** DRAFT **
From Reductive to Robust: Seeking the Core of Institutional Theory
ABSTRACT:
When discussing institutional theory, are we talking about the “same thing?” This paper
triangulates on an answer using a systems approach of content analysis and narrative
analysis. Two studies that use non-systemic approaches find more conflict than agreement
between views of the theory. A third study suggests that a path toward common ground
may be found in the idea of a quantifiably “robust” theory. A robust theory is one that is
quantifiably “more systemic” in nature and is expected to be more effective in application
and more reasonably falsifiable. The robustness of institutional theory is identified as 0.31
on a scale of zero to one (with zero being the lowest and least useful). Paths for advancing
the theory are suggested that use a systems approach to relate the usefulness of theory with
the quantifiable structure of theory.
KEYWORDS:
1
Institutional theory, Theory of theory, Critical metatheory, Structure of theory, Robustness,
Epistemological validity, Evolution of theory, Systems view of theory
2
WHAT IS THE CORE OF INSTITUTIONAL THEORY?
Institutional theory is a current issue (Palmer and Biggart, 2002) and, given the importance
of institutional and organizational change, is likely to remain an important issue for some
time. Given the depth and breadth of the current discussion, it seems reasonable to ask –
exactly what is this thing called institutional theory? The present paper explores the range
of the theory from multiple perspectives and suggests that an objective path toward
developing a common and useful definition might be found by applying a systems
approach to analyzing the structure of theory. The present paper extends the conversation
of Selznick (1996), who noted the conflict between older and newer forms of theory, and
Scott (1987), who suggested that there were “four faces” of institutional theory. Scott also
claimed that there were efforts at “consolidation.” The present article also answers the call
of Zucker & Darby (2005, p. 548) who state that institutional theory is rich in concepts and
has advanced so far as to, “warrant more formal models and codification.” Instead of
consolidation and codification, however, the present study finds expansion and conflict.
In the ongoing discussion around institutional theory, the general assumption seems to be
that authors are writing about the “same thing.” Such assumptions, when unexamined, may
3
lead to false conclusions and conflicting views. In the present paper, I identify the range
and depth of that conflict, as well as the few areas of agreement. Further, through the use
of traditional and innovative methodologies, I investigate the structure of institutional
theory and suggest avenues for advancing the theory in a way that will support more
insightful empirical studies and more effective application in practice.
Although the present study will avoid a historical approach to the analysis of theory, it may
be useful to note the influence of such authors as DiMaggio, Meyer, Powell, Scott, and
Zucker. Generally, most authors studied in the present article cited these five authors.
Some authors studied in the present article (Reay et al., 2006, Greenwood and Suddaby,
2006, DiMaggio and Powell, 2002) seem to have drawn on a broader sources of inspiration
that the others. Scott’s (1987) useful history notes some influential writers as Selznick,
Berger and Luckmann, Meyer and Rowan, and Hertzler. Their conceptual roots are traced
to Barnard, Hughes, and the sociology of knowledge.
Currently, institutional theory has expanded into management science (Palmer and Biggart,
2002), economics (Sobel, 1982), political science (Meyer, 2001), population ecology
4
(Zucker, 1989), and beyond. The present study focuses on authors who may be more
familiar to the reader.
As institutional theory has expanded, each author has revised the theory for interpretation
and publication. In researching the literature for the present article, I found 14 different
descriptions of institutional theory. No two of these descriptions are identical, instead
containing substantive differences. A more comprehensive search would doubtless find
many more conflicts. Although according to their authors, these descriptions fit under the
general rubric of institutional theory, these differences may be seen as representing a
conflict in the common understanding of institutional theory, and so reflect differences in
the accepted understanding of institutions and organizations. While the academic process
thrives on the differences between points of view, the extent of those differences calls into
question whether scholars are, indeed, talking about the same thing. After all, if one author
states that institutional theory may be understood through concepts “a, b, and c” while
another author states that the relevant concepts are “c, e, and f,” there is some conceptual
overlap, but there are also inherent contradictions.
5
The issue of rapid change within a body of theory has been of interest, and concern, for
decades. In one attempt to make sense of the issue, theories are described as having of a
“hard core” of unchanging assumptions, surrounded by a more changeable “protective
belt” (Lakatos, 1970). When a theory is challenged, a theorist may rise to defend it with a
new proposition that changes the belt, but presumably leaves the core intact. Among the 14
descriptions discussed here, there is no single concept that is held in common by all of the
authors. If there is no concept, or set of concepts, held in common, where then is the core
of institutional theory? Motivated by this lack of commonality, I seek in the present paper
seeks to identify the core of institutional theory. This effort will provide general and
specific support for the continued development of institutional theory.
A Chinese proverb states, “The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names.”
(Unknown, 2006, p. 1) The difficulty of engaging in a conversation with imprecise
definitions was famously illustrated when Plato called man a “featherless biped.” He was
forced to add, “with broad flat nails” in response to Diogenes, who arrived with a plucked
chicken, proclaiming “Here is Plato’s man.” (Bartlett, 1992, p. 77). It may be speculatively
asked if it was the atomistic nature of Plato’s definition that left it open to misinterpretation
and challenge. In short, we must wonder how we can know what we are talking about if a
6
definition continually changes? In contrast to Plato’s rapidly evolving definition,
Newton’s laws (e.g. F=ma) have proved effective, and unchanged, for centuries. In the
present article, I will identify how an understanding of institutional theory might be shifted
from the transitory, pronouncements of Plato, toward enduring and useful laws of Newton.
When our theories attain this level of advancement, we may anticipate meaningful changes
in the way we study institutions.
Due to limitations of space, the studies in the present article are focused on the level of
“concept” and “theory” where concepts are presented as named by the authors and as
readers may generally understand them. A theory may be generally understood as a
collection of interrelated propositions – a concept that will be explored in depth below.
These studies will generally avoid the sub-concept level of interpretation. Due to the
difficulty of testing multiple models, these studies do not address what might be thought of
as a post-theory-development process of application and testing in a real world and/or
simulated environment.
7
Drawing on Davidson and Layder, Romm (2001) suggests that researchers use
“triangulation” (where multiple research methods are used to reduce subjectivity in
research), I present three studies of institutional theory, all drawn from the same sources.
In the first study, I draw on techniques of content analysis to identify the range of concepts
found in the theory. Content analysis (e.g. Hjørland, 2002, Hood and Wilson, 2002)
essentially involves looking at the words used by the authors as reasonable representations
of the concepts that they convey. Grasping the range of concepts helps to identify the
similarities and differences between the various versions of theory. The first study
identifies a high level of disagreement between authors and provides examples of how
more definitions are generated. The addition of more examples may be seen as adding to
the conflict. Although there are clear benefits to this form of analysis, there are also
limitations.
In the second study, I use those same concepts coupled with innovative methods of
analysis to identify the high rate of change between versions of theory. The second study
objectively quantifies conflicts between versions of theory, even when the same authors
provide those versions. Next, a discussion on the theory of theory specifically focuses on
8
the structure of theory as a means for understanding and advancing the efficacy of the
theory.
The third study is informed by narrative analysis (e.g. Pentland, 1999) to focus on the
propositions found in institutional theory. In this study, I use an innovative, though easily
replicable, method of analysis to identify the robustness of institutional theory as a whole.
This analysis is then used to suggest reconciliation between conflicting versions of the
theory. Importantly, an objective path for developing a more robust institutional theory is
suggested. A robust theory of institutions is expected to provide meaningful benefits to
academics and practitioners alike.
9
STUDY #1 – CONCEPTS OF INSTITUTIONAL THEORY
This section identifies the range of concepts in institutional theory and analyzes that
collection of concepts from various perspectives. As developed by Wallis (2008), these
diverse views, in some sense, may be seen as reflecting the existing diversity in the field of
institutional theory. With each perspective, a different view of institutional theory is
provided. The new versions of institutional theory created here may be seen as schools of
thought or newly evolved versions of institutional theory. In addition to identifying the
range of concepts present in institutional theory, this study also claims that more
differences than similarities exist in the body of institutional theory. And, these differences
represent an inherent conflict.
A search of ProQuest™ database yielded 216 articles in academic journals where
institutional theory was discussed in the context of a human organization. In order to
obtain a more manageable set of data, I restricted my search to articles with the term
“institutional theory” in the citation. This assumes that such articles would include a
substantive discussion of institutional theory and so include concepts that may be
considered representative of the theory. Additionally, those articles and other sources
10
suggested further scholarly publications. I reviewed promising books and found additional
descriptions. This search, although not exhaustive, found 14 descriptions of institutional
theory. It is also assumed that each description includes the most important aspects of each
author’s version of the theory. It is expected that a sample of this size will provide a
sufficient representation of the body of theory.
This study uses descriptions from Carroll, Goodstein, & Gyenes (1988), DiMaggio &
Powell (2002), Greenwood & Suddaby (2006), James & Wooten (2006), Lewin &
Volberda (2005), Mezias & Scarselletta (1994), Ocasio (1999), Reay et al. (2006), Scott
(1987), Scott (2005), Selznick (1996), Suddaby & Greenwood (2005), Zilber (2006), L.
Zucker & Darby (2005). Most of these descriptions were from the pages of Administrative
Science Quarterly (ASQ), and the Academy of Management Journal (AMJ).
From that collection of writings, I deconstructed each description into the authors’
component concepts. For example, Mezias & Scarselletta (1994, p. 658) suggest that
institutional theory be understood as one where:
11

Professions provide members with common culture/shared definitions of
problems/common repertoires.

Strong professional norms in an organizational field will cause normative
isomorphism.
Based on that definition, the concepts relating to institutional theory would be: professions,
members, common culture/shared definitions, problems/common repertoires, professional
norms, organizational field, and normative isomorphism. While another reader might
develop a different list, it is expected that such lists would be substantively similar to the
one developed in this study.
It is generally accepted in academic writing that flowery speech is no substitute for clarity.
Therefore, working from the assumption that other writers seek clarity, I assume in these
studies that authors who use different words essentially mean to communicate different
ideas. In short, when analyzing the writings of others, I take them at their word and err on
the side of conservative interpretation although this may result in adding more concepts to
the list rather than fewer.
12
From the above 14 sources, I found 188 concepts – from Administrative oversight, to
Work patterns. The complete “kaleidoscope of concepts” will not be listed, due to
limitations of space. This discovery lends teeth to the claim by (Zucker and Darby, 2005)
that institutional theory is “rich in concepts.”
That list of concepts might be seen as representing the whole of institutional theory from a
conceptual perspective. It should be noted that at this “survey” stage, no concept appears to
be more “important” than another, and no component seems to be closer to the core of
institutional theory than any other. The next task is to search for concepts held in common
by the authors. It may be assumed that greater commonality represents less conflict. The
following is a list of the concepts that seemed most popular among the 14 descriptions
having been noted by three or more authors:
Actions (including behavior and practice), Isomorphic change, Legitimacy of
authority, Myth (including rational myth and institutional myth), Organizational
field, Organizational interactions, Organizational structure (including template and
model), Organizations, Uncertainty/Ambiguity.
13
These nine concepts stand in stark contrast to the 188 concepts that comprise the complete
list of concepts discussed as institutional theory. Also, it is worth noting that in the above
analysis a new version of institutional theory has been created with a new focus.
Moving from one form of popularity to another, of the 14 publications, two could clearly
be seen as the “most cited” according to Google Scholar™. The version of institutional
theory developed by DiMaggio & Powell (2002, original 1983) was cited by others over
5,000 times while Scott (1987) was cited more than 700 times suggesting a certain level of
authority in the field. The next lower cited article received about 200 citations. Focusing
on these two “most cited” versions of institutional theory, there are significant differences
and a few similarities. The DiMaggio & Powell version contains 22 concepts, while the
Scott version contains 57 concepts. The concepts held in common between these two are
limited to six:
Isomorphic change, Organizational goals, Organizational interaction,
Organizational structure, Organizations, and the Purposeful design of organizations
(including organizational modeling).
14
This focus on what might be considered an “authoritative” version essentially creates a
new description of institutional theory built on the shared conceptual components of the
authors. In this comparison, the overlap of six concepts stands in stark contrast to the 67
concepts that the two do not share. From one perspective, those six concepts may be seen
as representing an “authoritative” version of institutional theory. From another point of
view, those 67 different concepts may be seen as representing a conflict between two
versions of institutional theory. Again, it should be noted that this new description has lost
some conceptual breadth when compared to the whole body of institutional theory.
Another dimension of comparison may be found between the sources of the articles used
for this study. Of the fourteen versions of institutional theory, six are from ASQ and four
are from the AMJ. The remaining four were found as chapters or articles in other academic
journals.
Within those articles drawn from ASQ, there are a total of 103 concepts, 15 of which are
found in two or more of the six articles. Those shared concepts are:
15
Action/Behavior, Adaptation, Administrative component/oversight, Commitments,
Exogenous jolts, Institutional environment, Isomorphism, Legitimacy, Normative
commitments, Organizational structure, Organizations, Rewards, Technical
activities, Uncertainty/Ambiguity, Values.
In contrast, the four articles drawn from AMJ contained a total of 49 concepts, of which
nine are noted in two or more articles. They are:
Action/Behavior, Centrality/Eliteness, Compliance/Conformity, Exogenous jolts,
Institutional logic, Maturity of organizational field, Organizational field,
Organizational processes, Organizational structure.
Here it should be noted that the differences between the ASQ version and the AMJ version
of institutional theory far outweigh the few similarities. Indeed, between the two, there are
156 concepts that are different, while only the concepts of Action/Behavior and
Organizational structure are held in common. Perhaps most glaringly Isomorphism has
been lost as a shared concept, a situation to which some may take exception.
16
There are obvious limitations to this study such as sample size and the amount of
interpretation applied to understand exactly what the authors meant to convey with each
specific word. However, a larger sample size might result in still more concepts resulting
in still more confusion and conflict.
It should also be noted that any discussion around some deeper level of understanding
must consist of still more concepts. Therefore, a deeper exploration might be expected to
produce much the same kinds of results as presented in the present study. Indeed, the
addition of more concepts will likely create new levels of conflict. You may also note that
this brief study began with 14 version of institutional theory and generated four more. In
some sense, this process may be considered representative of the process of academic
publications in general where investigation and analysis results in the generation of new
concepts and new theory. Yet this expansion does not seem to have increased the
understanding of institutional theory. In short, it may be concluded that institutional theory
is a highly contested field of study, a contest that has been largely hidden until now.
17
This study is useful because it provides a comprehensive view of the concepts within the
body of theory. Additionally, each group of concepts might be viewed as a “school of
thought” for institutional theory within its specific venue.
A weakness of the preset study is that it may be considered static because it is used to
analyze a “snapshot” of theory as that theory may be represented within a particular span
of time. In the next section, I will look at how institutional theory has changed over time.
18
STUDY #2 – DYNAMIC ROBUSTNESS
As developed by Wallis (2008), the concept of robustness has been used to describe the
stability of a network that is experiencing external perturbations. A system (e.g. human,
organizational, or conceptual) that is robust may be understood as one that will endure, or
has endured, for a longer time than one that is not robust. A system that is completely
unstable or chaotic would have a robustness of zero, while a perfectly stable system would
be understood as having a robustness of one. By measuring those perturbations we may
determine the “dynamic robustness” of a system of theory. We do this by identifying the
ratio of stable concepts to changing concepts.
In this process, one begins with two forms of a theory, then identifies the concepts
contained in each form of the theory and assigns a numerical value based on the number of
component concepts. Next, the ratio between the two (earlier and later) versions of the
theory is taken. If the two theories are identical, the dynamic robustness will be equal to
one. If the two theories have no concepts in common, they will have a dynamic robustness
of zero.
19
For an abstract example, if theory “A1” has four distinct concepts (a, b, c, d) and
subsequently evolves, through a process of reinterpretation by the same or alternate author,
into theory “A2” with four concepts (c, d, e, f,), it may be seen that these two versions of
theory together as having a total of six concepts (a, b, c, d, e, f) with only two concepts
held in common (c, d). This relationship suggests that in the process of evolving from
theory A1 to theory A2, the theory exhibited a dynamic robustness of 0.33 (two divided by
six). Of course, such measures might only be considered valid when the concepts
themselves are unambiguous.
This technique may be used to quantify perturbations in theory with some level of
objectivity. Additionally, this method may be seen as responding to Hull’s (1988) deep
discussion on the evolution of theory – and providing a tool to aid in the mapping of that
evolution. The present study suggest that there are vast perturbations suggesting a
previously unexplored layer of conflict existing beneath the veneer of academic civility
and, as such, a rich opportunity for investigation.
In this study, each author’s influence on institutional theory may be understood as a
perturbation. As such, useful examples may be found in the data used for the present
20
article. In three publications (James and Wooten, 2006, Lewin and Volberda, 2005, Mezias
and Scarselletta, 1994), the authors suggest that their interpretation of institutional theory
has been drawn from a single source – the often-cited DiMaggio & Powell (2002, original
1983) whose article identified 22 concepts.
Despite citing DiMaggio & Powell as the sole source of their version of institutional
theory, Mezias & Scarselletta noted only four concepts in 1994. The present author
identified only two concepts as identical between those two versions of institutional theory.
This suggests a dynamic robustness of 0.08 – the result of two divided by 24. Similarly, in
2006 James & Wooten noted two concepts both of which appeared to have been drawn
directly from DiMaggio & Powell. This relationship indicates a dynamic robustness of
0.09 – the result of two divided by 22. More robustness is found with Lewin & Volberda
who, in 2005, described 12 concepts, five of which could be said to be in common with
their source: DiMaggio & Powell’s 22 concepts. This suggests a dynamic robustness of
0.17 – the result of five divided by 29.
This issue of low robustness and conflicting forms of theory is not limited to the evolution
of theory between authors. Among the 14 descriptions of institutional theory in the present
21
study, some are by the same authors. Scott wrote on institutional theory in 1987 and again
in 2005. Suddaby & Greenwood wrote on institutional theory in 2005 and again in 2006 as
Greenwood & Suddaby. These examples offer the opportunity to investigate the dynamic
robustness of a theory as it evolves between authors.
In 1987, Scott noted 57 concepts. In 2005, he had reduced that number to 13, about ten of
which might be said to be held in common between the two versions. This suggests a
dynamic robustness of 0.17 – the result of ten divided by 60. While such a low level of
robustness might be attributed to the long span of time between the writings, other authors
have an even lower level of robustness despite fewer intervening years. Suddaby &
Greenwood note five concepts in 2005 and then 26 concepts in 2006 with only one concept
held in common. This suggests a dynamic robustness of 0.03 – the result of one divided by
30.
The low level of robustness between theories described by the same writers may be
explained by the idea that the articles were written for different publications. Suddaby &
Greenwood wrote in 2005 for Administrative Science Quarterly, while their 2006 paper
was written for Academy of Management Journal. It remains an open question as to what
22
constitutes a legitimate representation of a theory if the theory undergoes such a dramatic
change at every turn. This is not to say that the authors have avoided academic justification
for their views. It must be assumed that they have met the prevailing standards for rigor.
One key idea here is that our academic standards are insufficient to support the
advancement of institutional theory because we have not been quantifying advancement in
any meaningful way.
In the preceding section, the results of study #1 suggest that it is difficult or impossible to
discern the core of institutional theory. In the present section, the low level of dynamic
robustness suggests one cause for our difficulty in defining the core of institutional theory.
The number of theories, and the concepts within those theories is growing rather rapidly.
In short, it may be suggested that institutional theory is experiencing more change than
stability and there appears to be a high level of conflict over what institutional theory “is.”
Recent insights into the development and structure of theory (e.g. Wallis, 2008, Van de
Ven, 2007) provide useful tools for the analysis of theory that are expected to help find
common ground in this conflict. In the next section, I present a discussion on the structure
23
of theory. That discussion will support the third study in which I will identify the coherent
core of institutional theory.
24
THE ROBUST STRUCTURE OF THEORY
In this section, I discuss the structure of theory and provide the conceptual support for the
third analysis of the present paper. As described by Wallis (2008), an important though
rarely explored question in academic research may be phrased as: “Is it possible to
ascertain the legitimacy of a theory through its structure?” Dubin (1978) suggests that there
are four levels of efficacy in theory; and, these levels seem to reflect the structure of the
theory: 1) Presence /Absence – what concepts are contained within a theory; 2)
Directionality – what are the causal concepts and what are the emergent concepts within
the theory; 3) Co-variation – how several concepts might impel change in one another; and
4) Rate of change – to what quantity does each of the elements within the theory effect one
another. Parson and Shills note four similar levels of systemization of theory moving
toward increasing “levels of systemization” (Friedman, 2003, p. 518).
Reflecting the validity of these assertions, Newton’s F=ma might be seen as residing at the
highest level because it is possible to identify quantitative changes in one aspect (e.g.
force) from changes in other aspects (e.g. mass & acceleration). Such a high level of
25
understanding has been long sought in the social sciences. However, this long-forgotten
promise of the social sciences has remained elusive.
In another approach toward order, Weick (1989) draws on Southerland to describe theory
as, “an ordered set of assertions” (p. 517). This raises the question of just how well ordered
those assertions might be. By “ordered,” it might be implied that those assertions are to be
arranged alphabetically, by apparent importance, or any number of possible methods, as in
the above study #1. This “neatly or conveniently arranged” (1993, p. 1363) does not seem
to add much to the general understanding of theory, however. We gain no useful insight
into the validity of a theory if the assertions are in alphabetical order or the year each
concept was added to the literature.
By ordered, therefore, it may be that Weick was implying something more significant than
a list. A more useful, or at least an alternative, epistemological validity, therefore, might be
developed by looking at the assertions or propositions of a theory as being “interrelated,”
where the propositions might be seen as, “reciprocally or mutually related” (1993, p. 998).
With such a view, a body of theory might be seen as a kind of system and, “…any part of
the system can only be fully understood in terms of its relationships with the other parts of
26
the whole system.” (Harder et al., 2004, p. 83, drawing on Freeman). It seems, therefore,
that every concept within a theory would best be understood through other concepts within
that body of theory. Significantly, this perspective seems to fit with Dubin’s (above)
assertion that theories of higher efficacy have explanations and concepts that are
understood as causing change in one another. In the present paper, I will refer to complex
propositions of this sort as “concatenated” in the sense expressed by Van de Ven (2007)
where two aspects of a theory are shown to influence the third aspect.
A concatenated proposition might be understood as one that takes note of three or more
concepts. Further, such propositions also describe the relationships between those
concepts. For an abstract example, a concatenated proposition might state that changes in
concept A and concept B will cause changes in concept C. Alternatively, another
concatenated proposition might state that changes in concept D will cause changes in
concepts E and F. For a concrete example, Scott (1987) suggests that an Organizational
structure is formed by Time, Adaptation, and Historical dependency. Thus, the
interrelationship of three aspects results in a fourth aspect. It may be assumed that changes
in one of the causal aspects will result in changes in the resultant aspect.
27
Propositions that contain multiple concepts but are not usefully interrelated are no
substitute for concatenated propositions. This idea relates to the need for parsimony in
theory (e.g. Van de Ven, 2007). For an abstract example, consider a set of propositions
claiming that changes in concept A cause changes in concept B, which then result in
changes to concept C. The idea of parsimony suggests that the propositions of that theory
be reduced to “Changes in A result in changes to C” because the concept of B does not add
much to the explanation (Stinchcombe, 1987, p. 132).
To briefly compare and contrast levels of interrelatedness, it may be said that the lowest
level of relationship may be found in some jumble of random concepts. A higher level of
interrelatedness might be seen in a book-length philosophical inquiry, where an author
describes concepts thus causing each to exist in closer relationship with others. Other
authors have used a wide variety of methods for increasing relatedness between concepts
such as placing them in a list as in the above Study #1, a flow-chart showing a cycle (e.g.
Nonaka, 2005, for social construction), a matrix (e.g. Pepper, 1961, for metaphors), or a
combination of lists and flows to create a meta-model (e.g. Slawski, 1990). With each
increasing level of relatedness, a reader might find new insights based on the relatedness
between concepts.
28
Another way to look at interrelatedness might be seen in the concept of “reflexive.” Hall
(1999) suggests that some forms of inquiry represent a “third path” of inquiry that is
primarily neither objective, nor subjective; rather it is essentially reflexive, where meaning
is created in a socially constructed sense. In contrast to reflexive forms used in the sense of
the interaction between individuals, however, the second study of the present paper looks
at reflexive analysis in the sense that suggests a relationship within, or between, the
concepts of institutional theory.
Combining the idea of relatedness with the idea of theory having a tight core and a loose
belt, the concepts in the core might be seen as being more closely interrelated than the belt.
For example, the above reductive study of institutional theory was derived from, and also
produced, descriptions with low levels of interrelatedness, as might be found in the loosely
defined belt of a theory because the new theories are presented essentially as lists of
concepts.
In the following section, I present study #3. There, I will examine the authors’ conceptual
components that may be understood as being imbedded in the authors’ “propositions.” Van
29
de Ven (2007, p. 117) states, “A proposition is a declarative sentence expressing a
relationship among some terms.” He goes on to describe four kinds of propositions, one of
which is: Conditional - if-then statements showing causal relationships. In that section, I
present a methodological tool to objectively quantify robustness and so obtain an objective
benchmark for the advancement of institutional theory.
30
STUDY #3 – INVESTIGATING RELATIONAL PROPOSITIONS
Completing the third point of the triangulation, the study presented in this section will
reflect another perspective of institutional theory. Rather than then dynamic robustness
developed in study #2, this section will explore a static form of robustness. In the above
studies, the focus was on the discrete, atomistic concepts found within each authors’
description of institutional theory. In contrast, the following section presents another
analysis of institutional theory. This third study will focus on the concatenated propositions
from the authors’ descriptions of institutional theory.
As developed by Wallis (2008), static robustness is an objective representation of the
internal integrity of the structure of a body of theory. A measure of robustness may be
achieved by comparing the total number of aspects within the theory to the number of
aspects that are concatenated. On one end of that scale, a theory that simply lists its
component concepts, without identifying how the concepts are related to one another,
would have a robustness of zero.
31
For example, in the above study #1, the four new versions of theory are all lists of concepts
and, as such, have static robustness of zero because no conceptual aspect is said to have
any effect on any other. On the other end of the scale, a fully robust theory (e.g. Newton’s
F=ma) has multiple dimensions each of which is concatenated from the other two.
Therefore, such a theory has a robustness of one - the result of three divided by three.
This study will draw on the descriptions of institutional theory as developed by the above
authors and, for reasons of space, will focus on those descriptions found in ASQ (Scott,
1987, Carroll et al., 1988, Selznick, 1996, Ocasio, 1999, Mezias and Scarselletta, 1994,
Suddaby and Greenwood, 2005). For the present study, I have rewritten the propositions
for clarity. In this process, no alteration of the authors’ original meaning is intended.
Rather than interpret the intentions of the authors, the present analysis will err on the side
of a conservative view. Where the authors of these 14 versions of institutional theory use
different words, the present author will assume that they used those words specifically to
connote different meanings. Among these complex, concatenated propositions, there are
few areas of congruence, yet few areas of conflict. They are:
32
1. Organizational interaction and adaptation arises in response to internal and external
environments. (Selznick, 1996, p. 271)
2. More structure from institutional myths – more elaborate displays of
confidence/satisfaction/good faith and less inspection and evaluation from external
sources. (Selznick, 1996, p. 273)
3. More structure from institutional myths – more elaborate displays of
confidence/satisfaction/good faith and less inspection and evaluation from internal
sources. (Selznick, 1996, p. 273)
4. Identities of decision makers and Matching Situations to Rules enables decisionmaking. (Ocasio, 1999, p. 387)
5. More norms of appropriate beliefs and behavior cause members actions to become
routinized and to rely on rules of corporate governance. (Ocasio, 1999, p. 388)
6. Characteristics of participants and commitments of participants + influences of
environment and constraints of environment - shapes organizational structure. (Scott,
1987p. 494)
7. Conscious design & intervention affect institutionalization process. (Scott, 1987, p.
495)
33
8. Individuals take action, interpret action and share those interpretations with others –
causes social order. (Scott, 1987, p. 495)
9. Actions, repeated over time and assigned similar meanings is defined as
institutionalization. (Scott, 1987, p. 495)
10. Technological production, Bureaucracies, and pluralization of lifeworlds (e.g.
differentiation of public & private spheres), shape consciousness. (Scott, 1987, p. 496)
11. Belief systems and cognitive styles come from rational / purposeful organizations.
(Scott, 1987, p. 496)
12. Time, adaptation (mostly unplanned), and historical dependency results in
organizational structure. (Scott, 1987, p. 506)
Those propositions are represented in figure #1, where each arrow represents causal
direction, indicating where one aspect of institutional theory will have an effect on another.
As the concept of non-linear dynamics is an important aspect of institutional theory and
complexity theory (e.g. Dent and Holt, 2001, Lichtenstein, 2000), it may be worth noting
that the relationship between the causal aspects of this description of institutional theory
seems to support the idea of a non-linear or non-deterministic structure. This view is in
contrast to an atomistic list of conceptual components.
34
[…Insert figure #1 about here… ]
In the institutional theory model presented in figure 1, there are a total of 29 aspects.
However, of those only nine may be understood as emerging from the concatenated
relationship of other aspects: Cognitive styles / consciousness, Institutionalization, Social
order, Rational / purposeful organizations, Routinized, Organizational structure,
Adaptation, Organizational interaction, and Decision making. Therefore this form of the
theory has a static robustness of 0.31 – the result of nine divided by 29. In short, the causal
version may be seen as an improvement over the atomistic version and the present paper
serves as an example of advancing theory towards a robust form.
Rather than focusing on changes in interpretation among or between authors, as in the
second study, or the creation of schools of thought, as in the first study, this process
35
identifies the core of theory from the relationships between the concepts related in the
propositions.
The presented description surfaces challenging questions. First, there are a number of
aspects that are only causal, such as Belief systems, Time, and Historical dependency.
From the framework of understanding developed in the previous section, these aspects
represent “absolutes” – it is not clearly defined where they “originate.” To advance this
model towards robustness, it would be useful for each of the causal aspects to be defined
by two or more existing aspects in the model. For example, “Structure from institutional
myth” might be understood as resulting from “Actions repeated” and “Sharing
interpretations.” Alternatively, it might be suggested that the phrase “Sharing
interpretations” is essentially the same thing as institutional myth.
It should be noted here that the diagram, as presented, is a simplified representation. More
realistically, a robust theory should be viewed as a set of interrelated dimensions. For
example, Organizational structure should not be understood as something that does or does
not exist; rather, it should be understood as a dimensional product where more of each of
its six causal aspects will result in more Organizational structure.
36
Although by focusing on the concatenated propositions this model has left out many
component concepts of institutional theory, the closely related nature of the included
aspects suggest that it may be a good representative for the core of institutional theory.
37
DISCUSSION – COMPARISONS AND INSIGHTS
In this paper, I’ve presented three analyses each drawing on the same 14 versions of
institutional theory found in relevant academic publications. The first study focused on the
188 conceptual components found in those 14 versions. This study found more
disagreement than agreement between authors. Further, this study found that approaching
the whole body of institutional theory from various perspectives resulted in more versions
of the theory, but did not seem useful in identifying the core of institutional theory. In the
second study, I identified further conflict between versions of institutional theory even
when the same authors present those versions. Additionally, those variations are quantified
in terms of dynamic robustness between versions of the theory. In the third study, the focus
shifted to the relationship between concepts based on the idea that more complex
relationships suggest a higher level of structure – and therefore the opportunity for greater
efficacy in theory. The third study found that the static robustness of institutional theory is
0.31 on a scale of zero to one.
Limitations
38
While the present study suggests lines of investigation for advancing IT, there are also
important limitations. Most notably, the sample size of 14 versions of theory might not be
considered significant. The validity and usefulness of this line of research may be
improved by repeating the study with a larger sample.
Second, it is assumed by the present author that this method of analysis is repeatable – that
if performed by others, it would lead to substantially similar results. That assumption
should be tested.
Moving from reflections on the study to reflections on the results, it seems that viewing the
profusion of concepts found in institutional theory is more like looking through a
kaleidoscope than a coherent lens. From such a list, it is understandable how scholars
might be impelled to select a few concepts from the range of possibilities, rather than apply
them all. As noted above, that process also results in the generation of still more concepts.
Of course, the theory is still under development and the contribution of all authors, leading
to this broad collection of concepts, seems to be an essential step in the development of a
coherent, robust form of institutional theory. In short, metatheoretical analysis is not
possible without a foundation of multiple theoretical models.
39
It is an open question whether the generation of concepts must necessarily add to the outer
belt, or whether they might be promoted directly to the core.
Reductive or Robust
Comparing the flexibility of reductive and robust forms of theory and setting aside their
common requirement for scholarly justification, it seems that reductive forms enable the
easy addition or removal of concepts, essentially adding or removing them from the list. In
contrast, forms of theory that are robustly structured (e.g. Newton’s F=ma) are not so
easily altered. For example, referring to Figure #1, if the concept of “Structure from
institutional myth” were removed, the understanding of other concepts would be imperiled.
“Levels of inspection” and “Displays of confidence” would become disconnected from the
model. If a study does not include “Characteristics of participants,” the understanding of
“Organizational structure” would be imperiled.
In short, it seems that the reductive (and less integrated) forms of theory are more easily
changed and therefore may be seen as more easily manipulated or evolved by theorists.
40
That in turn suggests that as the field moves closer to a fully robust form of theory, it will
become more difficult to make further progress. The next few decades therefore may see
the evolution of competing very-nearly robust theories. Those theories may then be tested
in both real world and computer modeling venues. Then too, each version of theory may
find its own specific niche (e.g. one model may be applied to organizations, another to
individuals, and a third to schemas).
Additionally, the reductive study suggests a technique for identifying which concepts
within a general body of theory might be more closely connected with a given focus (e.g. a
version of institutional theory that is associated with a particular journal). A robust version,
in contrast, would be highly integrated so that the researcher is encouraged, and indeed
required to include all of the concepts for any given analysis. In the causal model depicted
in Figure #1, for example, a researcher focusing on Adaptation would be impelled to
describe how those interactions are modified by changes in the Internal environment and
the external environment. Additionally, the causal relationships imply that the researcher
describe how changes in the aspect of Adaptation altered the Organizational structure. In a
sense, this creates a road map that might be of benefit to researchers and students alike.
41
When a theory is not clear or consistent, it ceases to be a lens for viewing an organization
and becomes itself a representation of the author’s personal point of view. Further, this
view is typically tacit and so hidden from the reader unless explicated by such techniques
as are used in reflexive ethnography (e.g. Davies, 2001).
Core or Belt
An important aspect of Lakatos’ core/belt idea is that theorists may claim to have a core
while shifting the concepts in the belt to confound critics. This enables the theory to avoid
falsification in the Popperian sense; however, the theory that cannot be falsified cannot be
improved (Popper, 2002).
Studies #1 and #2 are relatively atomistic – focusing on component concepts. This
approach did not seem useful for discerning the core and belt of the theory. Rather than
identifying a single core, it might even be said that each perspective creates its own core.
That perspective-specific core might be considered as similar to a school of thought.
42
In contrast, study #3 suggests a core to the theory that is common to the entire body of
theory. That core is based on the idea that some concepts are more interconnected than
others. And, so, the changes in the theory and in the individual concepts must be more
effectively justified and so are less easily changed and more easily falsified.
In short, the core suggested in the present study may be thought of as defined by the
relationships between the concepts within the theory. That is to say from a point of view
that may be found from “within” the theory, rather than from any particular point of view
from “outside” the theory. The core suggested by study #3 is seen in Figure #2.
[… insert Figure #2 about here… ]
Future Studies
43
Looking to achieve a more optimal future of institutional theory, investigations should first
clarify the causal relationships suggested in the present paper. With a fully robust version
of institutional theory, the next step should be to test that model in the field and through
computer modeling to clarify or deny relationships suggested by the co-defined aspects.
Additionally, the “inter-testability” of the core aspects hints that such a model might be
falsifiable in the Popperian sense. For example, if the model pictured in Figure #1 were to
experience a change in Commitment of participants that did not result in a change in the
Organizational structure, the model would be falsified. This would, of course, open the
door to improving the model (Popper, 2002). Then too, if everything observable may be
explained in terms of the robust aspects, then each application in the field becomes a test of
the theory, and there is another opportunity to accelerate the evolution of institutional
theory through practice. Importantly, no study should be considered complete unless it
includes data representing all aspects of the theory.
Although compared with the longevity of Newton’s laws institutional theory might not
seem to be an “enduring” form of theory, it should be noted that the low level of
robustness found in this study suggests that theories with low robustness are more easily
transferred from author to author. Such a process may be linked to greater creativity as
44
authors generate new concepts and new versions of theory as the result of their research.
Metaphorically, this process might be related to an animal that undergoes mutation almost
with every step it takes. Such a high level of mutation may enable the creature to exist in a
wide variety of habitats; however, it should be asked, at what point do we begin calling
that creature by a different name? In contrast, let us consider an engineer who applies a
theory (e.g. Ohm’s law) from a textbook the design of a new piece of electronic equipment.
The result is usually a useful electronic device rather than a novel interpretation of the
theory. The benefits of the theory are spread to the society at large, rather than the name of
the theory spread across academic disciplines.
In creating this robust model, there is the opportunity to test institutional theory more
effectively. Any empirical study of institutional theory should be required to use a robust
model. Otherwise, the authors might be accused of bias in their choice of concepts from
the larger body of theory, and so have their useful work impugned. In such a robust study,
it would be necessary to identify empirical indicators from all of the robust dimensions of
the model.
45
Although this form of study would be necessarily more difficult, it is certainly within the
realm of expertise of most contributing scholars. Importantly, by the efforts of authors,
reviewers and editors, such an effort has the potential to rapidly accelerate the
advancement of theory for the benefit of scholars, practitioners, and society at large.
46
CONCLUSION – THE SURVIVAL OF INSTITUTIONAL THEORY
The present paper began with a search for an understanding of institutional theory. The
search identified many concepts however the studies presented here found more conflict
than commonality. Further study identified the static robustness of institutional theory and
paths for improving the robustness of the theory. A number of insights have emerged from
the present studies.
If institutional theory is applied to institutional theory, it may be seen that each published
article containing the words “institutional theory” acts as an institutional myth that
reinforces the idea of institutional theory, yet also serves to reduce the critical inspection
and evaluation from internal and external sources (Selznick, 1996, p. 273).
Those authors who are more central to the field of institutional theory may accept the
norms of that field as taken for granted (Greenwood and Suddaby, 2006, p. 28).
Fortunately, institutional logics are never frozen (Greenwood and Suddaby, 2006, p. 26).
As a newcomer to the field of institutional theory, I may be less “embedded” and therefore
possess more agency than others in the field (Reay et al., 2006, p. 977). In that case, the
47
present paper may serve as an exogenous jolt that disrupts the status quo causing
endogenous actors to be disembedded. They, having more agency as a result of the jolt,
may be impelled to take action.
The present paper may be thought of as a vocabulary that exposes contradictions in the
body of institutional theory, through the critical analysis of the conflicting versions of
theory. Similarly, it is a form of rhetoric that promotes an alternative vision of the structure
of the field (Suddaby and Greenwood, 2005, p. 35) in the sense that seeking a robust
structure to institutional theory is a more important goal than seeking innumerable insights.
The question becomes: Is the field of institutional theory, as a loosely coupled
organization, ready to give up some of its existing practices in the face of the new
circumstances (Selznick, 1996, p. 271) suggested by the search for robust theory?
In the present paper, I have answered the call of Zucker, and Darby (2005, p. 548) to find
some sort of order. Along the way, however, I found myself moving beyond the call to
finding relationships between the concepts and to identify useful directions for effective
development of the theory. My focus has not been on the imposition of order. Rather I am
focused on discovering what sense of order already exists amongst the thicket of theory.
48
The world of institutional theory is an organization, albeit a loosely connected one. And, as
such, the adaptation of that organization is shaped by the outside world (Selznick, 1996, p.
171). However, that world has challenged the validity of academic efforts in real-world
application such as the “mixed reviews” from the application of open systems theory
(McElyea, 2003) to the more general failure of organizational theory (Burrell, 1997). It
may be useful to ask if institutional theory will survive. Or will it join the 90% of social
theory that rises rapidly only to disappear just as quickly (Oberschall, 2000)?
The present paper provides a valuable contribution by identifying how academic efforts,
using the tool of robust theory, may lead to successful adaptation and the renewed
relevance of academia. In short, with robust theories of institutions, there exists the
opportunity to make academia much more relevant to the world of practice. Though stated
briefly, the implications here are quite profound.
In addition to this renewed promise of the social sciences, there are some additional
insights that have emerged from this process.
49
First, I have explicated and quantified the conflict inherent in the normal scientific
approach to institutional theory in terms of dynamic robustness. Understanding this
conflict implies the opportunity to advance the field more purposefully. Where previously
a reader might have believed that authors presenting on the topic of institutional theory are
describing the same thing, the present paper has shown that is not the case. The present
study highlights the opportunity for the integration of concepts and a path for
reconciliation. Importantly, a robust theory might be seen as possessing epistemological
justification, not from external testing, but internally through rigorous and repeatable
methods.
Second, moving toward a robust theory has, historically, provided astonishing results. In
Wallis (2010) shows how early theories of electricity had low levels of robustness and
were not useful in practical application. As the scientific revolution advanced the theories
became more robust and progressively more useful. Today, we have cell phones,
computers, and such because of the usefulness of those quantifiably robust theories. That
same kind of advance in effectiveness has long eluded the social sciences because we have
had no way to evaluate or integrate our theories with any sort of rigor. The methodology
50
presented in the present paper suggests that a path of advancement may now be within
reach.
Third, well-structured theories appear to be more falsifiable in the Popperian sense.
Therefore, it becomes possible to visualize a path for improving those theories and so
fulfill the promise of the social sciences. For those who can see the path, the process of
academic interaction may soon appear as more of a footrace to achieve measurably robust
and effective theories, rather than an American football game where yardage is traded back
and forth until the spectators are bored and go home to choose a different sport.
Fourth, based on Dubin’s (1978) list where increasing relatedness suggests higher efficacy
of theory, and Weick’s (1989) inference that propositions should be effectively ordered, or
interrelated, it may be suggested that increasing robustness suggests a higher level of
epistemological validity of a theory. In general, however, it is important that the causal
core may be seen as being derived from a different epistemological validity than the
loosely related list of concepts that comprises the belt. Where the belt may find validation
from any one of a wide range of research methodologies and points of view, as those
methods are the source of the concepts that inhabit the belt, the core finds validation only
51
in the relationship between its own concepts. This is a significant epistemological shift that
suggests a rich opportunity for additional study.
Finally, where it previously has been generally understood that social theory is advancing
due to some natural evolution of ideas emerging from the back-and-forth between scholars,
the present set of studies suggests that there may be no advancement. The methods
suggested in the present article open the door for more purposeful and more rapid
evolution of institutional theory towards greater usefulness.
52
REFERENCES
BARTLETT, J. (1992) Familiar Quotations: A Collection of Passages, Phrases, and
Proverbs Traced to their Sources in Ancient and Modern Literature, Toronto, Little,
Brown.
BURRELL, G. (1997) Pandemonium: Towards a Retro-Organizational Theory, Thousand
Oaks, California, Sage.
CARROLL, G. R., GOODSTEIN, J. & GYENES, A. (1988) Organizations and the state:
Effects of the institutional environment on agricultural cooperatives in Hungary.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 233-256.
DAVIES, C. A. (2001) Reflexive Ethnography: A Guide to Researching Selves and Others,
Routledge.
53
DENT, E. B. & HOLT, C. G. (2001) CAS in war, bureaucratic machine in peace: The U.S.
Air Force example. Emergence, 3, 90-107.
DICTIONARY (1993) Random House Unabridged Dictionary, New York, Random
House.
DIMAGGIO, P. J. & POWELL, W. W. (2002) The iron cage revisited: Institutional
isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. IN CALHOUN, C.,
GERTEIS, J., MOODY, J., PFAFF, S. & VIRK, I. (Eds.) Contemporary Sociological
Theory. Malden, MA, Blackwell.
DUBIN, R. (1978) Theory building, New York, The Free Press.
FRIEDMAN, K. (2003) Theory construction in design research: Criteria: Approaches, and
methods. Design Studies, 24, 507-522.
GREENWOOD, R. & SUDDABY, R. (2006) Institutional entrepreneurship in mature
fields: The big five accounting firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 27-48.
54
HALL, J. R. (1999) Cultures of inquiry: From epistemology to discourse in sociohistorical
research, New York, Cambridge University Press.
HARDER, J., ROBERTSON, P. J. & WOODWARD, H. (2004) The spirit of the new
workplace: Breathing life into organizations. Organization Development Journal, 22, 79103.
HJØRLAND, B. (2002) Domain analysis in information science: Eleven approaches traditional as well as innovative. Journal of Documentation, 58, 422-462.
HOOD, W. W. & WILSON, C. S. (2002) Analysis of the fuzzy set literature using phrases.
Scientometrics, 54, 103-118.
HULL, D. L. (1988) Science as a process: An evolutionary account of the social and
conceptual development of science, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
JAMES, E. H. & WOOTEN, L. P. (2006) Diversity Crisis: How firms manage
discrimination lawsuits. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1103-1118.
55
LAKATOS, I. (1970) Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research
Programmes. IN LAKATOS, I. & MUSGRAVE, A. (Eds.) Criticism and the Growth of
Knowledge. Cambridge university Press.
LEWIN, A. & VOLBERDA, H. W. (2005) The future of organizational studies: Beyond
the selection-adaptation debate. IN TSOUKAS, H. & KNUDSEN, C. (Eds.) The Oxford
Handbook of Organization Theory. Oxford University Press.
LICHTENSTEIN, B. M. B. (2000) Emergence as a process of self-organizing: New
assumptions and insights from the study of non-linear dynamic systems. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 13, 526-544.
MCELYEA, B. E. (2003) Organizational change models. Futurics, 27, 57-64.
MEYER, J. W. (2001) Globalization, national culture, and the future of the world polity.
Wei Lun Lecture. The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
MEZIAS, S. J. & SCARSELLETTA, M. (1994) Resolving financial reporting problems:
An institutional analysis of the process. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 654-678.
56
NONAKA, I. (2005) Managing organizational knowledge: Theoretical and methodological
foundations. IN SMITH, K. G. & HITT, M. A. (Eds.) Great Minds in Management: The
Process of Theory Development. New York, Oxford University Press.
OBERSCHALL, A. (2000) Oberschall reviews "Theory and Progress in Social Science"
by James B. Rule. Social Forces, 78, 1188-1191.
OCASIO, W. (1999) Institutionalized action and corporate governance: The reliance on
rules of CEO succession. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 384-416.
PALMER, D. A. & BIGGART, N. W. (2002) Organizational institutions. IN BAUM, J. A.
C. (Ed.) The Blackwell Companion to Organizations. Blackwell.
PENTLAND, B. T. (1999) Building process theory with narrative: From description to
explanation. Academy of Management Review, 24, 711-724.
PEPPER, S. C. (1961) World Hypothesis: A Study in Evidence, Berkeley, California,
University of California Press.
57
POPPER, K. (2002) The logic of scientific discovery, New York, Routledge Classics.
REAY, T., GOLDEN-BIDDLE, K. & GERMANN, K. (2006) Legitimizing a new role:
Small wins and microprocesses of change. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 977-998.
ROMM, N. R. A. (2001) Accountability in Social Research: Issues and Debates, New
York, Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers.
SCOTT, W. R. (1987) The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 32, 493-511.
SCOTT, W. R. (2005) Institutional theory: Contributing to a theoretical research program.
IN SMITH, B. J. & HITT, M. A. (Eds.) Great Minds in Management: The Process of
Theory Development. Oxford University Press.
SELZNICK, P. (1996) Institutionalism "old" and "new". Administrative Science Quarterly,
41, 270-277.
58
SLAWSKI, C. (1990) A small group process theory. IN BANATHY, B. A. & BANATHY,
B. H. (Eds.) Toward a Just Society for Future Generations - 34th Annual Meeting of the
International Society for Systems Sciences. Portland, Oregon, USA.
SOBEL, I. (1982) Human capital and institutional theories of the labor market: Rivals of
complements? Journal of Economic Issues, 16, 255-272.
STINCHCOMBE, A. L. (1987) Constructing social theories, Chicago, University of
Chicago Press.
SUDDABY, R. & GREENWOOD, R. (2005) Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 35-67.
UNKNOWN (2006) Quotation. http://www.quotationsbook.com/quote/27796/.
VAN DE VEN, A. H. (2007) Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social
research, New York, Oxford University Press.
59
WALLIS, S. E. (2008) From reductive to robust: Seeking the core of complex adaptive
systems theory. IN YANG, A. & SHAN, Y. (Eds.) Intelligent complex adaptive systems.
Hershey, PA, IGI Publishing.
WALLIS, S. E. (2010) The structure of theory and the structure of scientific revolutions:
What constitutes an advance in theory? IN WALLIS, S. E. (Ed.) Cybernetics and systems
theory in management: Views, tools, and advancements. Hershey, PA, IGI Global.
WEICK, K. E. (1989) Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of
Management Review, 14, 516-531.
ZILBER, T. B. (2006) The work of the symbolic in institutional processes: Translations of
rational myths in Israel high tech. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 281-303.
ZUCKER, L. & DARBY, M. (2005) An evolutionary approach to institutions and social
construction. IN SMITH, B. J. & HITT, M. A. (Eds.) Great minds in management: The
process of theory development. Oxford University Press.
60
ZUCKER, L. G. (1989) Institutional theory and population ecology" No legitimacy, no
history. American Sociological Review, 54, 542-548.
61
Actions
repeated
Belief systems
Actions
assigned similar
meanings
Sharing
interpretations
Time
Pluralization of
lifeworlds
Technological
production
Rational /
Purposeful
organizations
Interpretation of
action
Institutionalization
Social Order
Cognitive styles
/ Consciousness
Organizational
structure
Individual
actions
Routinized (rely
on rules)
Structure from
institutional
myth
Bureaucracies
Adaptation
Characteristics
of participants
External
environment
(influences and
constraints)
Historical
dependency
More elaborate
displays of
confidence
Less in section
and evaluation
Decisionmaking
Organizational
interaction
Internal
environment
More norms of
appropriate
beliefs
Matching rules
to situations
Commitment of
participants
Figure #1 – Relationships between concatenated concepts of institutional theory
62
Concepts closer to Belt:

Belief systems

More elaborate displays of
confidence

Internal environment
Intermediate Concepts:

More norms of appropriate beliefs

Routinized (rely on
rules)

Interpretation of action

Individual actions

Characteristics of
participants

Organizational structure

Decision-making

Social Order

Structure from
institutional myth

Cognitive styles /
Consciousness

Time


Rational /
Purposeful
organizations

Adaptation

Organizational
interaction

Sharing interpretations

Actions assigned similar
meanings

Actions repeated

Technological production

Bureaucracies


Pluralization
of lifeworlds

External environment (influences
and constraints)

Less in section and evaluation

Historical dependency

Matching rules to situations

Commitment of participants
Concepts closer to Core:
Institutionalization
Figure #2 – Concepts, and their relationship with the core of institutional theory
63