Transcript Institutional logics

INSTITUTIONAL LOGICS
Advanced Organizational Theory – 3/9/2010
Authors

Patricia H Thornton



Adjunct Associate Professor
Duke University
Research Interests





Institutions
Governance
Innovation and Entrepreneurship
Cultural Industries
William Ocasio



Professor
Northwestern University
Research Interests




Corporate Governance
Organizational Attention and decision making
Executive power and politics
Organizational and Institutional Change
Agenda






Introduction and background
Defining Institutional Logics
Institutional Logics as Meta-Theory
Institutional Logics as Method of Analysis
Institutional Logics and Individual/Organizational
Action
Change in Institutional Logics
Introduction and Background


Emerged as part of institutional theory (1970’s)
Friedland and Alford (1991) summarize as:
 Defining

Less focus on isomorphism
 More

focus on effects of different logics
Variety of contexts/levels of analysis
 Can

the content and meaning of institutions
be used to bridge micro and macro levels
Recognize that actors have a hand in shaping the
institutional logic
Agenda






Introduction and background
Defining Institutional Logics
Institutional Logics as Meta-Theory
Institutional Logics as Method of Analysis
Institutional Logics and Individual/Organizational
Action
Change in Institutional Logics
Early Theorizing

Introduced by Alford and Friedland (1985)
 Decribe
the contradictory practices and beliefs in
western organizations

Extended by Friedland and Alford (1991)
 Each
institution has a central logic
 Logic guides organizing principles, gives actors
vocabularies of motive and sense of self


Constrains means and ends of behaviour in that
institution
Provides a source of agency and change
Similar definitions

Jackall (1988): “The way a particular social world
works”
 More
emphasis on normative dimensions
 Less emphasis on symbolic resources

Thornton and Ocasio (1999)
 Emphasis
on all three dimensions (all are necessary and
complementary
 Structural
 Normative
 Symbolic
(Cognitive)
Precursors to Institutional Logics

Logics of action
 Defined:
“Framework groups use to guide their
behavior as they confront the practical constraints on
their lives” (cite)
 Talks about conflicting logics sans isomorphism
 Power struggles
 Between
professions (finance, mktg., manuf.)
 Between social classes/cultural models
 Posit
the existence of logics at the supraorganizational
level and emphasize culture in shaping organizational
activities
Agenda






Introduction and background
Defining Institutional Logics
Institutional Logics as Meta-Theory
Institutional Logics as Method of Analysis
Institutional Logics and Individual/Organizational
Action
Change in Institutional Logics
Logics as Meta-theory

All three major definitions share a core meta-theory


To understand individual and organizational behaviour
Five principles
Embedded agency
 Society as an inter-institutional system
 The material and cultural foundations of institutions
 Institutions at multiple levels
 Historical contingency

Embedded Agency

Core assumption
 “…the
interests, identities, values, and assumptions of
individuals and organizations are embedded within
prevailing institutional logics”

Decisions and outcomes are at the intersection of
individual agency and institutional structure
 Partial

Autonomy
Three levels of society
 Individuals
competing and negotiating
 Organizations in conflict and coordination
 Institutions in contradiction and interdependency
Society as an inter-institutional system

System of societal sectors
 Each
sector represents a different set of expectations
for social relations and behavior
 Allows sectors to be in conflict

Enables two advances in institutional analysis
 Non-deterministic
– no institutional order has a priori
causal primacy
 Institutional system provides an understanding of
institutional foundations of categories of knowledge
Material and Cultural Foundations

Each institution has material and cultural
characteristics
 Institutions
develop and change from interactions of
both

Changes how we look at conflict and agency
 How
do we know if/when there is conflict?
 How do we respond to said conflict?

Institutional logics look at both symbolic and
normative facets of culture
 Some
sociologists have been hesitant with norms.
Institutions at Multiple Levels

Promising field for multi/cross-level research
 Organizations,


markets, networks, industries, etc.
Logics at one level influence other levels
Institutional logics more than strategies or logics of
action
 Sources
of legitimacy
 Provide a sense of order
 Ontological security
 Ontology
d= the philosophical study of the nature of being,
existence or reality in general, as well as the basic
categories of being and their relations (cite)
Historical Contingency

Idea is not to develop universal theories
 Evaluate


such theories in their time/place context
Logics in play at one period of time may not remain
in play
Logics may change over time
Agenda






Introduction and background
Defining Institutional Logics
Institutional Logics as Meta-Theory
Institutional Logics as Method of Analysis
Institutional Logics and Individual/Organizational
Action
Change in Institutional Logics
Logics as a Method of Analysis

Main idea:
 Try
to measure the effects of content, meaning, and
change in institutions

Key methods
 Event
History Methods
 Interpretive Methods
 Archival
records, Interviews, Content Analysis
 Ideal Types
Event History Methods


(aka. survival/duration/transition analysis)
Time series analysis
 Uses
historical time, not organizational age
 Looks at how states change over time
 Time-constant and time-dependent events


Can accommodate data at multiple levels of
analysis
Can look at which logics are having more of an
impact at given periods of time
Interpretive Methods

Rich data analysis techniques
 Qualitative
 Authors
 Find

and/or quantitative
suggest triangulation of both
and interpret ‘meaning’
Ideal Types
 Helps
understand meanings that actors assign to their
actions
Agenda






Introduction and background
Defining Institutional Logics
Institutional Logics as Meta-Theory
Institutional Logics as Method of Analysis
Institutional Logics and Individual/Organizational
Action
Change in Institutional Logics
Collective Identities and Identification

Collective Identity d= The cognitive, normative and
emotional connection experienced by members of a
social group because of their perceived common
status with other members
 Can



also be viewed at higher levels of analysis
When they individuals identify with the collective
identity, they can be influenced by it
Can be a member of several social groups (each
with different identities)
Collective identities can become institutionalized into
logics
Contests for Status and Power

Conditioned by prevailing institutions
 Logics
determine how status and power are gained,
maintained and lost
 Logic is propagated when used by social actor in the
process of competing for status and power
Classification and Categorization


Categories are a necessary component of all
mindful and agentive behaviour
Social and organizational categories are
determined by social institutions
 E.g.,

CEO, Return on Assets
Changes in logics lead to the creation of new
categories and changes to meaning of existing
categories
Attention


Emphasis on how organizational responses to stimuli are
mediated by the attention of decision makers
Institutional Logics affect attention allocation

Provide a set of rules and conventions
Prioritization of problems
 Possible solutions
 Linking of solutions to problems


Two mechanisms used by institutions to structure
attention:
Generate a set of values that order the legitimacy,
importance, and relevance of issues and solutions
 Provide decision makers with an understanding of their
interests and identities

Agenda






Introduction and background
Defining Institutional Logics
Institutional Logics as Meta-Theory
Institutional Logics as Method of Analysis
Institutional Logics and Individual/Organizational
Action
Change in Institutional Logics
Change in Institutional Logics


“How can actors change institutions if their actions,
intentions and rationality are all conditioned by the
very institution they wish to change?” (Holm, 1995)
Three key mechanisms of change:
 Institutional
Entrepreneurs
 Structural Overlap
 Event Sequencing

Antecedent/Consequence of change:
 Competing
Institutional Logics
Institutional Entrepreneurs

Create new and/or modify old institutions
 Leverage

resources to support their interests
May organize from the center of an existing field,
or from the fringe
 Although
Organizational Ecology would argue that it is
probably wiser to do so from the fringe

Can use material and cultural resources to justify
and encourage change
 Rhetorical
strategy (using institutional vocabulary)
 Expose contradictions in logics
Structural Overlap

When individual roles and organizational structures
and functions that were previously distinct are
forced into association
 Mergers

& Acquisitions
More common in organizations that bridge different
organizational fields and thus have contact with
multiple logics
 Lowers
constraints and embeddedness of actors
 Encourages institutional entrepreneurship
Event Sequencing

Event sequencing d= “the temporal and sequential
unfolding of unique events that dislocate, rearticulate,
and transform the interpretation and meaning of
cultural symbols and social and economic structures”



Changes in cultural schemas, shifts of resources, emergence
of new sources of power
Even small changes that create discrepancies can push
the first domino
Suggested ways to assess:
Nominal and Ordinal comparisons
 Narrative analysis

Competing Logics

NOT an explanation for change in institutional
logics
 Antecedent
or consequence of change
 Can facilitate resistance to institutional change

Studies have primarily looked at:
 Micro:
Strategies of action
 Macro: Institutional logic at the societal-sector level

Authors suggest that more studies should look at
multiple levels.
Major OT questions





Why do organizations exist?
Why are firms the same/different?
What causes changes in organizations?
Why do some firms survive and others don’t?
Emerging issue?