Institutional work as the creative embrace of contradiction

Timothy J. Hargrave · Andrew H. Van de Ven

84 citations0/0 files storedCambridge University Press eBooks

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Management and Organizational Studies Economic Theory and Institutions Information Systems Theories and Implementation

Abstract

Introduction In 2006, Lawrence and Suddaby introduced the concept of institutional work into the study of institutions and institutional change. They define institutional work as “the purposive action of individuals and organizations aimed at creating, maintaining and disrupting institutions” (2006: 215). Their effort represents an important advance within a series of efforts to systematically incorporate agency into neo-institutional theory (DiMaggio, 1988; Fligstein, 1997; Oliver, 1991). Lawrence and Suddaby point out that neo-institutionalists have given relatively little attention to “the relationship between institutional work and the contradictions that are inherent in organization fields” (2006: 248). In this chapter we address this gap. We do so by presenting a dialectical perspective on institutional change and then examining different approaches to managing institutional contradictions. Our main argument is that an important aspect of institutional work is the ability to use the tension between contradictory elements as a source of innovation. We refer to the work of the noted community organizer Saul Alinsky to illustrate this argument. Our perspective suggests that the effective institutional actor, whether incumbent or challenger, takes actions to both stabilize and change institutions. Incumbents must not only maintain institutions, but also disrupt disrupters and refine existing arrangements. Similarly, challengers must attempt to preserve parts of existing institutions as well as suggest alternative arrangements. Our perspective further suggests that effective institutional actors recognize the interdependence of incumbents' and challengers' strategies; exploit gaps between espoused values and actual behavior; and undertake mutually reinforcing institutional work practices across levels of organization.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 84 citations exist upstream.

References

1977Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony 1988The Constitution of Society.1991Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes 1992The new institutionalism in organizational analysis 1992A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency, and Transformation 1991STRATEGIC RESPONSES TO INSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES 2005The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory 1995Explaining Development and Change in Organizations

Cited by

2015Institutionalizing Precariousness? The Politics of Boundary Work in Legalizing Agency Work in Germany, 1949–2004 2014Dueling Institutional Logics And The Effect On Strategic Entrepreneurship In C hinese Business Groups 2018Bringing “Together”: Emotions and Power in Organizational Responses to Institutional Complexity 2010A Gap Year for Institutional Theory: Integrating the Study of Institutional Work and Participatory Action Research 2014Managing Unstable Institutional Contradictions: The Work of Becoming

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.