Search results

This chapter explores archetypal change in the context of professional service firms. To understand recent and ongoing changes in professional service firms, we briefly show how the professional archetype has evolved since the 1960s. We then present four theoretical models to describe processes by which institutionalized archetypes can change, and possibly coexist in the same field. Three professional archetypes are described, each in the context of historical development and the change model described earlier. At the one extreme is the traditional professional partnership; at the other the larger, multidisciplinary, corporate, global professional network, or GPN; in between is the “Star” form – relatively specialized, flatter structure, resisting significant growth, with fixations on excellence, and being the leader in a professional niche.

This paper seeks to explore and explain the dramatic organizational changes that took place over a relatively short time period in the five largest global professional networks, or GPNs – a group of organizations that were originally global accounting firms and traditionally accustomed to relatively gradual change.

Begins by describing the background of divestiture and diversification in GPNs. The data were collected from the firms' web sites, interviews with GPN managers, e‐mail requests for information via Big Five web sites, and from reports in the newspapers and business press over the two‐year period to June 2001. Uses neo‐institutional theory to study the context, precipitating dynamics, and enabling dynamics of large‐scale organizational change, including the part played by governmental and regulatory forces.

Explains the extent to which changes have occurred in a sample of countries in which these organizations operate, noting that the firm effects seem to be stronger than the country effects in the consulting area, while country effects are more pronounced in the law area.

This paper is an original study of mainly secondary data – including those collected from firms' internet sites – analyzing change in an institutionalized environment. It is one of the first studies to make use of the GPN concept. Researchers and practitioners interested in professional service firms in general will find a unique combination of data, analyses, and conclusions.

Currently, the most widely used Printed Circuit Board (PCB) base material is the glass reinforced epoxy known as FR‐4. To improve the electrical or the thermomechanical performance of PCBs, there are two possibilities from a material standpoint: a modification or change of the resin system and a change of the reinforcement. Currently, there are a number of resins used for high performance PCB base materials. These resin systems offer higher Tgs and lower z‐axis‐expansions for improved through hole reliability. Non‐halogenated epoxy resin systems are offered for the production of green PCBs. In addition to new resins, new reinforcements are available for use in PCBs. Which can improve the electrical parameters of the base material and the x and y axis‐ thermal expansion also changes with the use of those reinforcements. This paper compares the thermomechanical and electrical parameters of some new high performance and green base materials with the glass reinforced epoxy materials commonly used in both high layer count boards and microvia applications.

Achilles A. Armenakis is the James T. Pursell, Sr. Eminent Scholar in the Department of Management at Auburn University. Achilles has published research on diagnosis, implementation, and evaluation of organizational change. His current research efforts are focused on the readiness, adoption, and institutionalization processes. He is a fellow of the International Academy of Management and of the Southern Management Association.

Volume 16 of Research in Organizational Change and Development highlights several emerging trends in our field and in the world within which our research takes place. The papers that make up this volume hit on some familiar topics, all related to the challenge of invoking, supporting, or measuring organizational change but they also go farther than that. In Volume 16, we see evidence that the issues of concern to leaders and researchers are becoming increasingly global in nature. In order to understand these issues, we must pay attention to cultural differences, and the language that is used during change interventions to set expectations and deal with the myriad issues that threaten to undermine the success of the effort. In this volume too we see that different types of organizations approach change in ways that reflect their unique cultures and contexts. Rather than a one size fits all approach, authors of papers in this volume call for an understanding of these differences among organizational types and their implications for how we approach organizational change. The role of the leader in change is also examined in several papers here. We have known for a long time that leadership is essential during change, but these papers give us a fresh look at what it is that leaders do and say that affects the outcomes achieved. Finally, as always, we see included in Volume 16 some excellent contributions to methodology and research on the topic of change. Each of the papers in Volume 16 is well-crafted, thoughtful and very much worth the time to read.

Undoubtedly, digital transformation is permeating all domains of business and society. We envisage this volume as an opportunity to explore how manifestations of digital transformation require rethinking of our understanding and theorization of institutional processes. To achieve this goal, a collaborative forum of organization and management theory scholars and information systems researchers was developed to enrich and advance institutional theory approaches in understanding digital transformation. This volume’s contributions advance the three institutional perspectives. The first perspective, institutional logics, technological affordances and digital transformation, seeks to deepen our understanding of the pervasive and increasingly important relationship between technology and institutions. The second perspective, digital transformation, professional projects and new institutional agents, explores how existing professions respond to the introduction of digital technologies as well as the emergence of new professional projects and institutional agents in the wake of digital transformation. The third perspective, institutional infrastructure, field governance and digital transformation, inquires how new digital organizational forms, such as platforms, affect institutional fields, their infrastructure and thus their governance. For each of these perspectives, we outline an agenda for future research, complemented by a brief discussion of new research frontiers (i.e., digital work and sites of technological (re-)production; artificial intelligence (AI) and actorhood; digital transformation and grand challenges) and methodological reflections.

Volumes 70 and 71 of Research in the Sociology of Organizations combine to comprise cutting edge theory and empirical scholarship at the interface of practice and institution in organization studies. As we highlight, this interface has spurred particularly generative conversations with many open questions, and much to explore. We provide a review of scholarly developments in practice theory and organizational institutionalism that have given rise to this interest in building a bridge between scholarly communities. As signaled by recent efforts to construct a practice-driven institutionalism, we highlight how connecting practice theory with the institutional logics perspective provides a particularly attractive focal point for scholarship at this interface due to a variety of shared ontological and epistemological commitments, including the constitution of actors and their behavior. Collectively, the papers assembled unlock exciting opportunities to connect distinct, but related scholarly communities on practice and institution, seeding scholarship that can advance our understanding of organizational and societal dynamics.

Volumes 70 and 71 of Research in the Sociology of Organizations combine to comprise cutting edge theory and empirical scholarship at the interface of practice and institution in organization studies. As we highlight, this interface has spurred particularly generative conversations with many open questions, and much to explore. We provide a review of scholarly developments in practice theory and organizational institutionalism that have given rise to this interest in building a bridge between scholarly communities. As signaled by recent efforts to construct a practice-driven institutionalism, we highlight how connecting practice theory with the institutional logics perspective provides a particularly attractive focal point for scholarship at this interface due to a variety of shared ontological and epistemological commitments, including the constitution of actors and their behavior. Collectively, the papers assembled unlock exciting opportunities to connect distinct, but related scholarly communities on practice and institution, seeding scholarship that can advance our understanding of organizational and societal dynamics.

We analyze the structure and the dynamics of a field, drawing on data from organizational public behavior in the digital sphere. Organizational self-representations afford rich insights into how organizations position themselves with regard to their peers, both in terms of web page language and hyperlink affiliations. Our empirical example is the lively and important discussion of the social impact of nonprofit organizations. We follow how it has evolved from 2011 to 2018 and with what consequences. We begin with portraits of the discursive movements of powerful, individual organizations, where we observe extensive changes. These portraits show how influential organizations alter their public faces. We then analyze discourse at the field level, which is surprisingly stable even though individual organizations change their discursive and relational positions frequently. Finally, we turn to groups of organizations with similar positions and highlight their ability to integrate vocabularies of other groups. Here we observe that a lingua franca increases integration at the field level, while affording distinction with individual organizations’ positioning. We conclude with a discussion of complementary research avenues that can advance the relational and linguistic view we present in this paper.