Institutional work and the paradox of embedded agency

Julie Battilana, Thomas D'Aunno

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abstract

Introduction Institutions are social structures that are characterized by a high degree of resilience (Scott, 2001). They have a self-activating nature (Lawrence, Hardy & Phillips, 2002; Jepperson, 1991). Actors tend to reproduce institutions in a given field of activity without requiring either repeated authoritative intervention or collective mobilization (Clemens & Cook, 1999: 445). Early neo-institutional studies emphasized ways that institutions constrained organizational structures and activities, and thereby explained the convergence of organizational practices within institutional environments. They proposed that actors' need to be regarded as legitimate in their institutional environment determined their behavior. This work implicitly assumed that individuals and organizations tend to comply, at least in appearance, with institutional pressures. In fact, actors were often implicitly assumed to have a limited degree of agency. Such a conception of agency was problematic when institutional theorists started tackling the issue of institutional change. While early neo-institutional studies accounted for organizational isomorphism and for the reproduction of institutionalized practices, they did not account well for the possibility of change. Even though institutions are characterized by their self-activating nature, we know that they do change (e.g. Fligstein, 1991). Since the late 1980s, institutional theorists have started addressing the issue of institutional change. They have highlighted the role that organizations and/or individuals play in institutional change. Studies that account for the role of organizations and/or individuals in institutional change, however, face a paradox.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationInstitutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations
PublisherCambridge University Press
Pages31-58
Number of pages28
ISBN (Print)9780511596605, 9780521518550
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2009

Fingerprint

Institutional work
Paradox
Institutional change
Institutional environment
Nature
Resilience
Isomorphism
Institutional pressures
Organizational structure
Social structure
Organizational practices
Mobilization
Conception

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Business, Management and Accounting(all)

Cite this

Battilana, J., & D'Aunno, T. (2009). Institutional work and the paradox of embedded agency. In Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations (pp. 31-58). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511596605.002

Institutional work and the paradox of embedded agency. / Battilana, Julie; D'Aunno, Thomas.

Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations. Cambridge University Press, 2009. p. 31-58.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Battilana, J & D'Aunno, T 2009, Institutional work and the paradox of embedded agency. in Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations. Cambridge University Press, pp. 31-58. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511596605.002
Battilana J, D'Aunno T. Institutional work and the paradox of embedded agency. In Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations. Cambridge University Press. 2009. p. 31-58 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511596605.002
Battilana, Julie ; D'Aunno, Thomas. / Institutional work and the paradox of embedded agency. Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations. Cambridge University Press, 2009. pp. 31-58
@inbook{85da12136edb45a3939fdd1102c530ef,
title = "Institutional work and the paradox of embedded agency",
abstract = "Introduction Institutions are social structures that are characterized by a high degree of resilience (Scott, 2001). They have a self-activating nature (Lawrence, Hardy & Phillips, 2002; Jepperson, 1991). Actors tend to reproduce institutions in a given field of activity without requiring either repeated authoritative intervention or collective mobilization (Clemens & Cook, 1999: 445). Early neo-institutional studies emphasized ways that institutions constrained organizational structures and activities, and thereby explained the convergence of organizational practices within institutional environments. They proposed that actors' need to be regarded as legitimate in their institutional environment determined their behavior. This work implicitly assumed that individuals and organizations tend to comply, at least in appearance, with institutional pressures. In fact, actors were often implicitly assumed to have a limited degree of agency. Such a conception of agency was problematic when institutional theorists started tackling the issue of institutional change. While early neo-institutional studies accounted for organizational isomorphism and for the reproduction of institutionalized practices, they did not account well for the possibility of change. Even though institutions are characterized by their self-activating nature, we know that they do change (e.g. Fligstein, 1991). Since the late 1980s, institutional theorists have started addressing the issue of institutional change. They have highlighted the role that organizations and/or individuals play in institutional change. Studies that account for the role of organizations and/or individuals in institutional change, however, face a paradox.",
author = "Julie Battilana and Thomas D'Aunno",
year = "2009",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1017/CBO9780511596605.002",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9780511596605",
pages = "31--58",
booktitle = "Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Institutional work and the paradox of embedded agency

AU - Battilana, Julie

AU - D'Aunno, Thomas

PY - 2009/1/1

Y1 - 2009/1/1

N2 - Introduction Institutions are social structures that are characterized by a high degree of resilience (Scott, 2001). They have a self-activating nature (Lawrence, Hardy & Phillips, 2002; Jepperson, 1991). Actors tend to reproduce institutions in a given field of activity without requiring either repeated authoritative intervention or collective mobilization (Clemens & Cook, 1999: 445). Early neo-institutional studies emphasized ways that institutions constrained organizational structures and activities, and thereby explained the convergence of organizational practices within institutional environments. They proposed that actors' need to be regarded as legitimate in their institutional environment determined their behavior. This work implicitly assumed that individuals and organizations tend to comply, at least in appearance, with institutional pressures. In fact, actors were often implicitly assumed to have a limited degree of agency. Such a conception of agency was problematic when institutional theorists started tackling the issue of institutional change. While early neo-institutional studies accounted for organizational isomorphism and for the reproduction of institutionalized practices, they did not account well for the possibility of change. Even though institutions are characterized by their self-activating nature, we know that they do change (e.g. Fligstein, 1991). Since the late 1980s, institutional theorists have started addressing the issue of institutional change. They have highlighted the role that organizations and/or individuals play in institutional change. Studies that account for the role of organizations and/or individuals in institutional change, however, face a paradox.

AB - Introduction Institutions are social structures that are characterized by a high degree of resilience (Scott, 2001). They have a self-activating nature (Lawrence, Hardy & Phillips, 2002; Jepperson, 1991). Actors tend to reproduce institutions in a given field of activity without requiring either repeated authoritative intervention or collective mobilization (Clemens & Cook, 1999: 445). Early neo-institutional studies emphasized ways that institutions constrained organizational structures and activities, and thereby explained the convergence of organizational practices within institutional environments. They proposed that actors' need to be regarded as legitimate in their institutional environment determined their behavior. This work implicitly assumed that individuals and organizations tend to comply, at least in appearance, with institutional pressures. In fact, actors were often implicitly assumed to have a limited degree of agency. Such a conception of agency was problematic when institutional theorists started tackling the issue of institutional change. While early neo-institutional studies accounted for organizational isomorphism and for the reproduction of institutionalized practices, they did not account well for the possibility of change. Even though institutions are characterized by their self-activating nature, we know that they do change (e.g. Fligstein, 1991). Since the late 1980s, institutional theorists have started addressing the issue of institutional change. They have highlighted the role that organizations and/or individuals play in institutional change. Studies that account for the role of organizations and/or individuals in institutional change, however, face a paradox.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84928049323&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84928049323&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/CBO9780511596605.002

DO - 10.1017/CBO9780511596605.002

M3 - Chapter

SN - 9780511596605

SN - 9780521518550

SP - 31

EP - 58

BT - Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations

PB - Cambridge University Press

ER -