Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T04:37:00.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A relational perspective of institutional work

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 May 2015

Cagri Topal
Cagri Topal*
Affiliation:
Department of Business Administration, Middle East Technical University, 06800, Ankara, Turkey
*
Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study develops a relational model of institutional work. The past research implies that the nature of relationships between individual actors actually shapes the nature of institutional work the actors engage in. However, the research falls short of an explicit, systematic analysis of different relationships between the actors and their work implications. This study basically argues that the actors’ power positions, which might be dominant or subordinate in relation to those of other actors, and their meaning frameworks, which might diverge from or converge with those of other actors, lead the actors to engage in a particular type of relationship with those other actors, and this relationship gives a particular form to the institutional work of the actors in relation. Hence, this study explicitly locates institutional work within the context of the relationships and highlights that institutional work is a relational rather than structural or individual phenomenon.

Keywords

institutional workrelationshipspower positionmeaning framework
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , July 2015 , pp. 495 - 514
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 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

Ashforth, B. E., & Kreiner, G. E. (1999). ‘How can you do it?’: Dirty work and the challenge of constructing a positive identity. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 413–434.Google Scholar
Barley, S. R., & Tolbert, P. S. (1997). Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between action and institution. Organization Studies, 18(1), 93–117.Google Scholar
Battilana, J., & D’Aunno, T. (2009). Institutional work and the paradox of embedded agency. In T. B. Lawrence, R. Suddaby, & B. Leca (Eds.), Institutional work (pp. 31–58). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company.Google Scholar
Bjerregaard, T. (2011). Co-existing institutional logics and agency among top-level public servants: A praxeological approach. Journal of Management & Organization, 17(2), 194–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chreim, S., Williams, B. E., & Hinings, C. R. (2007). Interlevel influences on the reconstruction of professional role identity. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1515–1539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Columbia Accident Investigation Board. (2003). Columbia accident investigation report (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: NASA.Google Scholar
Covaleski, M. A., Dirsmith, M. W., Heian, J. B., & Samuel, S. (1998). The calculated and the avowed: Techniques of discipline and struggles over identity in big six public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(2), 293–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Covault, C. (2003). Failure an option? NASA’s shallow safety program put Columbia and her crew on same path as Challenger. Aviation Week & Space Technology, 159(9), 27–35.Google Scholar
Creed, W. E. D. (2003). Voice lessons: Tempered radicalism and the use of voice and silence. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1503–1536.Google Scholar
Creed, W. E. D., Dejordy, R., & Lok, J. (2010). Being the change: Resolving institutional contradiction through identity work. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1336–1364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Currie, G., Lockett, A., Finn, R., Martin, G., & Waring, J. (2012). Institutional work to maintain professional power: Recreating the model of medical professionalism. Organization Studies, 33(7), 937–962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dacin, M. T., Munir, K., & Tracey, P. (2010). Formal dining at Cambridge colleges: Linking ritual performance and institutional maintenance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1393–1418.Google Scholar
Daudigeos, T. (2013). In their profession’s service: How staff professionals exert influence in their organization. Journal of Management Studies, 50(5), 722–749.Google Scholar
Empson, L., Cleaver, I., & Allen, J. (2013). Managing partners and management professionals: Institutional work dyads in professional partnerships. Journal of Management Studies, 50(5), 808–844.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. (2000). Organizational routines as a source continuous change. Organization Science, 11(6), 611–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 94–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucault, M. (1980). Two lectures. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977 (pp. 78–108). New York, NY: The Harvester Press.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1990). The history of sexuality, vol. 1: An introduction. New York, NY: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish. New York, NY: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
George, E., Chattopadhyay, P., Sitkin, S. B., & Barden, J. (2006). Cognitive underpinnings of institutional persistence and change: A framing perspective. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 347–365.Google Scholar
Grafstrom, M., & Windell, K. (2012). Newcomers conserving the old: Transformation processes in the field of new journalism. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 28, 65–76.Google Scholar
Heaphy, E. D. (2013). Repairing breaches with rules: Maintaining institutions in the face of everyday disruptions. Organization Science, 24(5), 1291–1315.Google Scholar
Kraatz, M. S. (2009). Leadership as institutional work: A bridge to the other side. In T. B. Lawrence, R. Suddaby, & B. Leca (Eds.), Institutional work (pp. 59–91). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lawrence, T. B. (2008). Power, institutions, and organizations. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin (Eds.), Handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 170–197). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 215–254). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2009). Introduction: Theorizing and studying institutional work. In T. B. Lawrence, R. Suddaby, & B. Leca (Eds.), Institutional work (pp. 1–27). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2011). Institutional work: Refocusing institutional studies of organization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(1), 52–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, T. B., Winn, M. I., & Jennings, P. D. (2001). The temporal dynamics of institutionalization. Academy of Management Review, 28(4), 624–644.Google Scholar
Lefsrud, L. M., & Meyer, R. E. (2012). Science or science fiction? Professionals’ discursive construction of climate change. Organization Studies, 33(11), 1477–1506.Google Scholar
Magnuson, E., Branegan, J., & Hannifin, J. (1986). A serious deficiency: The Rogers Commission faults NASA’s ‘flawed’ decision-making process. Time, 127(10), 34–36.Google Scholar
Malsch, B., & Gendron, Y. (2013). Re-theorizing change: Institutional experimentation and the struggles for domination in the field of public accounting. Journal of Management Studies, 50(5), 870–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCann, L., Granter, E., Hyde, P., & Hassard, J. (2013). Still blue-collar after all these years? An ethnography of the professionalization of emergency ambulance work. Journal of Management Studies, 50(5), 750–776.Google Scholar
McConnell, M. (1987). Challenger: A major malfunction. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co.Google Scholar
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.Google Scholar
Rao, H., & Kenney, M. (2008). New forms as settlements. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin (Eds.), Handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 352–370). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Raviola, E., & Norback, M. (2013). Bringing technology and meaning into institutional work: Making news at an Italian business newspaper. Organization Studies, 34(8), 1171–1194.Google Scholar
Ritvala, T., & Granqvist, N. (2009). Institutional entrepreneurs and local embedding of global scientific ideas – The case of preventing heart disease in Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25, 133–145.Google Scholar
Seeck, H., & Kantola, A. (2009). Organizational control: Restrictive or productive? Journal of Management & Organization, 15(2), 241–257.Google Scholar
Smets, M., & Jarzabkowski, P. (2013). Reconstructing institutional complexity in practice: A relational model of institutional work and complexity. Human Relations, 66(10), 1279–1309.Google Scholar
Smets, M., Morris, T., & Greenwood, R. (2012). From practice to field: A multilevel model of practice-driven institutional change. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 877–904.Google Scholar
Suddaby, R. (2010). Challenges for institutional theory. Journal of Management Inquiry, 19(1), 14–20.Google Scholar
Symon, G., Buehring, A., Johnson, P., & Cassell, C. (2008). Positioning qualitative research as resistance to the institutionalization of the academic labour process. Organization Studies, 29(10), 1315–1336.Google Scholar
Townley, B. (1997). The institutional logic of performance appraisal. Organization Studies, 18(2), 261–285.Google Scholar
Tracey, P., Phillips, N., & Jarvis, O. (2011). Bridging institutional entrepreneurship and the creation of new organizational forms: A multilevel model. Organization Science, 22(1), 60–80.Google Scholar
Valikangas, H., & Seeck, A. (2011). Exploring the Foucauldian interpretation of power and subject in organizations. Journal of Management & Organization, 17(6), 812–827.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, S., Berends, H., Jelinek, M., Romme, A. G. L., & Weggeman, M. (2011). Micro-institutional affordances and strategies of radical innovation. Organization Studies, 32(11), 1485–1513.Google Scholar
Voronov, M., & Vince, R. (2012). Integrating emotions into the analysis of institutional work. Academy of Management Journal, 37(1), 58–81.Google Scholar
Whittle, A., Suhomlinova, O., & Mueller, F. (2011). Dialogue and distributed agency in institutional transmission. Journal of Management & Organization, 17(4), 548–569.Google Scholar
Zilber, T. B. (2002). Institutionalization as an interplay between actions, meanings, and actors: The case of rape crisis center in Israel. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 234–254.Google Scholar
Zilber, T. B. (2009). Institutional maintenance as narrative acts. In T. B. Lawrence, R. Suddaby, & B. Leca (Eds.), Institutional work (pp. 205–235). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar