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-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T10:44:40.174Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Institutional work and the paradox of embedded agency

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2009

By
Julie Battilana  and
Thomas D'Aunno
Edited by
Thomas B. Lawrence ,
Roy Suddaby  and
Bernard Leca
Thomas B. Lawrence
Affiliation:
Simon Fraser University, British Columbia
Roy Suddaby
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
Bernard Leca
Affiliation:
ESC Rouen
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Institutions are social structures that are characterized by a high degree of resilience (Scott, 2001). They have a self-activating nature (Lawrence, Hardy & Phillips, 2002; Jepperson, 1991). Actors tend to reproduce institutions in a given field of activity without requiring either repeated authoritative intervention or collective mobilization (Clemens & Cook, 1999: 445). Early neo-institutional studies emphasized ways that institutions constrained organizational structures and activities, and thereby explained the convergence of organizational practices within institutional environments. They proposed that actors' need to be regarded as legitimate in their institutional environment determined their behavior. This work implicitly assumed that individuals and organizations tend to comply, at least in appearance, with institutional pressures. In fact, actors were often implicitly assumed to have a limited degree of agency.

Such a conception of agency was problematic when institutional theorists started tackling the issue of institutional change. While early neo-institutional studies accounted for organizational isomorphism and for the reproduction of institutionalized practices, they did not account well for the possibility of change. Even though institutions are characterized by their self-activating nature, we know that they do change (e.g. Fligstein, 1991). Since the late 1980s, institutional theorists have started addressing the issue of institutional change. They have highlighted the role that organizations and/or individuals play in institutional change.

Studies that account for the role of organizations and/or individuals in institutional change, however, face a paradox.

Type
Chapter
Information
Institutional Work
Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations
 , pp. 31 - 58
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

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

Abbott, A. (1988) The System of Professions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Archer, M. (1982) Morphogenesis versus structuration: on combining structure and action. The British Journal of Sociology, 33(4): 455–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Argyris, C. (1973) The CEOs' behavior – key to organizational development. Harvard Business Review, 51(2): 55.Google Scholar
Aron, R. (1967) Les étapes de la pensée sociologique. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Astley, W. G. & Ven, A. H. (1983) Central perspectives and debates in organization theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 245–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barley, S. R. & Tolbert, P. S. (1997) Institutionalization and structuration: studying the links between action and institution. Organization Studies, 18(1): 93–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battilana, J. (2006) Agency and institutions: the enabling role of individuals' social position. Organization, 13(5): 653–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckert, J. (1999) Agency, entrepreneurs, and institutional change: the role of strategic choice and institutionalized practices in organizations. Organization Studies, 20: 777–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, P. & Luckmann, T. (1967) The Social Construction of Reality. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P., (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Boyer, R. (2003) L'anthropologie économique de Pierre Bourdieu. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales, 150: 65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burrell, G. & Morgan, G. (1979) Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Calhoun, C. (ed.) (2002) Dictionary of the Social Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Callinicos, A. (1985) A. Giddens: a contemporary critique. Theory & Society, 14: 133–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clegg, S. (1989) Frameworks of Power. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clemens, E. S. & Cook, J. M. (1999) Politics and institutionalism: explaining durability and change. Annual Review of Sociology, 25: 441–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colomy, P. (1998) Neo-functionalism and neo-institutionalism: human agency and interest in institutional change. Sociological Forum, 13(2): 265–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crozier, M. & Friedberg, E. (1980) Actors and Systems: The Politics of Collective Action. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dacin, M. T., Ventresca, M. & Beal, B. (1999) The embeddedness of organizations: debates, dialogue and directions. Journal of Management, 25(3): 317–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Aunno, T., Succi, M. & Alexander, J. (2000) The role of institutional and market forces in divergent organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45: 679–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, G. F. & Marquis, C. (2005) Prospects for organization theory in the early twenty-first century: institutional fields and mechanisms. Organization Science, 16(4): 332–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawe, A. (1970) The two sociologies. The British Journal of Sociology, 21(2): 207–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiMaggio, P. (1979) Review essay: on Pierre Bourdieu. American Journal of Sociology, 84: 1460–1474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiMaggio, P. (1988) Interest and agency in institutional theory. In Zucker, L. (ed.), Institutional Patterns and Organizations, pp. 3–22. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
DiMaggio, P. & Powell, W. (1983) The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48: 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiMaggio, P. & Powell, W. (1991) Introduction. In Powell, W. & DiMaggio, P. (eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, pp. 1–38. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Dorado, S. (2005) Institutional entrepreneurship, partaking, and convening. Organization Studies, 26(3): 383–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenstadt, S. N. (1964) Institutionalization and change. American Sociological Review, 29(2): 235–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenstadt, S. N. (1980) Cultural orientations, institutional entrepreneurs, and social change: comparative analysis of traditional civilizations. American Journal of Sociology, 85(4): 840–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emirbayer, M. (1997) Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 103: 281–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emirbayer, M. & Johnson, V. S. (2008) Bourdieu and organizational analysis. Theory and Society, 37(1): 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emirbayer, M. & Mische, A. (1998) What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4): 962–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fligstein, N. (1991) The structural transformation of American industry: an institutional account of the causes of diversification in the largest firms, 1919–1979. In Powell, W. & DiMaggio, P. (eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, pp. 311–336. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Fligstein, N. (1997) Social skill and institutional theory. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(4): 397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fligstein, N. (2001) Social skills and the theory of fields. Sociological Theory, 19(2): 105–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fligstein, N. & Mara-Drita, I. (1996) How to make a market: reflections on the attempt to create a single market in the European Union. American Journal of Sociology, 102(1): 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, B. (1997) Pierre Bourdieu and Cultural Theory: Critical Investigations. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Friedland, R. & Alford, R. R. (1991) Bringing society back in: symbols, practice, and institutional contradictions. In Powell, W. & DiMaggio, P. (eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, pp. 232–263. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Garud, R., Jain, S. & Kumaraswamy, A. (2002) Institutional entrepreneurship in the sponsorship of common technological standards: the case of Sun Microsystems and Java. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 196–214.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1976) New Rules for Sociological Method. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1979) Central Problems in Social Theory. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Granovetter, M. (1985) Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3): 481–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, R. & Hinings, C. R. (1996) Understanding radical organizational change: bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review, 21(4): 1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, R. & Suddaby, R. (2006) Institutional entrepreneurship by elite firms in mature fields: the big five accounting firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1): 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R. & 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
Hannan, M. T. & Freeman, J. (1977) The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82: 929–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haveman, H. A. & Rao, H. (1997) Structuring a theory of moral sentiments: institutional and organizational coevolution in the early thrift industry. American Journal of Sociology, 102(6): 1606–1651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hensmans, M. (2003) Social movement organizations: a metaphor for strategic actors in institutional fields. Organization Studies, 24(3): 355–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, P. M. & Lounsbury, M. (1997) Putting the organization back into organization theory. Journal of Management Inquiry, 6(1): 79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm, P. (1995) The dynamics of institutionalization: transformation processes in Norwegian fisheries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 398–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jepperson, R. (1991) Institutions, institutional effects, and institutionalism. In Powell, W. & DiMaggio, P. (eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, pp. 143–163. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Karnoe, P. (1997) Only in social action. American Behavioral Scientist, 40: 419–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kondra, A. Z. & Hinings, C. R. (1998) Organizational diversity and change in institutional theory. Organization Studies, 19(5): 743–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraatz, M. S. & Zajac, E. J. (1996) Exploring the limits of the new institutionalism: the causes and consequences of illegitimate organizational change. American Sociological Review, 61: 812–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, P. R. & Lorsch, J. W. (1967) Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(1): 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, T. B. (1999) Institutional strategy. Journal of Management, 25: 161–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, T. B., Hardy, C. & Phillips, N. (2002) Institutional effects of inter-organizational collaboration: the emergence of proto-institutions. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 281–290.Google Scholar
Lawrence, T. B. & Suddaby, R. (2006) Institutions and institutional work. In Clegg, S. R., Hardy, C., Lawrence, T. B. & Nord, W. R. (eds.), Handbook of Organization Studies, pp. 215–254. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leblebici, H., Salancik, G., Copay, A. & 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): 333–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leca, B., Battilana, J. & Boxenbaum, E. (2008) Agency and institutions: a review of institutional entrepreneurship. Harvard Business School Working Paper 08-096. Cambridge, MA.
Levy, D. L. & Egan, D. (2003) A neo-Gramscian approach to corporate political strategy: conflict and accommodation in the climate change negotiations. Journal of Management Studies, 40(4): 803–829.CrossRefGoogle 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. & Ventresca, M. (2003) The new structuralism in organizational theory. Organization, 10(3): 457–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maguire, S., Hardy, C. & Lawrence, T. B. (2004) Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5): 657–679.Google Scholar
Meyer, J. & Rowan, B. (1977) Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83: 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, J. & Scott, W. (1983) Centralization and the legitimacy problems of local government. In Meyer, J. & Scott, W. (eds.), Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality, pp. 199–251. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Meyer, J., Scott, W. & Deal, T. E. (1983) Institutional and technical sources of organizational structure: explaining the structure of educational organizations. In Meyer, J. & Scott, W. (eds.), Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality, pp. 45–67. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Mutch, A. (2003) Communities of practice and habitus: a critique. Organization Studies. 24(3): 383–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oakes, L., Townley, B. & Cooper, D. (1998) Business planning as pedagogy: language and control in a changing institutional field. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(2): 257–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ocasio, W. (2002) Organizational power and dependence. In Baum, J. A. C. (ed.), Companion to Organizations, pp. 363–385. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Oliver, C. (1991) Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16: 145–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, C. (1992) The antecedents of deinstitutionalization. Organization Studies, 13(4): 563–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, D. & Biggart, N. W. (2002) Organizational institutions. In Baum, J. A. C. (ed.), Companion to Organization, pp. 259–280. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pfeffer, J. (1997) New Directions for Organization Theory: Problems and Prospects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Phillips, N., Lawrence, T. & Hardy, C. (2000) Inter-organizational collaboration and the dynamics of institutional fields. Journal of Management Studies, 37(1): 23–45.Google Scholar
Ranson, S., Hinings, B. & Greenwood, R. (1980) The structuring of organizational structures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(1): 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, H., Morrill, C. & Zald, N. (2000) Power plays: how social movements and collective action create new organizational forms. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22: 239–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reay, T., Golden-Biddle, K. & Germann, K. (2006) Legitimizing a new role: small wins and microprocesses of change. Academy of Management Journal, 49(5): 977–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rousseau, D. M. (1978) Characteristics of departments, positions, and individuals: contexts for attitudes and behaviour. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23: 521–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, M. (1997) Habitus revisited. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(4): 444–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneiberg, M. & Clemens, E. (2006) The typical tools for the job: research strategies in institutional analysis. Sociological Theory, 3: 195–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneiberg, M. & Soule, S. (2005) Institutionalization as a contested, multi-level process: politics, social movements and rate regulation in American fire insurance. In Davis, G., McAdam, D., Scott, W. R. & Zald, M. (eds.), Social Movements and Organizations, pp. 122–160. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, W. R. (1996) The mandate is still being honored: in defense of Weber's disciples. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1): 163–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, W. R. (2001) Institutions and Organizations, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Selznick, P. (1949) TVA and the Grass Roots. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Selznick, P. (1956) Leadership in Administration: A Sociological Interpretation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Seo, M. G. & Creed, W. E. D. (2002) Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: a dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27(2): 222–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sewell, W. H. (1992) A theory of structure: duality, agency, and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98(1): 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1997) Administrative behaviour: a study of decision-making processes. Administrative Organization, 4th edn. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Starr, P. (1982) The Social Transformation of American Medicine. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Stern, R. N. & Barley, S. R. (1996) Organizations and social systems: organization theory's neglected mandate. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 146–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strang, D. & Sine, W. D. (2002) Inter-organizational institutions. In Baum, J. (ed.), Companion to Organizations, pp. 497–519. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Suddaby, R. & Greenwood, R. (2005) Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1): 35–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thoenig, J. C. (1998) Essai: how far is a sociology of organizations still needed? Organization Studies, 19(2): 307–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, J. D. (1967) Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Tolbert, P. S. (1985) Resource dependence and institutional environments: sources of administrative structure in institutions of higher education. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20: 229–249.Google Scholar
Tolbert, P. S. & 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
Tolbert, P. S. & Zucker, L. G. (1996) The institutionalization of institutional theory. In Clegg, S. R., Hardy, C. & Nord, W. R. (eds.), Handbook of Organization Studies, pp. 175–190. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Wade-Benzoni, K. A., Hoffman, A. J., Thompson, L. L., Moore, D. A., Gillespie, J. J. & Bazerman, M. H. (2002) Barriers to resolution in ideologically based negotiations: the role of values and institutions. Academy of Management Review, 27(1): 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittington, R. (1992) Putting Giddens into action: social systems and managerial agency. Journal of Management Studies, 29(6): 693–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, J. (1958) Management and Technology. London: HMSO.Google 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): 234–254.Google Scholar
Zucker, L. (1983) Organizations as institutions. In Bacharach, S. B. (ed.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 2: 1–47. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Zucker, L. (1991) Postscript: microfoundations of institutional thought. In Powell, W. & DiMaggio, P. (eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, pp. 103–106. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google 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
×