Miles A Zachary TAKING SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION SERIOUSLY EXTENDING

Miles A. Zachary TAKING SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION SERIOUSLY: EXTENDING THE DISCURSIVE APPROACH IN INSTITUTIONAL THEORY

ABOUT THE AUTHORS � Nelson � � Phillips Professor of Strategy and Organizational Behavior at Imperial College London Research Interests: Knowledge Management, Technology Strategy, Institutional Theory, Social Entrepreneurship, Management in Cultural Industries, and International Management � Namrata � � Malhotra Faculty member at Tanaka Business School at Imperial College of London Research Interests: Organizational Change, especially within professional service organizations

BRIEF HISTORY OF INSTITUTIONALISM � Early institutional works were based in the social construction of institutions “institutionalization involves the processes by which social processes, obligations, or actualities, come to take on a rulelike status in social thought and action” – Meyer & Rowan (1977: p. 341) � Berger & Luckmann (1967: p. 54) referred to institutions as ‘shared typifications of habituated actions by types of actors’ constructed through social interaction

NEW INSTITUTIONAL THEORY � New institutional theory are critical of “rational-actor models” of organizations � Replaced with alternative theory based on individual action, stressing: � Unreflective, routine, taken-for-granted nature of humans � Actors constituted themselves by institutions � Resource dependencies

CRITICISMS OF THE NEW INSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE � The authors main criticism involves a lack of definition; modern institutionalism revolves around a result rather than a process � This lack of process creates a definitional problem (Zucker, 1991) � ‘Taxonomic’ approach dominates modern institutionalism but ignores the process of institutionalization and the inherent meaning of institutions

OLD V. NEW INSTITUTIONAL THEORY � Authors idea of the most significant differences between both involve the underlying conception of cognitive bases of institutionalized behavior � Old: organizations are institutionalized when they are ‘infused with value’ as ends themselves (Selznick, 1957) � New: the basis of institutions resides in the taken-forgranted scripts, rules, and classifications � In general, there has been a shift from institutions and how they form to the effects of institutionalization

SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION � Explains the creation and development of social phenomena within a social context � Social construction of institutions has early philosophical roots (e. g. , Veblen, 1909; Menger, 1871; Commons, 1924; Sumner, 1906) � Menger (1871) acknowledged the importance of institutions, a social phenomenon � Later, Selznick (1957: p. 16) stated that to institutionalize is to ‘infuse with beyond the technical requirements of the task at hand’

INSTITUTIONALIZATION � From a social constructionist point of view, institutionalization is primarily cognitive � Rules are not externally imposed, rather are a function of social institutional processes � Their (the rules) broad acceptability makes them unavoidable � Despite an explosion of literature regarding institutional theory, the definition and processes of institutions remains ambiguous

DIMAGGIO & POWELL’S THREE PILLARS � Three (3) Pillars of Isomorphic Change within Institutions: � Cognitive � Normative � Mimetic � Authors critique this view of institutional change as a ‘distraction’ � Regard institutionalization as a taken-forgranted process

SCOTT’S TYPOLOGY � What comprises an institution? � Regulatory- explicit regulatory processes— expedient and coercive action that is socially sanctioned � Normative- norms shape behavior that is socially enforced � Cultural-Cognative- based on early social constructionist thought—”the way we do things around here” � An all-inclusive framework for institionalism

SCOTT’S TYPOLOGY- THE CRITIQUE � Author offers several problematic observations: � Individual differences in the ontological background of each pillar is problematic in creating a unified theory of institutionalism � The dynamics arising from the three pillars are fundamentally different � Sanctions (as presented by Scott (1995)) would serve to deinstitutionalize rather than reinforce institutional norms; Berger and Luckman (1967) regard additional enforcement mechanisms as a sign of less-than-institutional status

THE DISCURSIVE ALTERNATIVE � Authors offer an alternative to Scott’s (1995) explanation of institutionalism � A discursive approach is “a useful theoretical and methodological approach for understanding microprocesses of institutionalization at the macroorganizational level and clarifies the cognitive nature of institutions”

THE DISCURSIVE ALTERNATIVE � Discursive analysis serves to answer the question ‘where does meaning come from? ’ � Furthermore, it is a study of discourse and the social reality it constitutes � Can never be identified in its entirety, rather it exists on a continuum � Texts (which are not limited to written words) are not individually meaningful

THE DISCURSIVE ALTERNATIVE � Discourse has a dialectic effect on action in which both are a function of the previous variable (t-n)

THE DISCURSIVE ALTERNATIVE � Authors ask “what are the ramifications for institutional theory? ” � Changing the focus of empirical research � Refocuses � Reframing the processes of institutionalization itself the symbolic v. practice debate � Discourse analysis allows a tandem view of institutionalization—both practice and symbolic � Bringing society back into the picture � Focuses on complex societal nature of institutions and institutionalization

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?