Search results

The purpose of this paper is to offer a new analysis and understanding of the notion of deinstitutionalization. Deinstitutionalization of taken-for-granted practices as a natural consequence of ever-increasing entropy seems to directly contradict the major institutional thesis, namely, that over time isomorphic forces increase and, as a result, possibilities for deinstitutionalization decrease culminating in the impossibility of abandoning in highly institutionalized fields.

This paper is conceptual in nature. Oliver’s 1992 paper on deinstitutionalization is taken as a key text on the subject and as a starting point for building an alternative theory of deinstitutionalization. More broadly, institutional theory and organizational literature on diffusion/adoption are reviewed and synthesized.

The authors argue that possibilities for deinstitutionalization have been overestimated in institutional literature and offer a revisited account of deinstitutionalization vs institutional isomorphism and institutionalized vs highly diffusing-but-not-institutionalized practices. A freedom for choice between alternative practices exists during the pre-institutional stage but not when the field is already institutionalized. In contrast, institutionalized, taken-for-granted practices are immutable to any sort of functional and political pressures and they use to persist even when no technical value remains, thus deinstitutionalization on the basis of a functional dissatisfaction seems to be a paradox.

By revisiting the nature and patterns of deinstitutionalization, the paper offers a better conceptual classification and understanding of how organizations adopt, maintain and abandon organizational ideas and practices. An important task of this paper is to reduce the scope of application of deinstitutionalization theory to make it more focused and self-consistent. There is, however, still not enough volume of studies on institutional factors of practices’ abandonment in institutional literature. The authors, therefore, acknowledge that more studies are needed to further improve both the former deinstitutionalization theory and the framework.

The authors offer a solution to this theoretical inconsistency by distinguishing between truly institutionalized practices and currently popular practices (highly diffused but non-institutionalized). It is only the latter that are subject to the norms of progress that allow abandoning and replacing existing organizational activities. Deinstitutionalization theory is, thus can be applied to popular practices that are subject to reevaluation, abandonment and replacement with new optimal practices while institutions are immutable to these norms of progress. Institutions are immutable to deinstitutionalization and the deinstitutionalization of optimal practices is subject to the logic of isomorphic convergence in organizational fields. Finally, the authors revisit a traditional two-stage institutional diffusion model to explain the possibility and likelihood of abandonment during different stages of institutionalization.

Once introduced and conceptualized as a factor that causes erosion and decay of social institutions and subsequent deinstitutionalization, the notion of entropy is at odds with predictions of institutional isomorphism and seems to directly contradict the tendency toward ever-increasing institutionalization. The purpose of this paper is to offer a resolution of this theoretical inconsistency by revisiting the meaning of entropy and reconceptualizing institutionalization from an information-theoretic point of view.

It is a theoretical paper that offers an information perspective on institutionalization.

A mistaken understanding of the nature and role of entropy in the institutional theory is caused by conceptualizing it as a force that counteracts institutional tendencies and acts in opposite direction. Once institutionalization and homogeneity are seen as a product of natural tendencies in the organizational field, the role of entropy becomes clear. Entropy manifests itself at the level of information processing and corresponds with increasing uncertainty and the decrease of the value of information. Institutionalization thus can be seen as a special case of an increase in entropy and a decrease of knowledge. Institutionalization is a state of maximum entropy.

It is explained why institutionalization and institutional persistence are what to be expected in the long run and why information entropy contributes to this tendency. Contrary to the tenets of the institutional work perspective, no intentional efforts of individuals and collective actors are needed to maintain institutions. In this respect, the paper contributes to the view of institutional theory as a theory of self-organization.

In this study, we develop further understanding of how institutional change is created within a mature and local industry. In this pursuit, we examine how a collaborative large project governance model was institutionalized at an industrial sector-level through both industry-level activities and “institutional projects”.

This study builds on the foundations of institutional fields and institutional change, suggesting that projects are not only shaped by their contexts but also produce institutional change themselves. We conducted extensive fieldwork on the institutionalization of a collaborative project governance model in Finland.

The findings illustrate how institutional change in governance of large and complex inter-organizational projects is created at the institutional field level. The institutionalized collaborative project governance model includes aspects of both relational and contractual governance. The change was facilitated by temporal links between the institutional projects as well as vertical links between the institutional projects and the field-level development programs.

This is one of the first studies to address how a collaborative large project governance model becomes the norm at the institutional field level beyond the boundaries of an individual project or organization.

Megaprojects have a long-lasting impact on all three dimensions of sustainability-social, environmental and economic. The advent of the COVID-19 pandemic has further heightened the importance of sustainability due to its disastrous consequences on the global economy and business activities. This study aims to explore the interactions and interventions of various actors in the megaproject field to institutionalise sustainability.

The current study adopted the organisational field approach as the theoretical lens to understand the decision-making process amongst multiple actors with conflicting interests that come together to play an active role in addressing a common interest of sustainability in megaprojects. A single case study has been undertaken using an Indian metro rail megaproject with multiple sources of data (interviews, documents, media reports).

This study showed that the institutionalisation of sustainability is dependent on interactions of various organisations and influences from institutions. Various institutional measures organised within the field to enhance sustainability practices before and during the COVID-19 pandemic are captured. Four institutional logics (instrumental, intrinsic, equivocal and political) that emerged from the case study are discussed. Finally, while not exhaustive, this study proposed recommendations that can help refine sustainability actions considering COVID-19 implications on megaprojects.

This study's findings emerged from a single case study. The developed conceptual framework can help further research with multiple cases of megaprojects in various fields or countries.

This study would be novel in advancing the organisational field approach in megaproject sustainability.

The purpose of this paper is to describe co-devolutionary processes of multinational enterprise (MNE)/emerging economy institutional relationships utilizing concepts from “old” institutional theory as well as the institutional aspects of socially constructed realities.

The authors develop a set of propositions that explore the new concept of a co-devolutionary relationship between MNEs and emerging economy institutions. Guided by prior research, the paper investigates MNE/emerging economy institutional co-devolution at the macro-(MNE home and host countries), meso-(MNE industry/host country regulative and normative institutions) and micro-(MNE and host country institutional actors) levels.

MNE/emerging economy institutional co-devolution occurs at the macro-level via negative public communications in the MNE’s home and host countries, at the meso-level via host country corruption and MNE adaptation, and at the micro-level via pressures for individual actors to cognitively “take for granted” emerging economy corruption, leading to MNE divestment and a reduction in new MNE investment.

By characterizing co-devolutionary processes within MNE/emerging economy institutional relationships, the research augments co-evolutionary theory. It also assists in developing more accurate specification and measurement methods for the organizational co-evolution construct by using institutional theory’s foundational processes to discuss MNE/emerging economy institutional co-devolution.

The research suggests the use of enhanced regulation, bilateral investment treaties and MNE/local institution partnerships to stabilize MNE/emerging economy institutional relationships, leading to more robust progress in building emerging economy institutions.

The research posits that using the concepts of institutional theory as a foundation provides useful insights into the “stickiness” of institutional instability and corruption in emerging economies and into the resulting co-devolutionary MNE/emerging economy institutional relationships.

This study aims to illuminate the field conditions under which social entrepreneurship can become institutionalized and transform the existing institutional fields.

A comparative case study was conducted among three social enterprises, within different regional institutional fields, following a most different systems design: OTELO, in Mühlviertel, ADC MOURA, in Baixo Alentejo and STEVIA HELLAS in Phthiotis.

The results indicate some of the field conditions under which an institutionalization of social entrepreneurship can thrive, namely, a high civil approval, a highly institutionalized and decentralized institutional field that allows the social enterprise to remain autonomous, as well the anchoring of the venture to a pre-existing counter-hegemonic narrative or/and to an embedded network that drives the dissemination a new institutional logic forward.

The institutionalization of the voluntary collective action that social entrepreneurship embodies has significant limitations. The same is true for innovation, which tends to lose its innovative spirit as it becomes institutionalized. Future research has to explore if institutionalized social entrepreneurship can maintain a voluntary perspective and an innovative drift.

Most studies on institutional entrepreneurship deploy in-depth case studies while multi-case comparative research remains rare. The current comparative study adds significantly to the understanding of institutional entrepreneurship, as it compares different degrees of institutionalization and successful institutional entrepreneurs to non-successful ones.

This article examines whether the field of entrepreneurship is becoming increasingly institutionalized by examining market trends, AACSB jobs, and salaries. The findings indicate that the field is becoming increasingly institutionalized through market trends. During 2014/15, there were 471 advertised positions and 163 candidates in Schools of Business and Management. The number of tenure track positions (261) was significantly higher than the number of tenure track candidates (161) for a ratio of 1.62. This is the highest ratio of tenure track positions to candidates since 2005/06 (2.1). Out of the 261 tenure track positions, 174 were at AACSB institutions.The ratio of tenure track positions at AACSB schools per tenure track candidate was 1.08. The study also looked at average salaries at AACSB schools and found them to be competitive with other mainstream areas. Average salaries were: full professors ($162,000), associate professor ($131,400), assistant professor ($113,600), instructor ($85,800), and new doctorates ($97,800).

The purpose of this paper is to examine attempts at jurisdictional expansion in the audit field. Specifically, the authors critically analyse the professional implications of “new audit spaces”, that is, novel auditing and assurance services that have emerged at intersections between audit and other fields such as the environment, the public sector, sport and education. The purpose is two-fold. First, to better understand the dynamics of new audit spaces, and second, to highlight the major challenges and adaptations prompted by these dynamics.

Drawing on Bourdieu’s theory of practice, the authors highlight and problematise four issues central to the construction of new audit spaces: independence; reporting; professional accreditation; and the nature of the audit role.

The audit profession has experienced mixed success in seeking to annex new audit spaces; in some instances, practices initially located at the margins of auditing have moved towards its centre, while elsewhere projects have been abandoned, colonised by others or remain in flux. In these ventures, the accounting profession is brought into competition with other bodies of expertise and modes of practice. In new audit spaces, core elements of auditing, as conventionally conceived, are transmogrified as they travel.

This analysis calls into question some of the “sacred cows” of auditing and challenges the transferability of the capitals and habitus of the accounting profession in other domains. Future research avenues are suggested.

This paper aims to explore the structure of the accounting field in a post-Soviet context – Latvia. This study also aims to generate insights into the extent to which professionalization processes are shaped by national particularities and to demonstrate how self-styled professional fields change over time.

Drawing from the relational sociology of Pierre Bourdieu and drawing on 83 interviews, the paper highlights the forms of capital (cultural and social primarily) that help define what constitutes appropriate conduct for successful career progression in the accounting field.

The values ascribed to forms of capital that structure the Latvian accounting field fluctuate across time and space. This suggests that the structure of professional fields – as understood by the structuring properties of different forms of capital – is variable and fluid. Additionally, fields themselves can become more or less desirable over time to those who possess certain forms of capital.

Although the results may be specific to one national accounting field, the idiosyncrasies constitute the contribution of the paper, showing that the form and structure of accounting fields vary in accordance with national particularities. Overall, the paper highlights the importance of fit between habitus and field and of adjustment to the surrounding rules of the game in professional contexts.

The findings are important for understanding the form that an accounting field can take in an emerging economy that has fully embraced neoliberalism while maintaining strong residues of the Soviet system. The findings are also relevant for understanding the dynamics of change more broadly in self-styled professional fields.

The purpose of this paper is to explore how the managers of early adopting Australian firms contribute to the institutionalisation of integrated reporting (IR).

This study is situated within institutional theory. The authors undertook semi-structured interviews with 23 Australian managers. The authors drew on Gabriel's (2000) poetic analytics to show how the sensemaking activities of the early adopters contribute to the institutionalisation process.

Two main narratives dominate our managers’ experience: IR as story-telling and IR as meeting expectations. These two narratives are constructed simultaneously and theyset up contrasting plots regarding salient events, responsibilities and characters that are resolved through one or more of three “inter-narratives” that background these tensions. The inter-narratives suggest time, the company's strategy, and talking and engagement can solve problems.

The authors argue that the managers of early adopting firms are important in the institutionalisation process. Even though they may not necessarily be institutional entrepreneurs they do engage in important “institutional work”. The study is limited by its predominant focus on only one participant to the institutionalisation process, and it is may be the case that the institutionalisation of IR is not ultimately successful.

Provides in-depth insights into an under-researched participant in an institutional field contributes to institutionalisation. Additionally, it sheds light on the conditions under which firms will engage with IR.