Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- List of contributors
- 1 Introduction: theorizing and studying institutional work
- Part I Essays on institutional work
- Part II Studies of institutional work
- 6 Building the iron cage: institutional creation work in the context of competing proto-institutions
- 7 Scandinavian institutionalism – a case of institutional work
- 8 Institutional maintenance as narrative acts
- 9 Maintaining an institution in a contested organizational field: the work of the AACSB and its constituents
- 10 Institutional “dirty” work: preserving institutions through strategic decoupling
- 11 Doing which work? A practice approach to institutional pluralism
- Index
- References
6 - Building the iron cage: institutional creation work in the context of competing proto-institutions
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 September 2009
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- List of contributors
- 1 Introduction: theorizing and studying institutional work
- Part I Essays on institutional work
- Part II Studies of institutional work
- 6 Building the iron cage: institutional creation work in the context of competing proto-institutions
- 7 Scandinavian institutionalism – a case of institutional work
- 8 Institutional maintenance as narrative acts
- 9 Maintaining an institution in a contested organizational field: the work of the AACSB and its constituents
- 10 Institutional “dirty” work: preserving institutions through strategic decoupling
- 11 Doing which work? A practice approach to institutional pluralism
- Index
- References
Summary
A unique contribution of institutional theory is the insight that organizations need legitimacy as well as technical efficiency to survive and thrive in their environments (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Meyer & Rowan, 1977). The institutionalized norms, practices, and logics which structure organizational fields exert isomorphic pressures, forming an “iron cage” which constrains organizational actions. Organizations are seen as legitimate when they conform to field structures and operate within the iron cage (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Much work in institutional theory has focused on the diffusion of institutional structures and the forces which support institutional isomorphism.
Yet not all institutional environments are highly institutionalized, and not all actors are equally constrained by institutional arrangements. A great deal of work in the last two decades has shown that institutional entrepreneurs may arise to question institutional arrangements (DiMaggio, 1988), resisting them strategically (Oliver, 1991; Ang & Cummings, 1997), disrupting and deinstitutionalizing them (Ahmadjian & Robinson, 2001; Oliver, 1992), and reconstructing them to suit the desires of different actors (Anand & Peterson, 2000; Hargadon & Douglas, 2001; Zilber, 2002).
Much of the prior work on institutional entrepreneurship has tended to focus retrospectively on the path of a single institutional innovation as it gained support in an emerging or existing field, often displacing an existing set of institutional arrangements (e.g. Greenwood, Suddaby & Hinings, 2002; Maguire, Hardy & Lawrence, 2004; Munir, 2005). Throughout this work, competing or independently evolving innovations which may also have been candidates for institutionalization are generally not discussed.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Institutional WorkActors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations, pp. 143 - 177Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2009
References
- 70
- Cited by