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-76c49bb84f-bg8zk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-13T12:44:25.914Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - Doing which work? A practice approach to institutional pluralism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2009

By
Paula Jarzabkowski ,
Jane Matthiesen  and
Andrew H. Van de Ven
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

This chapter takes a social theory of practice approach to examining institutional work; that is, how institutions are created, maintained, and disrupted through the actions, interactions, and negotiations of multiple actors. We examine alternative approaches that organizations use to deal with institutional pluralism based on a longitudinal real-time case study of a utility company grappling with opposing market and regulatory logics over time. These two logics required the firm to both mitigate its significant market power and also maintain its commercially competitive focus and responsiveness to shareholders.

Institutional theorists have long acknowledged that institutions have a central logic (Friedland & Alford, 1991) or rationality (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Scott, 1995/2001; Townley, 2002), comprising a set of material and symbolic practices and organizing principles that provide logics of action for organizations and individuals, who then reproduce the institutions through their actions (Glynn & Lounsbury, 2005; Suddaby & Greenwood, 2005). Despite a monolithic feel to much institutional theory, in which a dominant institutional logic appears to prevail, institutional theorists also acknowledge the plurality of institutions (e.g. Friedland & Alford, 1991; Kraatz & Block, 2008; Lounsbury, 2007; Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Whittington, 1992). While these pluralistic institutions may be interdependent, they are not considered to coexist in harmony; “There is no question but that many competing and inconsistent logics exist in modern society” (Scott, 1995: 130).

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Institutional Work
Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations
 , pp. 284 - 316
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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Archer, M. (1995) Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bacharach, S. B. & Lawler, E. J. (1980) Power and Politics in Organizations: The Social Psychology of Conflict, Coalitions, and Bargaining. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Barley, S. (1986) Technology as an occasion for structuring: evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiography departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(1): 78–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barley, S. & Tolbert, P. (1997) Institutionalization and structuration: studying the links between action and institution. Organization Studies, 18(1): 93–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benson, J. K. (1977) Organizations: a dialectical view. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(1): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohman, J. (1999) Practical reason and cultural constraint: agency in Bourdieu's theory of practice. In Shusterman, R. (ed.), Bourdieu: A Critical Reader, pp. 128–152. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1990) The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Brown, G., Lawrence, T. B. & Robinson, S. L. (2005) Territoriality in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 30(3): 577–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Child, J. (1997) Strategic choice in the analysis of action, structure, organizations and environment: retrospect and prospect. Organization Studies, 18(1): 43–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, P. (2000) Organisations in Action: Competition between Contexts. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Clegg, S. R. (1989) Frameworks of Power. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, D., Hinings, B., Greenwood, R. & Brown, J. (1996) Sedimentation and transformation in organization change: the case of Canadian law firms. Organization Studies, 17(4): 623–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denis, J.-L., Langley, A. & Rouleau, L. (2007) Strategizing in pluralistic contexts: rethinking theoretical frames. Human Relations, 60(1): 179–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiMaggio, P. J. & Powell, W. W. (1983) The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48: 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. (1989) Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 532–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emirbayer, M. & Mische, A. (1998) What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4): 962–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evered, R. & Louis, M. R. (1981) Alternative perspectives in the organizational sciences: “Inquiry from the inside” and “Inquiry from the outside.”Academy of Management Review, 6(3): 385–396.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
Friedman, M. (1970) The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, September 1, 1970.
Geertz, C. (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Glynn, M. & Lounsbury, M. (2005) From the critics' corner: logic blending, discursive change and authenticity in a cultural production system. Journal of Management Studies, 42(5): 1031–1055.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: 1022–1054.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: 58–80.Google Scholar
Hardy, C. (1991) Pluralism, power and collegiality in universities. Financial Accountability and Management, 7(3): 127–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardy, C. & Clegg, S. R. (1996) Some dare call it power. In Clegg, S. R., Hardy, C. & Nord, W. R. (eds.), Handbook of Organization Studies, pp. 622–641. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Hargrave, T. & Ven, A. (2006) A collective action model of institutional innovation. Academy of Management Review, 31(4): 864–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm, P. (1995) The dynamics of institutionalization: transformation processes in Norwegian fisheries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 398–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopwood, A. & Miller, P. (eds.) (1994) Accounting as Social and Institutional Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hung, S.-C. & Whittington, R. (1997) Strategy and institutions: a pluralistic account of strategies in the Taiwanese computing industry. Organization Studies, 18(4): 551–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P. (2004) Strategy as practice: recursiveness, adaptation and practices-in-use. Organization Studies, 25(4): 529–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P. (2005) Strategy as Practice: An Activity-Based View. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P., Balogun, J. & Seidl, D. (2007) Strategizing: the challenges of a practice perspective. Human Relations, 60(1): 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P. & Fenton, E. (2006) Strategizing and organizing in pluralistic contexts. Long Range Planning, 39(6): 631–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P., Matthiesen, J. & Ven, A. (2008) Doing which work? A practice approach to institutional pluralism. Aston Business School Working Paper.Google Scholar
Jepperson, R. L. (1991) Institutions, institutional effects, and institutionalism. In Powell, W. W. & DiMaggio, P. J. (eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, pp. 143–163. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kay, J. (2000) Challenges of running a regulated business. Mastering Strategy, pp. 317–320. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
Kraatz, M. & Block, E. (2008) Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. In Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin-Andersson, K. & Suddaby, R. (eds.), Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, pp. 243–275. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langley, A. (1999) Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4): 691–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, P. R. & Lorsch, J. W. (1967) Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lawrence, T. B. & Phillips, N. (2004) From Moby Dick to Free Willy: macro-cultural discourse and institutional entrepreneurship in emerging institutional fields. Organization, 11(5): 689–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, T. B. & Suddaby, R. (2006) Institutions and institutional work. In Clegg, S., Hardy, C., Lawrence, T. & Nord, W. R. (eds.), Handbook of Organization Studies, 2nd edn., pp. 215–254. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Lindblom, C. E. (1965) The Intelligence of Democracy: Decision Making through Mutual Adjustment. New York: Free Press.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): 280–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, J. W. & Rowan, B. (1977) Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83: 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miles, M. & Hubermann, A. (1994) An Expanded Sourcebook: Qualitative Data Analysis. London: Sage.Google 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(2): 257–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, C. (1991) Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16: 145–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orlikowski, W. (1992) The duality of technology: rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3): 398–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orlikowski, W. (2000) Using technology and constituting structures: a practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4): 404–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orlikowski, W. (2002) Knowing in practice: enacting a collective capability in distributive organizing. Organization Science, 13(3): 249–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortner, S. (1984) Theory in anthropology since the sixties. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 26: 126–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettigrew, A. (1990) Longitudinal field research on change: theory and practice. Organization Science, 1(3): 267–292.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
Porter, M. E. (1980) Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Porter, M. E. (1985) Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Reay, T. & Hinings, C. R. (2005) The recomposition of an organizational field: health care in Alberta. Organization Studies, 26(3): 351–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reckwitz, A. (2002) Towards a theory of social practice: a development in cultural theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2): 243–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russo, M. V. (2001) Institutions, exchange relations and the emergence of new fields: regulatory policies and independent power production in America, 1978–1992. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46: 57–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schatzki, T. R., Knorr Cetina, K. and Savigny, E. (2001) The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Scott, W. R. (1995/2001) Institutions and Organizations. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Scott, W. R., Ruef, M., Mendel, P. J. & Caronna, C. A. (2000) Institutional Change and Healthcare Organizations: From Professional Dominance to Managed Care. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Selznick, P. (1949) TVA and the Grass Roots. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Seo, M. & Creed, W. E. D. (2002) Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: a dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27: 222–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seo, M. G., Putnam, L. L. & Bartunek, J. M. (2004) Dualities and tensions of planned organizational change. In Poole, M. S. & Ven, A. H. (eds.), Handbook of Organizational Change and Innovation, pp. 73–107. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sharratt, D., Brigham, B. H. & Brigham, M. (2007) The utility of social obligations in the UK energy industry. Journal of Management Studies, 44(8): 1503–1522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suchman, M. C. (1995) Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3): 571–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suddaby, R. & Greenwood, R. (2005) Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50: 35–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sztompka, P. (1991) Society in Action: The Theory of Social Becoming. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Townley, B. (2002) The role of competing rationalities in institutional change. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 163–179.Google Scholar
Tsoukas, H. & Chia, R. (2002) On organizational becoming: rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, 13(5): 567–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, S. (1994) The Social Theory of Practices. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Ven, A. (1992) Suggestions for studying strategy process: a research note. Strategic Management Journal, 13: 169–188.Google Scholar
Ven, A. H. & Hargrave, T. (2004) Social, technical, and institutional change: a literature review and synthesis. In Poole, M. S. & Ven, A. H. (eds.), Handbook of Organizational Change and Innovation, pp. 259–303. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Werner, C. M. & Baxter, L. A. (1994) Temporal qualities of relationships: organismic, transactional, and dialectical views. In Knapp, M. & Miller, G. R. (eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, 2nd edn., pp. 323–379. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Whittington, R. (1992) Putting Giddens into action: social systems and managerial agency. Journal of Management Studies, 29(6): 693–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittington, R. (2006) Completing the practice turn in strategy research. Organization Studies, 27(5): 613–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. C. & Jarzabkowski, P. (2004) Thinking and acting strategically: new challenges for interrogating strategy. European Management Review, 1: 14–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yin, R. K. (1994) Case Study Research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Zilber, T. B. (2006) The work of the symbolic in institutional processes: translations of rational myths in Israel high tech. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2): 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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
×