Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T19:36:40.562Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

16 - An institutional perspective on strategy as practice

from Part III - Theoretical Resources: Organization and Management Theories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2015

By
Michael Smets ,
Royston Greenwood  and
Michael Lounsbury
Edited by
Damon Golsorkhi ,
Linda Rouleau ,
David Seidl  and
Eero Vaara
Michael Smets
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Royston Greenwood
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
Michael Lounsbury
Affiliation:
Alberta School of Business
Damon Golsorkhi
Affiliation:
Grenoble School of Management
Linda Rouleau
Affiliation:
HEC Montréal
David Seidl
Affiliation:
Universität Zürich
Eero Vaara
Affiliation:
Svenska Handelshögskolan, Helsinki
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Institutional scholars have recently started to reach out to strategy-as-practice concepts to better conceptualize institutional landscapes and the ways in which organizations construct and navigate them in practice. Specifically, they seek to engage SAP scholarship in order to enhance their theorizing of institutional logics (Thornton, Ocasio and Lounsbury 2012), ‘institutional complexity’ (Greenwood et al. 2011) and ‘institutional work’ (Lawrence and Suddaby 2006) and their understanding of the ‘micro-foundations’ of institutions (Powell and Colyvas 2008). Simultaneously, strategy-as-practice scholars have begun to look beyond the intra-organizational activities that have traditionally preoccupied them and to work at their stronger contextualization in the broader social orders that have been the hallmark of institutional research (Vaara and Whittington 2012; Whittington, in this volume).

This rapprochement may appear unsurprising, given that both theoretical strands share common roots in the seminal works of Bourdieu (1977; 1990) and Giddens (1984). Much like siblings separated at birth, however, institutional and practice theories have gone on distinct journeys, characterized by different foci on the structure–agency spectrum and levels of analysis. While institutional scholarship through the 1990s often gave primacy to structure, stability and the macro-level contexts that condition organizations (DiMaggio and Powell 1983; Greenwood et al. 2008; Scott 1987), strategy-as-practice scholars have emphasized agency, potential for change and the collective activities of individuals inside organizations (Chia and Holt 2009; Jarzabkowski 2005; Jarzabkowski and Wolf, in this volume). This history makes the recent re-engagement noteworthy and means that, much like reunited siblings with different views of the world, they can open each other's eyes to new phenomena and start looking at familiar phenomena in new ways.

The metaphorical notion of estrangement, reunion and mutual enrichment drives the structure of this chapter. In the second section we briefly trace the evolution of institutional theory to understand where and why it lost touch with practice theory and which issues have recently motivated it to reach out for re-engagement. The third section then outlines shared concerns and concepts over which institutional and strategy-as-practice scholars can connect and strike up fruitful conversations. The fourth section sketches the nascent insights that have recently emerged from some of those conversations. Finally, the conclusion summarizes the mutual benefits to be gained from blending institutional and SAP scholarship and outlines yet under-explored areas as avenues for future research.

Type
Chapter
Information
Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice , pp. 283 - 300
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anand, N., Gardner, H., and Morris, T. (2007), ‘Knowledge based innovation: emergence and embedding of new practice areas in management consulting firms’, Academy of Management Journal, 50/2: 406–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansari, S., Wijen, F., and Gray, B. (2013), ‘Constructing a climate change logic: an institutional perspective on the “tragedy of the commons”’, Organization Science, 24/4: 1014–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barley, S. R. (2008), ‘Coalface institutionalism’, in Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K., and Suddaby, R. (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism: 490–515. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Battilana, J., and D'Aunno, T. (2009), ‘Institutional work and the paradox of embedded agency’, in Lawrence, T., Suddaby, R., and Leca, B. (eds.), Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations: 31–58. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Battilana, J., and Dorado, S. (2010), ‘Building sustainable hybrid organizations: the case of commercial microfinance organizations’, Academy of Management Journal, 53/6: 1419–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battilana, J., Leca, B., and Boxenbaum, E. (2009), ‘How actors change institutions: towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship’, Academy of Management Annals, 3/1: 65–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battilana, J., and Lee, M. (2014), ‘Advancing research on hybrid organizing: insights from the study of social enterprises’, Academy of Management Annals, 8/1: 397–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1977), Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P.(1990), The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Carberry, E. J., and King, B. G. (2012), ‘Defensive practice adoption in the face of organizational stigma: impression management and the diffusion of stock option expensing’, Journal of Management Studies, 49/7: 1137–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chia, R., and Holt, R. (2009), Strategy without Design: The Silent Efficacy of Indirect Action. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chia, R., and MacKay, B. (2007), ‘Post-processual challenges for the emerging strategy-as-practice perspective: discovering strategy in the logic of practice’, Human Relations, 60/1: 217–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dacin, M. T., Munir, K., and Tracey, P. (2010), ‘Formal dining at Cambridge colleges: linking ritual performance and institutional maintenance’, Academy of Management Journal, 53/6: 1393–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delbridge, R., and Edwards, T. (2008), ‘Challenging conventions: roles and processes during nonisomorphic institutional change’, Human Relations, 61/3: 299–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delmestri, G. (2006), ‘Streams of inconsistent institutional influences: middle managers as carriers of multiple identities’, Human Relations, 59/11: 1515–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denis, J.-L., Lamothe, L., and Langley, A. (2001), ‘The dynamics of collective leadership and strategic change in pluralistic organizations’, Academy of Management Journal, 44/4: 809–37.Google Scholar
Denis, J.-L., Langley, A., and Rouleau, L. (2007), ‘Strategizing in pluralistic contexts: rethinking theoretical frames’, Human Relations, 60/1: 179–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiMaggio, P. (1988), ‘Interest and agency in institutional theory’, in Zucker, L. G. (ed.), Institutional Patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment: 3–21. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
DiMaggio, P. (1997), ‘Culture and cognition’, Annual Review of Sociology, 23: 263–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiMaggio, P., and Powell, W. (1983), ‘The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields’, American Sociological Review, 48/2: 147–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorado, S. (2005), ‘Institutional entrepreneurship, partaking and convening’, Organization Studies, 26/3: 385–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, M. B., and Jones, C. (2010), ‘Institutional logics and institutional pluralism: the contestation of care and science logics in medical education, 1967–2005’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 55/1: 114–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emirbayer, M. (1997), ‘Manifesto for a relational sociology’, American Journal of Sociology, 103/2: 281–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emirbayer, M., and Mische, A. (1998), ‘What is agency?’, American Journal of Sociology, 103/4: 962–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etzion, D., and Ferraro, F. (2010), ‘The role of analogy in the institutionalization of sustainability reporting’, Organization Science, 21/5: 1092–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, M. S. (2000), ‘Organizational routines as a source of continuous change’, Organization Science, 11/6: 611–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedland, R., and Alford, R. R. (1991), ‘Bringing society back in: symbols, practices and institutional contradictions’, in Powell, W., and DiMaggio, P. (eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis: 232–63. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gawer, A., and Phillips, N. (2013), ‘Institutional work as logics shift: the case of Intel's transformation to platform leader’, Organization Studies, 34/8: 1035–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giddens, A. (1984), The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Goodrick, E., and Reay, T. (2011), ‘Constellations of institutional logics’, Work and Occupations, 38/3: 372–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, R., and Hinings, C. R. (1996), ‘Understanding radical organizational change: bringing together the old and the new institutionalism’, Academy of Management Review, 21/4: 1022–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, R., Hinings, C. R., and Whetten, D. A. (2014), ‘Rethinking institutions and organizations’, Journal of Management Studies, 51/7: 1206–20.Google Scholar
Greenwood, R., Jennings, P. D., and Hinings, C. R. (2015), ‘Sustainability and organizational change: an institutional perspective’, in Henderson, R., Gulati, R., and Tushman, M. (eds.), Leading Sustainable Change: An Organizational Perspective: 323–55. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greenwood, R., Magàn Diaz, A., Li, S., and Céspedes Lorente, J. (2010), ‘The multiplicity of institutional logics and the heterogeneity of organizational responses’, Organization Science, 21/2: 521–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K., and Suddaby, R. (2008), ‘Introduction’, in The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism: 1–46. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micellota, E., and Lounsbury, M. (2011), ‘Institutional complexity and organizational responses’, Academy of Management Annals, 5/1: 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, R., and Suddaby, R. (2006), ‘Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: the big five accounting firms’, Academy of Management Journal, 49/1: 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., and Hinings, C. R. (2002), ‘Theorizing change: the role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields’, Academy of Management Journal, 45/1: 58–80.Google Scholar
Grey, C. (2003), ‘The real world of Enron's auditors’, Organization, 10/3: 572–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallett, T. (2010), ‘The myth incarnate: recoupling processes, turmoil, and inhabited institutions in an urban elementary school’, American Sociological Review, 75/1: 52–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardy, C., and Phillips, N. (1998), ‘Strategies of engagement: lessons from the critical examination of collaboration and conflict in an interorganizational domain’, Organization Science, 9/2: 217–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hargrave, T. J., and Van de Ven, A. H. (2006), ‘A collective action model of institutional innovation’, Academy of Management Review, 31/4: 864–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heimer, C. A. (1999), ‘Competing institutions: law, medicine, and family in neonatal intensive care’, Law and Society Review, 33/1: 17–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helfen, M., and Sydow, J. (2013), ‘Negotiating as institutional work: the case of labour standards and international framework agreements’, Organization Studies, 34/8: 1073–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, P. M., and Lounsbury, M. (1997), ‘Putting the organization back into organization theory’, Journal of Management Inquiry, 6/1: 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hosking, D. M. (2011), ‘Telling tales of relations: appreciating relational constructionism’, Organization Studies, 32/1: 47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P. (2005), Strategy as Practice: An Activity-Based Approach. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P., Balogun, J., and Seidl, D. (2007), ‘Strategizing: the challenges of a practice perspective’, Human Relations, 60/1: 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P., Lê, J., and Van de Ven, A. H. (2013), ‘Responding to competing strategic demands: how organizing, belonging, and performing paradoxes coevolve’, Strategic Organization, 11/3: 245–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P., Matthiesen, J., and Van de Ven, A. H. (2009), ‘Doing which work? A practice approach to institutional pluralism’, in Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., and Leca, B. (eds.), Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations: 284–316. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P., Smets, M., Bednarek, R., Burke, G., and Spee, P. (2013), ‘Institutional ambidexterity: leveraging institutional complexity in practice’, in Lounsbury, M., and Boxenbaum, E. (eds.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations, vol. XXXIX, Institutional Logics in Action, part B: 37–61. Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Jarzabkowski, P., Spee, P., and Smets, M. (2013), ‘Material artifacts: practices for doing strategy with “stuff”’, European Management Journal, 31/1: 41–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jay, J. (2013), ‘Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations’, Academy of Management Journal, 56/1: 137–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaghan, W., and Lounsbury, M. (2011), ‘Institutions and work’, Journal of Management Inquiry, 20/1: 73–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellogg, K. C. (2009), ‘Operating room: relational spaces and microinstitutional change in surgery’, American Journal of Sociology, 115/3: 657–711.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kellogg, K. C., Orlikowski, W. J., and Yates, J. (2006), ‘Life in the trading zone: structuring coordination across boundaries in postbureaucratic organizations’, Organization Science, 17/1: 22–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraatz, M. S., and Block, E. (2008), ‘Organizational implications of institutional pluralism’, in Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K., and Suddaby, R. (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism: 243–75. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Lawrence, P. R., and Lorsch, J. W. (1967), Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Lawrence, T. B., Leca, B., and Zilber, T. B. (2013), ‘Institutional work: current research, new directions and overlooked issues’, Organization Studies, 34/8: 1023–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, T. B., and Suddaby, R. (2006), ‘Institutions and institutional work’, in Clegg, S., Hardy, C., Lawrence, T. B., and Nord, W. R. (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organization Studies, : 215–53. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., and Leca, B. (eds.) (2009a), Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., and Leca, B. (2009b), ‘Introduction: theorizing and studying institutional work’, in Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations: 1–28. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., and Leca, B. (2011), ‘Institutional work: refocusing institutional studies of organization’, Journal of Management Inquiry, 20/1: 52–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leblebici, H., Salancik, G. R., Copay, A., and King, T. (1991), ‘Institutional change and the transformation of interorganizational fields: an organizational history of the US radio broadcasting industry’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 36/3: 333–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lounsbury, M. (2001), ‘Institutional sources of practice variation: staffing college and university recycling programs’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 46/1: 29–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lounsbury, M. (2002), ‘Institutional transformation and status mobility: the professionalization of the field of finance’, Academy of Management Journal, 45/1: 255–66.Google Scholar
Lounsbury, M. (2007), ‘A tale of two cities: competing logics and practice variation in the professionalizing of mutual funds’, Academy of Management Journal, 50/2: 289–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lounsbury, M. (2008), ‘Institutional rationality and practice variation: new directions in the institutional analysis of practice’, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33/4–5: 349–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lounsbury, M., and Beckman, C. (2015), ‘Celebrating organization theory’, Journal of Management Studies, 52/2: 288–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lounsbury, M., and Boxenbaum, E. (eds.) (2013), Research in the Sociology of Organizations, vol. XXXIX, Institutional Logics in Action, 2 parts. Bingley, UK: Emerald.Google Scholar
Lounsbury, M., and Crumley, E. T. (2007), ‘New practice creation: an institutional perspective on innovation’, Organization Studies, 28/7: 993–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lounsbury, M., and Glynn, M. A. (2001), ‘Cultural entrepreneurship: stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources’, Strategic Management Journal, 22/6–7: 545–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maguire, S., Hardy, C., and Lawrence, T. (2004), ‘Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada’, Academy of Management Journal, 47/5: 657–79.Google Scholar
March, J. G. (1981), ‘Footnotes to organizational change’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 26/4: 563–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. G. (1991), ‘Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning’, Organization Science, 2/1: 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPherson, C. M., and Sauder, M. (2013), ‘Logics in action: managing institutional complexity in a drug court’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 58/2: 165–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, A. D. (1982), ‘Adapting to environmental jolts’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 27/4: 515–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyer, J. W., and Rowan, B. (1977), ‘Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony’, American Journal of Sociology, 83/2: 340–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Micelotta, E. R., and Washington, M. (2013), ‘Institutions and maintenance: the repair work of Italian professions’, Organization Studies, 34/8: 1137–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutch, A., Delbridge, R., and Ventresca, M. (2006), ‘Situating organizational action: the relational sociology of organizations’, Organization, 13/5: 607–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orlikowski, W. J. (1996), ‘Improvising organizational transformation over time: a situated change perspective’, Information Systems Research, 7/1: 63–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orlikowski, W. J. (2002), ‘Knowing in practice: enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing’, Organization Science, 13/3: 249–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orlikowski, W. J. (2010), ‘The sociomateriality of organisational life: considering technology in management research’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34/1: 125–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orlikowski, W. J., and Scott, S. V. (2008), ‘Sociomateriality: challenging the separation of technology, work and organization’, Academy of Management Annals, 2/1: 433–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pache, A.-C., and Santos, F. (2010), ‘When worlds collide: the internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands’, Academy of Management Review, 35/3: 455–76.Google Scholar
Pache, A.-C., and Santos, F. (2013a), ‘Embedded in hybrid contexts: how individuals in organizations respond to competing institutional logics’, in Lounsbury, M., and Boxenbaum, E. (eds.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations, vol. XXXIX, Institutional Logics in Action, Part B: 3–35. Bingley, UK: Emerald.Google Scholar
Pache, A.-C., and Santos, F. (2013b), ‘Inside the hybrid organization: selective coupling as a response to conflicting institutional logics’, Academy of Management Journal, 56/4: 972–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patriotta, G., Gond, J.-P., and Schultz, F. (2011), ‘Maintaining legitimacy: controversies, orders of worth, and public justifications’, Journal of Management Studies, 48/8: 1804–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, N., Lawrence, T. B., and Hardy, C. (2004), ‘Discourse and institutions’, Academy of Management Review, 29/4: 635–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plowman, D. A., Baker, L. T., Beck, T. E., Kulkarni, M., Solansky, S. T., and Travis, D. V. (2007), ‘Radical change accidentally: the emergence and amplification of small change’, Academy of Management Journal, 50/3: 515–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, W. W., and Colyvas, J. A. (2008), ‘Microfoundations of institutional theory’, in Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K., and Suddaby, R. (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism: 276–98. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Raaijmakers, A., Vermeulen, P., Meeus, M., and Zietsma, C. (2015), ‘I need time! Exploring pathways to compliance under institutional complexity’, Academy of Management Journal, 58/1: 85–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, H., and Kenney, M. (2008), ‘New forms as settlements’, in Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K., and Suddaby, R. (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism: 352–70. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Reay, T., Golden-Biddle, K., and Germann, K. (2006), ‘Legitimizing a new role: small wins and microprocesses of change’, Academy of Management Journal, 49/5: 977–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reay, T., and Hinings, C. R. (2009), ‘Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics’, Organization Studies, 30/6: 629–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauermann, H., and Stephan, P. (2013), ‘Conflicting logics? A multidimensional view of industrial and academic science’, Organization Science, 24/3: 889–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schatzki, T. R. (2001), ‘Introduction: practice theory’, in Schatzki, T. R., Knorr Cetina, K., and von Savigny, E. (eds.), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory: 1–14. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schatzki, T. R. (2002), The Site of the Social: A Philosophical Account of the Constitution of Social Life and Change. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Schatzki, T. R. (2006), ‘On organizations as they happen’, Organization Studies, 27/12: 1863–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneiberg, M., and Lounsbury, M. (2008), ‘Social movements and institutional analysis’, in Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K., and Suddaby, R. (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism: 650–72. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Scott, W. R. (1987), ‘The adolescence of institutional theory’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 32/4: 493–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seo, M. G., and Creed, W. E. D. (2002), ‘Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: a dialectical perspective’, Academy of Management Review, 27/2: 222–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smets, M., and Jarzabkowski, P. (2013), ‘Reconstructing institutional complexity in practice: a relational model of institutional work and complexity’, Human Relations, 66/10: 1279–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smets, M., Jarzabkowski, P., Spee, P., and Burke, G. (2015), ‘Reinsurance trading in Lloyd's of London: balancing conflicting-yet-complementary logics in practice’, Academy of Management Journal, 58/3: 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smets, M., Morris, T., and Greenwood, R. (2012), ‘From practice to field: a multilevel model of practice-driven institutional change’, Academy of Management Journal, 55/4: 877–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spee, P., and Jarzabkowski, P. (2009), ‘Strategy tools as boundary objects’, Strategic Organization, 7/2: 223–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spee, P., and Jarzabkowski, P. (2011), ‘Strategic planning as communicative process’, Organization Studies, 32/9: 1217–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strang, D., and Meyer, J. W. (1993), ‘Institutional conditions for diffusion’, Theory and Society, 22/4: 487–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., and LeBaron, C. (2011), Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Suddaby, R., and Greenwood, R. (2005), ‘Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 50/1: 35–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suddaby, R., Seidl, D., and Lê, J. (2013), ‘Strategy-as-practice meets neo-institutional theory’, Strategic Organization, 11/3: 329–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornton, P. H. (2002), ‘The rise of the corporation in a craft industry: conflict and conformity in institutional logics’, Academy of Management Journal, 45/1: 81–101.Google Scholar
Thornton, P. H. (2004), Markets from Culture: Institutional Logics and Organizational Decisions in Higher Educational Publishing. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Thornton, P. H., and Ocasio, W. (2008), ‘Institutional logics’, in Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K., and Suddaby, R. (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism: 99–129. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., and Lounsbury, M. (2012), The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure, and Process. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolbert, P. S., and Zucker, L. G. (1983), ‘Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: the diffusion of civil service reform, 1880–1935’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 28/1: 22–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townley, B. (1997), ‘The institutional logic of performance appraisal’, Organization Studies, 18/2: 261–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tracey, P., Phillips, N., and Jarvis, O. (2011), ‘Bridging institutional entrepreneurship and the creation of new organizational forms: a multilevel model’, Organization Science, 22/1: 60–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsoukas, H., and Cummings, S. (1997), ‘Marginalization and recovery: the emergence of Aristotelian themes in organization studies’, Organization Studies, 18/4: 655–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tushman, M. L., and O'Reilly, C. A. (1996), ‘Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change’, California Management Review, 38/4: 8–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaara, E., and Whittington, R. (2012), ‘Strategy-as-practice: taking social practices seriously’, Academy of Management Annals, 6/1: 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Ven, A., Ganco, M., and Hinings, C. R. (2013), ‘Returning to the frontier of contingency theory of organizational and institutional design’, Academy of Management Annals, 7/1: 393–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittington, R. (1996), ‘Strategy as practice’, Long Range Planning, 29/5: 731–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittington, R. (2006), ‘Completing the practice turn in strategy research’, Organization Studies, 27/5: 613–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zietsma, C., and Lawrence, T. B. (2010), ‘Institutional work in the transformation of an organizational field: the interplay of boundary work and practice work’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 55/2: 189–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zilber, T. B. (2002), ‘Institutionalization as an interplay between actions, meanings, and actors: the case of a rape crisis center in Israel’, Academy of Management Journal, 45/1: 234–54.Google Scholar
Zilber, T. B. (2011), ‘Institutional multiplicity in practice: a tale of two high-tech conferences in Israel’, Organization Science, 22/6: 1539–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zucker, L. G. (1983), ‘Organizations as institutions’, in Bacharach, S. B. (ed.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations: 1–47. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Zucker, L. G. (1987), ‘Institutional theories of organization’, Annual Review of Sociology, 13/1: 443–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×