Doing which work? A practice approach to institutional pluralism

Paula Jarzabkowski, Jane Matthiesen, Andrew van de Ven

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abstract

This chapter takes a social theory of practice approach to examining institutional work; that is, how institutions are created, maintained, and disrupted through the actions, interactions, and negotiations of multiple actors. We examine alternative approaches that organizations use to deal with institutional pluralism based on a longitudinal real-time case study of a utility company grappling with opposing market and regulatory logics over time. These two logics required the firm to both mitigate its significant market power and also maintain its commercially competitive focus and responsiveness to shareholders.
Institutional theorists have long acknowledged that institutions have a central logic (Friedland & Alford, 1991) or rationality (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Scott, 1995/2001; Townley, 2002), comprising a set of material and symbolic practices and organizing principles that provide logics of action for organizations and individuals, who then reproduce the institutions through their actions (Glynn & Lounsbury, 2005; Suddaby & Greenwood, 2005). Despite a monolithic feel to much institutional theory, in which a dominant institutional logic appears to prevail, institutional theorists also acknowledge the plurality of institutions (e.g. Friedland & Alford, 1991; Kraatz & Block, 2008; Lounsbury, 2007; Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Whittington, 1992). While these pluralistic institutions may be interdependent, they are not considered to coexist in harmony; “There is no question but that many competing and inconsistent logics exist in modern society” (Scott, 1995: 130).
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationInstitutional work: actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations
EditorsThomas B. Lawrence, Roy Suddaby, Bernard Leca
Place of PublicationCambridge (UK)
PublisherCambridge University Press
Pages284-316
Number of pages33
ISBN (Electronic)978-0-511-59660-5
ISBN (Print)978-0-521-51855-0
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 16 Jul 2009

Fingerprint

Pluralism
Logic
Harmony
Responsiveness
Rationality
Social theory
Market power
Shareholders
Plurality
Institutional theory
Modernity
Interaction
Institutional work
Institutional logics
Organizing

Bibliographical note

© Cambridge University Press.
Jarzabkowski, P., Matthiesen, J., & van de Ven, A. (2009). Doing which work? A practice approach to institutional pluralism. Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (Eds.), In: Institutional work: actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations. (pp. 284-316). Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.

Cite this

Jarzabkowski, P., Matthiesen, J., & van de Ven, A. (2009). Doing which work? A practice approach to institutional pluralism. In T. B. Lawrence, R. Suddaby, & B. Leca (Eds.), Institutional work: actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations (pp. 284-316). Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511596605.011
Jarzabkowski, Paula ; Matthiesen, Jane ; van de Ven, Andrew. / Doing which work? A practice approach to institutional pluralism. Institutional work: actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations. editor / Thomas B. Lawrence ; Roy Suddaby ; Bernard Leca. Cambridge (UK) : Cambridge University Press, 2009. pp. 284-316
@inbook{d745d3ee6a704591a5919178a1c86d96,
title = "Doing which work? A practice approach to institutional pluralism",
abstract = "This chapter takes a social theory of practice approach to examining institutional work; that is, how institutions are created, maintained, and disrupted through the actions, interactions, and negotiations of multiple actors. We examine alternative approaches that organizations use to deal with institutional pluralism based on a longitudinal real-time case study of a utility company grappling with opposing market and regulatory logics over time. These two logics required the firm to both mitigate its significant market power and also maintain its commercially competitive focus and responsiveness to shareholders.Institutional theorists have long acknowledged that institutions have a central logic (Friedland & Alford, 1991) or rationality (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Scott, 1995/2001; Townley, 2002), comprising a set of material and symbolic practices and organizing principles that provide logics of action for organizations and individuals, who then reproduce the institutions through their actions (Glynn & Lounsbury, 2005; Suddaby & Greenwood, 2005). Despite a monolithic feel to much institutional theory, in which a dominant institutional logic appears to prevail, institutional theorists also acknowledge the plurality of institutions (e.g. Friedland & Alford, 1991; Kraatz & Block, 2008; Lounsbury, 2007; Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Whittington, 1992). While these pluralistic institutions may be interdependent, they are not considered to coexist in harmony; “There is no question but that many competing and inconsistent logics exist in modern society” (Scott, 1995: 130).",
author = "Paula Jarzabkowski and Jane Matthiesen and {van de Ven}, Andrew",
note = "{\circledC} Cambridge University Press. Jarzabkowski, P., Matthiesen, J., & van de Ven, A. (2009). Doing which work? A practice approach to institutional pluralism. Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (Eds.), In: Institutional work: actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations. (pp. 284-316). Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.",
year = "2009",
month = "7",
day = "16",
doi = "10.1017/CBO9780511596605.011",
language = "English",
isbn = "978-0-521-51855-0",
pages = "284--316",
editor = "Lawrence, {Thomas B.} and Roy Suddaby and Bernard Leca",
booktitle = "Institutional work: actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
address = "United Kingdom",

}

Jarzabkowski, P, Matthiesen, J & van de Ven, A 2009, Doing which work? A practice approach to institutional pluralism. in TB Lawrence, R Suddaby & B Leca (eds), Institutional work: actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (UK), pp. 284-316. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511596605.011

Doing which work? A practice approach to institutional pluralism. / Jarzabkowski, Paula; Matthiesen, Jane; van de Ven, Andrew.

Institutional work: actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations. ed. / Thomas B. Lawrence; Roy Suddaby; Bernard Leca. Cambridge (UK) : Cambridge University Press, 2009. p. 284-316.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

TY - CHAP

T1 - Doing which work? A practice approach to institutional pluralism

AU - Jarzabkowski, Paula

AU - Matthiesen, Jane

AU - van de Ven, Andrew

N1 - © Cambridge University Press. Jarzabkowski, P., Matthiesen, J., & van de Ven, A. (2009). Doing which work? A practice approach to institutional pluralism. Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (Eds.), In: Institutional work: actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations. (pp. 284-316). Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.

PY - 2009/7/16

Y1 - 2009/7/16

N2 - This chapter takes a social theory of practice approach to examining institutional work; that is, how institutions are created, maintained, and disrupted through the actions, interactions, and negotiations of multiple actors. We examine alternative approaches that organizations use to deal with institutional pluralism based on a longitudinal real-time case study of a utility company grappling with opposing market and regulatory logics over time. These two logics required the firm to both mitigate its significant market power and also maintain its commercially competitive focus and responsiveness to shareholders.Institutional theorists have long acknowledged that institutions have a central logic (Friedland & Alford, 1991) or rationality (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Scott, 1995/2001; Townley, 2002), comprising a set of material and symbolic practices and organizing principles that provide logics of action for organizations and individuals, who then reproduce the institutions through their actions (Glynn & Lounsbury, 2005; Suddaby & Greenwood, 2005). Despite a monolithic feel to much institutional theory, in which a dominant institutional logic appears to prevail, institutional theorists also acknowledge the plurality of institutions (e.g. Friedland & Alford, 1991; Kraatz & Block, 2008; Lounsbury, 2007; Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Whittington, 1992). While these pluralistic institutions may be interdependent, they are not considered to coexist in harmony; “There is no question but that many competing and inconsistent logics exist in modern society” (Scott, 1995: 130).

AB - This chapter takes a social theory of practice approach to examining institutional work; that is, how institutions are created, maintained, and disrupted through the actions, interactions, and negotiations of multiple actors. We examine alternative approaches that organizations use to deal with institutional pluralism based on a longitudinal real-time case study of a utility company grappling with opposing market and regulatory logics over time. These two logics required the firm to both mitigate its significant market power and also maintain its commercially competitive focus and responsiveness to shareholders.Institutional theorists have long acknowledged that institutions have a central logic (Friedland & Alford, 1991) or rationality (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Scott, 1995/2001; Townley, 2002), comprising a set of material and symbolic practices and organizing principles that provide logics of action for organizations and individuals, who then reproduce the institutions through their actions (Glynn & Lounsbury, 2005; Suddaby & Greenwood, 2005). Despite a monolithic feel to much institutional theory, in which a dominant institutional logic appears to prevail, institutional theorists also acknowledge the plurality of institutions (e.g. Friedland & Alford, 1991; Kraatz & Block, 2008; Lounsbury, 2007; Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Whittington, 1992). While these pluralistic institutions may be interdependent, they are not considered to coexist in harmony; “There is no question but that many competing and inconsistent logics exist in modern society” (Scott, 1995: 130).

UR - https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/institutional-work/EFC8EE910FDBE5F8F2D432161076FAE3

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84928078168&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/CBO9780511596605.011

DO - 10.1017/CBO9780511596605.011

M3 - Chapter

SN - 978-0-521-51855-0

SP - 284

EP - 316

BT - Institutional work: actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations

A2 - Lawrence, Thomas B.

A2 - Suddaby, Roy

A2 - Leca, Bernard

PB - Cambridge University Press

CY - Cambridge (UK)

ER -

Jarzabkowski P, Matthiesen J, van de Ven A. Doing which work? A practice approach to institutional pluralism. In Lawrence TB, Suddaby R, Leca B, editors, Institutional work: actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press. 2009. p. 284-316 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511596605.011