Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Capitulo 19 Handbook Organizational Institucionalism PDF
Capitulo 19 Handbook Organizational Institucionalism PDF
DigitalCommons@ILR
Articles and Chapters ILR Collection
2008
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the ILR Collection at DigitalCommons@ILR. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles
and Chapters by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@ILR. For more information, please contact hlmdigital@cornell.edu.
Organizational Institutionalism and Sociology: A Reflection
Abstract
[Excerpt] In 1991, DiMaggio and Powell observed:
Institutional theory presents a paradox. Institutional analysis is as old as Emile Durkheim's exhortation to study
'social facts as things', yet sufficiently novel to be preceded by new in much of the contemporary literature.
(1991: 1)
We argue that this paradox is, at least in part, the result of a long-standing tension in sociology between more
materialist, interest-driven explanations of behavior and ideational, normative explanations, a tension that has
often driven oscillating waves of sociological theorizing. It underlies many classical debates (e.g., between
Spencer and Durkheim, Weber and Marx, and even Parsons and Mills), and the waves of theory associated
with it have produced a variety of 'neo-isms', including neo-Marxist as well as neo-institutionalist theories.
This distinction in explanatory approaches is linked to a more general theoretical problematic for sociologists:
how to provide a single, coherent account of both stable, persisting patterns of social behavior, and the
breakdown and elimination of what were once deeply-entrenched patterns. In this chapter, we examine the
history of these distinctive explanatory approaches in sociology, and locate the origins of contemporary
institutional work on organizations within this context. We also consider how more recent organizational
analyses in the tradition of institutional theory have been driven by and reflect this basic tension.
Keywords
organizations, institutionalism, sociology, behavior
Disciplines
Labor Relations | Organizational Behavior and Theory
Comments
Suggested Citation
Hinings, C. R. & Tolbert, P. S. (2008). Organizational institutionalism and sociology: A reflection [Electronic
version]. In H. Gunz & M. Peiperl (Eds.), Handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 473-490). London:
SAGE.
19
Organizational Institutionalism
and Sociology: A Reflection
C.R. Hinings and Pamela S. Tolbert
studies of organizations, and the claim that for institutional theory, the first includes
most eminent, historical sociologists are the work of Herbert Spencer. Although
forerunners of institutional theory, the time is Spencer's work is rarely referenced (and
ripe to revisit the origins and evolution of probably read even more rarely) by modern
institutional theory and to ask the question of day sociologists,1 he was generally consid-
how far the work of those forebears is truly ered to be the preeminent sociologist of
represented in contemporary scholarship. his time (Turner and Beeghley 1981).
And this will inevitably lead to the questions, To describe his work as ambitious is to
in what ways has institutionalism added to seriously understate the case; Spencer's over-
the earlier theoretical insights - and in what arching goal was to discover the fundamental
ways may the earlier insights have been lost set of principles that defined the functioning
in more contemporary studies? of physical, biological and social worlds.
Although the scope of this aim is amusingly
quaint from a contemporary standpoint, it's
worth noting that one of his 'laws of the
THE FORERUNNERS cosmos,' that increasing size in any social
unit is accompanied by increasing differenti-
The starting point for this discussion has to ation, anticipated a staple finding from much
be Dick Scott's (2001) Institutions and later empirical studies of organizations
Organizations as it provides a comprehen- (Blau, Heydebrand, and Stauffer, 1966; Hall,
sive overview of the institutionalist approach Clark, Giordano et al., 1967; Pugh, Hickson,
to organization theory. While Scott identifies Hinings, and Turner, 1969).
seminal links between this approach and a In describing the nature of society,
wide range of theorists, we focus more nar- Spencer argued that social systems are made
rowly on a particular set of the progenitors he up of a series of subsystems, and that each
discusses, ones we see as contributing most subsystem and its institutionalized structures
directly to the contemporary formulation of serve distinctive functions for society as a
an institutional approach and to the ongoing whole. As Scott (2001: 9) points out, ideas
debates within it. Therefore, we will begin by about 'the functional division of social life
examining the work of four major theorists into spheres or arenas - kinship, stratifica-
as paired sets, Spencer and Durkheim, first, tion, politics, economics, religion, and so
and then Marx and Weber. In our view, the on,' have been central to much
point-counterpoint relations between these sociological theorizing. As we discuss in
theorists offer useful insights into unresolved more depth below, this conception of
theoretical problems that are embedded in 'institutions' - as core, distinguishing,
much of the development of current institu- societal-level patterns (structures) that char-
tional theory. Within this context, we will acterize one area of social life, and that are
consider the four pieces that DiMaggio and fundamentally interlocked with each other -
Powell (1991) label as the initial formula- is much broader than the conception often
tions of institutional theory, namely, Meyer implied in more contemporary work
and Rowan (1977), DiMaggio and Powell (although, unfortunately, the latter is no more
(1983), Zucker (1977) and Scott and Meyer likely to define the concept of institution
(1983). explicitly and clearly than Spencer or other
early theorists).
Importantly, as an adherent of utilitarian
Spencer and Durkheim philosophy, Spencer also made the case that
these structures arose naturally through a
Among the four streams of early sociological process of competition and exchange among
theorists that Scott considers as foundational individuals who, in the rational pursuit of
ORGANIZATIONAL INSTITUTIONALISING AND SOCIOLOGY: A REFLECTION 475
interests through collective action. Since all in conjunction with the increasing degrada-
economies were constituted by, on one hand, tion of work, were considered key forces in
a class that profited from control of the enabling members of the labor class to recog-
primary means of production and, on the nize their true, shared material interests and
other hand, classes that lacked control of key to collectively act upon these.
productive resources and thus were subject to Thus, the key institutions in Marx's analy-
the exploitation of the first, class conflict was sis are social classes and their relations, and
inevitable. As technologies and other factors his analysis suggests that these institutions
changed in ways that provided an exploited will be stable as long as the dominant class
class with opportunities to overthrow the is able to sustain acceptance of general
existing system of relations, Marx argued, ideologies that support them. When condi-
their collective action would result in the dis- tions changed sufficiently, though, accept-
solution of the system and the creation of a ance of dominant ideologies was expected
new set of social relations that was consistent to break down under the weight of revealed
with the interests of the rising class. interests, and the institutions to be subject
Thus, although Marx clearly rejected to challenge and collapse. The previous
Spencer's belief in the benignity and effi- system of class relations would then be
ciency of market allocation processes, the replaced by new institutions (new classes,
two did share the general conception with new relations of dominance and subor-
of social actors as driven by self-awareness dination) that, presumably, were supported
of material interests. by new ideologies.3
However, while Marx's analysis was pred- Much of Weber's analyses can be seen as a
icated on the assumption that social action response to Marx's emphasis on material
primarily reflected rational efforts to maxi- interests, and particularly on class relations,
mize material, class-based interests, he did as the driving force in social action. Along
recognize that individuals sometimes failed with Spencer, Marx and Durkheim, Weber
to realize their true class interests - i.e., that was concerned with large-scale social
they were subject to false consciousness. changes that he saw taking place, changes
This concept entails an implicit acknowl- that were reshaping the whole nature of
edgement of the role of cultural forces, belief society. Although some have argued that his
systems and ideologies, in shaping action as analyses directly opposed those of Marx, by
well. True to materialist logic, though, Marx prioritizing ideas and cultural forces as deter-
located the origins of such forces in the eco- minants of social action (Parsons, 1937),
nomic interests and material capabilities of most contemporary theorists view his aims
the dominant class (Collins, 1994). Thus, more in terms of tempering, rather than
widely-held social beliefs and ideologies rejecting Marx's arguments (Turner and
were deemed to be shaped largely by the Beeghley, 1981; Collins, 1994; Swedberg,
dominant class, which had the resources to 1998): his approach to explaining social
influence the production and widespread phenomena emphasizes the interaction
dissemination of ideas that were consonant between material conditions and interests, on
with their interests (and of course, influence one hand, and subjective interpretations and
over state agencies to suppress production meanings on the other (Weber, 1949). Thus,
and dissemination of ideas that lacked such neither material nor ideational forces are
consonance). Moreover, he assumed that privileged in his explanations of social
changes in material conditions would phenomena; rather these forces must be
provide the basis for changes in epiphenom- understood as independent though inter-
ena, such as false consciousness. In capitalist twined phenomena.
systems, increased opportunities for inter- It is, however, his work on cultural influ-
action among members of the working class, ences and belief systems that is most clearly
ORGANIZATIONAL INSTITUTIONALISM AND SOCIOLOGY: A REFLECTION 477
(e.g., Merton, 1947a; Gouldner, 1954; Blau, and Rowan drew on Weber's analysis of
1955) to empirically examine key tenets of rational-legal authority in modern
functionalist theory. Based on the notion that economies, and wove this together with
organizations could be viewed as societies in Berger and Luckmann's (1967) ideas about
miniature, organizational research was seen as institutionalization, processes leading to the
permitting the kind of comparative study kind of socially-constructed reality depicted
needed to provide systematic validation for in the earlier quote from Durkheim. They
functionalist arguments (and thus represented argued that in modern societies, rules about
a very appealing alternative to conducting how organizations 'ought' to operate and the
costly and difficult cross-national studies). kinds of structures they 'should' have arisen
The logic of functionalist reasoning from a variety of sources. Among these,
encouraged examining and explaining organi- Meyer and Rowan discuss the effects of com-
zational structures in terms of benefits (par- plex relational networks (interconnections
ticularly in terms of efficient functioning)to among organizations that facilitate the spread
organizations. Thus, by the mid-1970s, the of ideas and understandings), the collective
most prominent line of sociological research organization of the environment (the rise of
on organizations, which had come to be powerful states that can pass and enforce
dubbed as 'contingency theory,' reflected a mandates that affect organizations), and the
confluence of this theoretical agenda and the leadership of local organizations (non-gov-
more pragmatic concerns of a tradition ernment organizations that have power
known as acirninistrative theory (Gulick and and/or legitimacy to promote prescribed
Urwick, 1937; Follett, 1942). Studies in this organizational arrangements). Organizations
tradition typically investigated the way in experience pressure to conform to these rules
which various contingencies, such as size and in order to maintain their own legitimacy;
technology, affected the relative efficiency thus, formal structure, Meyer and Rowan
and profitability of variations in structure, suggest, can be viewed as the result of
such as complexity, formalization, centraliza- conformity to such rules or 'myths.'
tion; that is, organizations were generally This emphasis on ideational and normative
assumed to adopt structural arrangements on sources of structure offered a very sharp con-
the basis of calculations that were aimed at trast to the then-dominant approach to
enhancing efficiency and effectiveness, and explaining organizational structure. Note
that took into account various contingencies here that, in contrast to earlier sociological
facing the organization (e.g., Woodward, analyses that provided the underpinning for
1958; Hage and Aiken, 1967; Pugh et al., their arguments, their concept of 'institution'
1969; Klatzky, 1970; Blau and Schoenherr, entailed much more circumscribed social
1971; Pennings, 1973). As Meyer and Rowan phenomena - particular social rules and
summarize the literature at this point in time: definitions of the appropriate formal struc-
One of the central problems in organization theory ture of organizations.5
is to describe the conditions that give rise to
rationalized formal structure. In conventional
theories, rational formal structure is assumed to be
the most effective way to coordinate and control Zucker
the complex relationship networks involved in
modern technical or work activities. (1977: 342) Published in the same year, Zucker's analysis
(1977) provided an elaboration of the phe-
nomenological arguments contained in
Meyer and Rowan, along with empirical
Meyer and Rowan
evidence for these from an experimental
In advancing an alternative view of the study. In contrast to the largely macro-level
sources of organizational structure, Meyer focus of the other foundational work, Zucker
ORGANIZATIONAL INSTITUTIONALISM AND SOCIOLOGY: A REFLECTION 479
environment that constrains their ability to depends on the context in which an organiza-
change further in later years' (1983: 148). tion operates.
This conceptualization foreshadows Both of the analyses by DiMaggio and
DiMaggio's (1988) later work elaborating on Powell and Scott and Meyer thus partially
the role of institutional entrepreneurs in address the core question that Tolbert and
change processes. It also reflects research by Zucker (1996) later articulated as a key prob-
Tolbert and Zucker (1983), who examined lematic for the further development of an
how the political conflict and struggles institutional approach, reconciling what they
among elites and immigrants that contributed refer to as rational actor models of behavior
to the early formulation and adoption of civil with institutional models. They note:
service reform laws became an increasingly We suggest that these two general models should
irrelevant factor in predicting adoption of the be treated not as oppositional but rather as
reform over time. Thus, DiMaggio and representing two ends of a continuum of decision-
Powell's analysis provides one avenue for making processes and behaviors. Thus, a key
problem for theory and research is to specify
integrating the agentic, interest-driven the conditions under which behavior is more likely
images of social behavior offered by Spencer to resemble one end of this continuum or the
and Marx, with the more constrained, other. In short, what is needed are theories of
normative conceptions of Durkheim. Like when rationality is likely to be more or less
bounded. (176)
Weber's work, their arguments recognize
the validity and necessity of both approaches Although recent organizational analyses
for adequate sociological explanations. cast in the institutional tradition have
made some progress in addressing this
issue, a fully satisfactory resolution
Scott and Meyer still awaits. There are other issues that
remain to be addressed as well, as discussed
Scott and Meyer (1983) elaborate a similar below.
notion to that of field, namely, societal sector.
They use this term in two ways. The first
usage denotes the set of organizations that
provide similar products and services and ISSUES FOR INSTITUTIONAL THEORY
serve the same function, along with resource-
providing and regulatory organizations; this Comparison of the work of the classic
is clearly akin to DiMaggio and Powell's theoretical forerunners and the initial formu-
notion of a field. In a second use, though, lations of institutional theory suggests at
sector is used to refer to the kinds of per- least three issues that merit much more atten-
formance criteria that are typically used in tion by contemporary institutional theory.
evaluating different sets of organizations. In These are:
particular, they distinguish between technical
sectors, in which performance evaluation is 1. Integrating conceptions of interest-driven behav-
largely identified with market outcomes, and ior (and hence, problems of power and conflict)
institutional sectors, in which performance with those of bounded rationality and norma-
evaluation is closely linked to conformity tively-guided behavior;
with institutional rules and regulations and 2. Setting organizational institutionalism in wider
historical and social contexts in order to
only indirectly tied to market outcomes. This
understand more profound processes of social
latter concept of sector represents a different
change;
way of integrating both agentic and norma-
3. Taking an interpretive approach seriously.
tive approaches to explaining organizations'
behavior, suggesting that the relevance of
These issues are not, of course, orthogo-
more agentic or normative explanations
nal; there is clearly overlap among them.
ORGANIZATIONAL INSTITUTIONALISM AND SOCIOLOGY: A REFLECTION 481
approach was the deflection of efforts to con- rich heritage of sociological theorizing from
ceptualize formal structure in terms of which it draws (cf. Hinings, 1988; Hinings
broadly defined dimensions, such as com- and Greenwood, 2002).
plexity, formalization, and centralization, Most of the theorists that Scott labels fore-
efforts that dominated much of organiza- runners were concerned with the broad
tional sociology from the 1950s through the sweep of institutions - how society was
1970s. Indeed, the lack of success by sociol- constituted through its institutional frame-
ogists in coming up with agreed-upon con- work, and how that framework was chang-
ceptualizations and operationalizations of ing. Their analyses dealt with creation and
such broad dimensions (e.g., Kimberly, change in dominant institutions, and under-
1976) may have contributed to researchers' standing both the historical causes and con-
receptivity to an institutional approach. sequences of such change for both society
Another, and perhaps more consequential and individuals. These issues particularly
outcome, however, has been a neglect of the resonate in the work of Marx, Durkheim and
sorts of broad patterns of social relations and Weber. Conceptually, a strong distinguishing
social change that were traditionally associ- feature of the work of Weber and Marx, espe-
ated with analyses of institutions (for notable cially, was an emphasis on understanding
exceptions, see the work of John Meyer and institutions and institutional change within
his colleagues). That is, there has been a broad historical contexts. They recognized
distinct shift from efforts to understand 'big that they lived in times of large-scale social
institutions' to those that are focused on change and upheaval, and struggled to under-
(relatively) 'little institutions.' stand them. For them, all analysis was
The redefinition of the concept of institu- historically located in a particular socio-
tion to denote specific elements of structure economic milieu. While all three were highly
may have been driven in part by empiricist analytical (e.g., the use of ideal types, the
concerns. The broad conception of institution labor theory of value, the nature of anomie),
in sociological theory did not lend itself such constructs were only possible because
easily to operationalization or efforts to of both sweeping and detailed scholarship of
verify theoretical claims, as witnessed by the historical trajectories and embedded
the still-ongoing debates over how to define nature of institutions.
and measure 'class' (e.g., Erickson and It is not that contemporary institutionalists
Goldfhorpe, 1992; Wright, 1997; Weeden are oblivious to the historical settings that
and Grusky, 2005). The redefinition may also frame the diffusion of specific practices (e.g.,
reflect that fact that many (most?) of the cur- see Tolbert and Zucker, 1983; Sine, Haveman,
rent proponents of institutionalism work in and Tolbert, 2005; Haveman, Rao, and
business schools, a context that is apt to Paruchuri, 2006), but that concern with
encourage a stronger focus on explaining the explaining organizational behavior, per se,
behavior of organizations per se and dis- has often led to a lack of concern with under-
courage a broader focus on general societal standing and explaining overarching shifts in
issues and processes of social change society - the increased formalism in all kinds
(Stern and Barley, 1996). One might argue, of organizations (though see Drori, Jang, and
as this volume as a whole does, that institu- Meyer, 2006), the rise of international gover-
tional theory has told us a great deal about nance organizations in the wake of globaliza-
organizational behavior. Indeed, the exis- tion, such as the International Monetary
tence of a 'Handbook of Organizational Fund, the World Bank, and International
Institutionalism' is testament to this. Labour Organization, that are not subject to
However, as a consequence of the narrow- the authority of any given nation state, the
ness of its conception of institutions, institu- increasing levels of stratification in many
tional theory has offered little in return to the societies resulting, in part, from changing
484 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF ORGANIZATIONAL INSTITUTIONALISM
(1970) older agenda for organizational soci- definitions of reality are constituted (Berger and
ology, centering on a critique of reified and Luckmann, 1966). Despite this connection
between institutions and language, most institu-
abstracted empiricism and arguing for its tional theory has been dominated by realist inves-
replacement with an action frame of refer- tigations in which the examination of
ence. Silverman was particularly concerned organizational practices has been disconnected
with shifting attention to what organizational from the discursive practices that constitute them
(Phillips et al., 2004: 636).
actors actually do through the process of
interpretation to construct meanings. In One of the few examples of an empirical
terms of method, this approach promotes the study using a discourse analytic approach to
use of case studies, focuses on actual behav- study institutional phenomena is represented
iors, privileges discourse and emphasizes in Zbaracki's (1998) thoughtful and provoca-
metaphor. In a similar vein, Barley and tive analysis of the adoption and implemen-
Tolbert have sought to lay out a research tation of total quality management practices
agenda, specifically within the framework of by organizations.
institutional theory, which addresses issues The essential point about an interpretative
of action and institutional change, and which approach is that it takes the actor, subjectivity,
emphasizes the identification and analysis of meanings, and reflexivity seriously. In so
scripts centered on behavior as a key ele- doing it opens up the black box of institution-
ment. Drawing on Giddens' concepts of alization both in stability and change. And it
structuration, they make a plea for 'a system- does it from a theoretical and methodological
atic exploration of the relative important of standpoint that is less than prevalent in orga-
behavioral and interpretive phenomena in nizational institutionalism. While we have
the institutional process, and on the basis of many provocative suggestions as to factors
such exploration, the fashioning of a set of that enable actors to question and alter extant
methods that are sensitive to and systematic institutions (see Sewell, 1992), we have little
about documenting both cultural and struc- empirical knowledge of the conditions under
tural dynamics' (Barley and Tolbert, 1997: which those factors are most likely to come
113). One example of empirical work in this into play. Thus, many questions remain
vein is Barley's (1986) classic study of the answered, including those such as: What is
adoption of new technology by radiology required for a general reorientation of shared
departments, which analyzes changes pro- cognitions (e.g., under what conditions might
duced in scripts, routines, and processes of a widespread rejection of tenure systems in
structuration (see Scott's 2001 of this study). academia occur)? What causes breakdowns in
An alternative approach involves linking institutionalization processes, once these are
discourse theory and concepts of framing set in motion (e.g., why did some developed
with institutional theory (Phillips, Lawrence, countries resist signing the Kyoto protocols
and Hardy, 2004; Chreim, 2006). As with the after many of their allies and partners had
attempt to use structuration theory, the con- done so)? And why do institutions that clearly
cern here is with the processes of institution- disadvantage some groups continue to be
alization and actors as active agents accepted by members of those groups (e.g.,
interpreting and establishing meanings in why did some freed slaves in the antebellum
those processes. Phillips et al. (2004) develop U.S. become slaveholders themselves)?
a discursive model of institutionalization that
highlights the relationships among texts, dis-
course, institutions, and action. They argue
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
that language is fundamental to institution-
alization: institutionalization occurs as actors
interact and come to accept shared definitions of We have attempted to revisit the origins of
reality, and it is through linguistic processes that institutional theory and thereby ask questions
486 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF ORGANIZATIONAL INSTITUTIONALISM
concerning in what ways the earlier insights Salancik, Copay, and King, 1991; Sewell,
may have been lost in more contemporary 1992; Barley and Tolbert, 1997). But we
studies. have little insight into how individuals trans-
Contemporary institutional theory reflects late resource problems into a critical
the core understandings and assumptions that consciousness, or into what determines
provided touchstones for classic sociological whether such constraints will lead merely to
theorizing, as well as the analytic dilemmas minor adaptations or to complete rejection of
that characterize the combined works of its institutional patterns. Gaining a better
forerunners. By tracing its linkages to the understanding of such issues would, we
ideas and arguments of the preeminent social speculate, ultimately provide the foundation
theorists indicated by Scott, we have for a better understanding of the sorts of
intended to help explain both the attraction of broad changes in societies and social orders
this approach to organizational analysis for that motivated the sociological analyses that
many researchers, as well as the difficult and serve as the forerunners of contemporary
ongoing debates that have sometimes fueled institutionalism, and could also help
a general sense of uneasiness about its future. illuminate the way in which existing rela-
We have argued that, in particular, current tions of power are likely to be subject to chal-
institutionalism is characterized by a core lenge. Drawing a link between specific
tension that can be traced to the roots of soci- micro-level interactional processes and
ology, understanding social action as a prod- particular instances of broad social change is
uct of interest-motivated, conscious choices a treacherous business, one that has some
by actors or as a product of normatively- resemblance to exploring the butterfly effect
constrained, habitualized responses. In line (Bradbury, 1953), but a general understand-
with the observations of Tolbert and Zucker ing of micro-level phenomena would, we
(1996) and others, we do not see these as believe, allow a fuller understanding of how
antithetical models, but rather as poles on a individual processes and societal level
continuum: Under different conditions, outcomes may be generally linked.
actors' decisions and behaviors are likely to In addition, a central motif of the social
be closer to one or the other end of the spec- theorizing that institutional theory draws
trum. In our view, the key problematic facing upon was of the processes of social change.
sociologists (and anyone who seeks to extend While it is necessary to conceptualize institu-
an institutionalist perspective) is specifying tionalization as a state, there has been too
what these conditions are, and explaining the much emphasis on this rather than on institu-
connection between particular conditions tionalization as a process, understanding how
and individuals' receptivity to cognitive those processes occur over time, and
reorientation and norm-breaking action. what the central drivers of institutional
As argued above, we believe that part of change are. These kinds of questions were at
this effort will require more empirical the heart of the theorizing of Durkheim,
analyses that use interpretive frameworks to Marx and Weber (and are also exempli-
explore institutional phenomena. That is, we fied in the work of Meyer and his col-
need a much more thorough understanding of leagues. They are much less evident in the
institutions as manifested in individual work of contemporary organizational
perceptions and decisions if we are to fully institutionalists.
grasp the duality of structures (using We believe that following up on these
Giddens' term). It is commonly argued, for themes in our research agendas would
example, that resource constraints that hinder allow modern institutionalism to make
the enactment of institutionally-based behav- a significant contribution to the
iors are often a critical factor in bringing rich sociological heritage on which it has
about institutional change (e.g., Leblebici, drawn.
ORGANIZATIONAL INSTITUTIONALISM AND SOCIOLOGY: A REFLECTION 487
change and the transformation of interorga- Prichard, C. and Willmott, H. 1997. Just how
nizational fields: An organizational history managed is the McUniversity? Organization
of the U.S. radio broadcasting industry." Studies, 18: 287-317.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 36: 333-363. Pugh, Derek S., David J. Hickson, C.R. Hinings,
Merton, Robert K. 1949a. "Bureaucratic struc- and C. Turner. 1969. "The context of organ-
ture and personality." Pp. 151-160 in Social ization structures." Administrative Science
Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe, IL: Quarterly, 14: 91-114.
Free Press. Richard Whitley. 1992. Business systems in East
Merton, Robert K. 1949b. "Manifest and latent Asia: firms, markets and societies. London:
functions." Pp. 21-82 in Social Theory and Sage Publications.
Social Structure. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Rojas, F. 2006. "Social movement tactics, orga-
Meyer, John and Brian, Rowan. 1977. nizational change and the spread of African-
"Institutionalized organizations: Formal American studies." Social Forces, 84:
structure as myth and ceremony." American 2147-2166.
Journal of Sociology, 83: 340-363. Schneiberg, Mark and Timothy Bartley. 2001.
Morgan, Glenn. 2001. The development of "Regulating American industries: Markets,
transnational standards and regulations and politics and the institutional determinants of
their impacts on firms. In G. Morgan, fire insurance regulation." American Journal
R. Whitley and P.H. Kristensen (eds.), The of Sociology, 107: 101-146.
Multinational Firm: Organizing Across Schutz, Alfred. 1967. The Phenomology of
Institutional and National Divides. Oxford: the Social World (trans. G. Walsh and
Oxford University Press. F. Lehnert). Evanston, IL: Northwestern
Oliver, Christine. 1991. "Strategic responses University Press.
to institutional processes." Academy of Scott, W.R. 2001. Institutions and Organiza-
Management Review, 16: 145-179. tions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Oliver, Christine. 1992. "The antecedents of Scott, W.R. 2006. Ad astra per aspera:
deinstitutionalization." Organization Studies, a journey from the periphery. Organization
13: 563-588. Studies, 27: 877-890.
Orru, M., N. Biggart and G. Hamilton. 1991. Scott, W.R. and Meyer, J. 1983. The organiza-
Organizational institutionalism in East Asia. tion of societal sectors. In John W. Meyer
In W.W. Powell and P.J. DiMaggio (eds.). and W.R. Scott (eds.) Organizational
The New Institutionalism in Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality. Beverly
Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Press. Selznick, Philip. 1949. TVA and the grass
Palmer, Donald, P. Devereaux Jennings and roots. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Xueguang Zhou. 1993. "Later adoption of Press.
the multi-divisional form by large U.S. corpo- Selznick, Philip. 1957. Leadership and Adminis-
rations: Institutional, political and economic tration. New York: Harper and Rowe.
accounts." Administrative Science Quarterly, Sewell, William H. 1992. "A theory of struc-
38: 100-131. ture: Duality, agency, and transformation."
Parsons, Talcott. 1937. The Structure of Social American Journal of Sociology, 98: 1-29.
Action. New York: McGraw-Hill. Silverman, David. 1970. The theory of organi-
Pennings, Johannes. 1973. "Measures of orga- zations: a sociological framework. London:
nizational structure: A methodological Heinemann.
note." American Journal of Sociology, 79: Sine, Wesley D., Heather A. Haveman, and
686-704. Pamela S. Tolbert. 2005. "Risky business?
Perrow, Charles. 1985. "Review essay: Entrepreneurship in the new independent
Overboard with myth and symbols." power sector." Administrative Science
American Journal of Sociology, 91: Quarterly, 50: 200-232.
151-155. Skinner, Jonathan S. and Douglas Staiger.
Phillips, Nelson, Thomas Lawrence and Cynthia 2005. "Technology adoption from hybrid
Hardy. 2004. Discourse and institutions. corn to beta blockers." National Bureau of
Academy of Management Review, 29: Economic Research Working Paper #11251.
635-652. NBER: Cambridge, MA.
490 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF ORGANIZATIONAL INSTITUTIONALISM
Stern, Robert N. and Stephen R. Barley. 1996. Weber, Max. 1949. The Methodology of
"Organizations and social systems: Organiza- the Social Sciences (trans. E.A. Shils and
tion theory's neglected mandate." Administ- H.A. Finch). New York: Free Press.
rative Science Quarterly, 41: 141-162. Weeden, Kim A. and David B. Grusky. 2005.
Swedberg, Richard. 1998. Max Weber and the "A case for a new class map." American
Idea of Economic Sociology. Princeton, NJ: Journal of Sociology, 111: 141-212.
Princeton University Press. Woodward, Joan. 1958. Management and
Tajfel, H. and J.C. Turner. 1979. "An integrative Technology. London: Her Majesty's
theory of intergroup conflict." Pp. 33-48 Stationery Office.
in S. Worchel and W.G. Austin (eds.), The Wright, Erik O. 1997. Class Counts:
Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Comparative Studies in Class Analysis.
Monterey: Brooks/Cole. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thornton, Patricia and William Ocasio. 1999. Zbaracki, Mark J. 1998. "The rhetoric and
Institutional logics and the historical contin- reality of total quality management."
gency of power in organizations: executive Administrative Science Quarterly, 43:
succession in the higher education publish- 602-636.
ing industry, 1958-1999. American Journal Zhou, Xueguang. 1993. "Occupational
of Sociology, 105: 801-843. power, state capacities, and the diffusion
Tolbert, Pamela S. and Lynne G. Zucker. 1983. of licensing in the American states,
"Institutional sources of change in the 1890-1950." American Sociological Review,
formal structure of organizations: The diffu- 58: 536-552.
sion of civil service reform, 1880-1930." Zucker, Lynne G. 1977. "The role of institution-
Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 22-39. alization in cultural persistence." American
Tolbert, Pamela S. and Lynne G. Zucker. 1996. Sociological Review, 42: 726-743.
"The institutionalization of institutional Zucker, Lynne G. 1983. "Organizations as
theory." Pp. 175-190 in S.R. Clegg, C. Hardy Institutions." Research in the Sociology of
and W.R Nord (eds.), Handbook of Organiza- Organizations, vol. 2: 1-48. Greenwich, CT:
tional Studies. London: Sage. JAI Press.
Turner, Jonathan H. and Leonard Beeghley. Zucker, Lynne G. 1986. "Production of
1981. The Emergence of Sociological trust: Institutional sources of economic
Theory. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press. structures, 1840-1920." In B.M. Staw and
Weber, Max. 1947. The Theory of Social and L.L. Cummings (eds.), Research in Organiza-
Economic Organization (trans. T. Parsons). tional Behavior vol. 8: 53-111. Greewich,
New York: Free Press. CT: JAI.