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 “rationalactor 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-thaninstitutional 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 macro-organizational
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



Reframing the symbolic v. practice debate


Refocuses the processes of institutionalization itself
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?
