing the 18th and 19th centuries experienced the

Institutional theory: A Brief Sermon

Some of us may prefer to go even further in advancing the cause of insti- tutional analysis. A productive model for doing so has been provided by the lifelong work of Philip Selznick. His work has been discussed in previous chapters, but few organization theorists have followed it beyond its early phases, in particular

Definition of power and its role

1. Three ways of fixing things The book that you have in your hands will fix some aspects of the terms ‘power’ and ‘organizations’, and we consider that fixing in three ways. First, we use ‘fixing’ as in fixing a hole where the rain gets in, that is repairing the fabric of a construction.

Power in organization and social theory

1. Investigating power In this book we will investigate various conceptions of power, focusing particularly on the intersection of these conceptions with that of organization in both theory and practice. Power is a difficult idea to pin down and has been very widely ignored, marginalized and trivialized in many discussions of organizations, for a

Modern organization theory as a science

1. Sketching the field The epitome of modern rational organization theory was the program institutional- ized as contingency theory. One reason why functionalist contingency theory became so widely debated was because the Aston Research Programme was so successful. Its findings dominated the pages of the journals, especially the Administrative Science Quarterly, during the 1960s