Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T00:29:02.653Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Institutional work as the creative embrace of contradiction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2009

Thomas B. Lawrence
Affiliation:
Simon Fraser University, British Columbia
Roy Suddaby
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
Bernard Leca
Affiliation:
ESC Rouen
Get access

Summary

Introduction

In 2006, Lawrence and Suddaby introduced the concept of institutional work into the study of institutions and institutional change. They define institutional work as “the purposive action of individuals and organizations aimed at creating, maintaining and disrupting institutions” (2006: 215). Their effort represents an important advance within a series of efforts to systematically incorporate agency into neo-institutional theory (DiMaggio, 1988; Fligstein, 1997; Oliver, 1991). Lawrence and Suddaby point out that neo-institutionalists have given relatively little attention to “the relationship between institutional work and the contradictions that are inherent in organization fields” (2006: 248). In this chapter we address this gap. We do so by presenting a dialectical perspective on institutional change and then examining different approaches to managing institutional contradictions. Our main argument is that an important aspect of institutional work is the ability to use the tension between contradictory elements as a source of innovation. We refer to the work of the noted community organizer Saul Alinsky to illustrate this argument.

Our perspective suggests that the effective institutional actor, whether incumbent or challenger, takes actions to both stabilize and change institutions. Incumbents must not only maintain institutions, but also disrupt disrupters and refine existing arrangements. Similarly, challengers must attempt to preserve parts of existing institutions as well as suggest alternative arrangements. Our perspective further suggests that effective institutional actors recognize the interdependence of incumbents' and challengers' strategies; exploit gaps between espoused values and actual behavior; and undertake mutually reinforcing institutional work practices across levels of organization.

Type
Chapter
Information
Institutional Work
Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations
, pp. 120 - 140
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

Alinsky, S. (1946/1969) Reveille for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Alinsky, S. (1971) Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981) The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M. M. Bakhtin, trans. Emerson, C. & Holquist, M.. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Barley, S. R. & Tolbert, P. S. (1997) Institutionalization and structuration: studying the links between action and institution. Organization Science, 18(1): 93–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benson, J. K. (1977) Organizations: a dialectical view. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braithwaite, J. & Drahos, P. (2000) Global Business Regulation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cameron, K. S. & Quinn, R. E. (1988) Organizational paradox and transformation. In Quinn, R. E. & Cameron, K. S. (eds.), Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Theory of Change in Organization and Management, pp. 1–18. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
Clemens, E. & Cook, J. (1999) Politics and institutionalism: explaining durability and change. Annual Review of Sociology, 25: 441–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deephouse, D. L. (1999) To be different, or to be the same? It's a question (and theory) of strategic balance. Strategic Management Journal, 20: 147–166.3.0.CO;2-Q>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiMaggio, P. (1988) Interest and agency in institutional theory. In Zucker, L. G. (ed.), Institutional Patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment, pp. 3–22. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M. & Wescott, B. J. (1988) Paradoxical demands and the creation of excellence: the case of just-in-time manufacturing. In Quinn, R. E. & Cameron, K. S. (eds.), Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Theory of Change in Organization and Management, pp. 169–193. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
Elsbach, K. D. & Sutton, R. I. (1992) Acquiring organizational legitimacy through illegitimate actions: a marriage of institutional and impression management theories. Academy of Management Journal, 35(4): 699–738.Google Scholar
Fesmire, S. (2003) John Dewey and Moral Imagination: Pragmatism in Ethics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Fligstein, N. (1997) Social skills and institutional theory. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(4): 397–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, J. D. & Backoff, R. W. (1988) Organizational change in and out of dualities and paradox. In Quinn, R. E. & Cameron, K. S. (eds.), Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Theory of Change in Organization and Management, pp. 81–121. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
Friedland, R. & Alford, R. R. (1991) Bringing society back in: symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In Powell, W. W. & DiMaggio, P. J. (eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, pp. 232–263. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Garud, R., Hardy, C. & Maguire, S. (2007) Institutional entrepreneurship as embedded agency: an introduction to the special issue. Organization Studies, 28: 957–969.CrossRefGoogle 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
Gharajedaghi, J. (1982) Social dynamics (dichotomy or dialectic). General Systems, 27: 251–268.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Hargadon, A. & Douglas, Y. (2001) When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46: 476–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hargrave, T. J. & Ven, A. H. (2006) A collective action model of institutional change. Academy of Management Review, 31(4): 864–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. ([1807] 1977) Phenomenology of Spirit. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hoffman, A. J. (1999) Institutional evolution and change: environmentalism and the US chemical industry. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4): 351–371.Google Scholar
Jones, C. (2001) Co-evolution of entrepreneurial careers, institutional rules and competitive dynamics in American film. Organization Studies, 22(6): 91–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, T. B. (1999) Institutional strategy. Journal of Management, 25(2): 161–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, T. B. & Suddaby, R. (2006) Institutions and institutional work. In Clegg, S. R., Hardy, C. & Nord, W. R. (eds.), Handbook of Organization Studies, 2nd edn., pp. 215–254. London and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leca, B., Battilana, J. & Boxenbaum, E. (2006) Taking stock on institutional entrepreneurship: what do we know? Where do we go? Working paper presented at Academy of Management Meeting, 2006.
Leca, B. & Naccache, P. (2006) A critical realist approach to institutional entrepreneurship. Organization, 13(5): 627–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lounsbury, M. & Crumley, E. T. (2007) New practice creation: an institutional perspective on innovation. Organization Studies, special issue on Institutional Entrepreneurship, 28: 993–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marquis, C. & Lounsbury, M. (2007) Vive la résistance: competing logics and the consolidation of US community banking. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4): 799–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, R. (2007) The Opposable Mind: How Successful Leaders Win Through Integrative Thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Marx, K. (1971 [1859]) Preface to a contribution to the critique of political economy. In Fischer, E. (ed.), The Essential Theory of Karl Marx. New York: Herder & Herder.Google Scholar
Meyer, J. R. & Rowan, B. (1977) Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83: 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, R. P. (1996) Varieties of dialectic change processes. Journal of Management Inquiry, 5(3): 276–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oakes, L. S., Townley, B. & Cooper, D. J. (1998) Business planning as pedagogy: language and control in a changing institutional field. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43: 257–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, C. (1991) Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16: 145–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, M. S. & Ven, A. H. (1989) Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 562–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, M. S. & Ven, A. H. (2004) Theories of organizational change and innovation processes. In Poole, M. S. & Ven, A. H. (eds.), Handbook of Organizational Change and Innovation, pp. 374–397. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rao, H., Monin, P. & Durand, R. (2003) Institutional change in Toque Ville: nouvelle cuisine as an identity movement in French gastronomy. American Journal of Sociology, 108(4): 795–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schatzki, T. R., Knorr-Cetina, K. & Savigny, E. (2001) The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schneider, L. (1971) Dialectic in sociology. American Sociological Review, 36(4): 667–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, W. R. (2001 [1995]) Institutions and Organizations, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Seo, M. & 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
Suddaby, R. & Greenwood, R. (2005) Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50: 35–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strandgaard Pedersen, J. & Dobbin, F. (2006) In search of identity and legitimation: bridging organizational culture and neo-institutionalism. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(7): 897–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townley, B. (2002) The role of competing rationalities in institutional change. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 163–179.Google Scholar
Ven, A. H. & Poole, M. S. (1988) Paradoxical requirements for a theory of organizational change. In Quinn, R. & Cameron, K. (eds.), Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Theory of Change in Organization and Management, pp. 19–63. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
Ven, A. H. & Poole, M. S. (1995) Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20: 510–540.Google Scholar
Warren, M. R. (2001) Dry Bones Rattling: Community Building to Revitalize American Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, M. (1978 [1921]) Economy and Society, trans. and ed. Roth, G.. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Werner, C. M. & Baxter, L. A. (1994) Temporal qualities of relationships: organismic, transactional, and dialectical views. In Knapp, M. & Miller, G. (eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, 2nd edn., pp. 323–379. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Zilber, T. B. (2007) Stories and the discursive dynamics of institutional entrepreneurship: the case of Israeli high-tech after the bubble. Organization Studies, 28: 1035–1054.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
×