Building the Iron cage: Institutional creation work in the context of competing proto-institutions

Zietsma, C; McKnight, B

Building the Iron cage: Institutional creation work in the context of competing proto-institutions

Zietsma, C

McKnight, B

Permalink

Publication Type:: Chapter
Citation:: Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations, 2009, pp. 143 - 176
Issue Date:: 2009-01-01

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download full textAdobe PDF (469.91 kB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Zietsma, C https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6439-3320	en_US
dc.contributor.author	McKnight, B	en_US
dc.date.issued	2009-01-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations, 2009, pp. 143 - 176	en_US
dc.identifier.isbn	9780521518550	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/84717
dc.description.abstract	© Cambridge University Press 2009. A unique contribution of institutional theory is the insight that organizations need legitimacy as well as technical efficiency to survive and thrive in their envIronments (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Meyer & Rowan, 1977). The institutionalized norms, practices, and logics which structure organizational fields exert isomorphic pressures, forming an “Iron cage” which constrains organizational actions. Organizations are seen as legitimate when they conform to field structures and operate within the Iron cage (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Much work in institutional theory has focused on the diffusion of institutional structures and the forces which support institutional isomorphism. Yet not all institutional envIronments are highly institutionalized, and not all actors are equally constrained by institutional arrangements. A great deal of work in the last two decades has shown that institutional entrepreneurs may arise to question institutional arrangements (DiMaggio, 1988), resisting them strategically (Oliver, 1991; Ang & Cummings, 1997), disrupting and deinstitutionalizing them (Ahmadjian & Robinson, 2001; Oliver, 1992), and reconstructing them to suit the desires of different actors (Anand & Peterson, 2000; Hargadon & Douglas, 2001; Zilber, 2002). Much of the prior work on institutional entrepreneurship has tended to focus retrospectively on the path of a single institutional innovation as it gained support in an emerging or existing field, often displacing an existing set of institutional arrangements (e.g. Greenwood, Suddaby & Hinings, 2002; Maguire, Hardy & Lawrence, 2004; Munir, 2005). Throughout this work, competing or independently evolving innovations which may also have been candidates for institutionalization are generally not discussed.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1017/CBO9780511596605.006	en_US
dc.title	Building the Iron cage: Institutional creation work in the context of competing proto-institutions	en_US
dc.type	Chapter
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business
utslib.copyright.status	open_access
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US

Abstract:

© Cambridge University Press 2009. A unique contribution of institutional theory is the insight that organizations need legitimacy as well as technical efficiency to survive and thrive in their envIronments (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Meyer & Rowan, 1977). The institutionalized norms, practices, and logics which structure organizational fields exert isomorphic pressures, forming an “Iron cage” which constrains organizational actions. Organizations are seen as legitimate when they conform to field structures and operate within the Iron cage (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Much work in institutional theory has focused on the diffusion of institutional structures and the forces which support institutional isomorphism. Yet not all institutional envIronments are highly institutionalized, and not all actors are equally constrained by institutional arrangements. A great deal of work in the last two decades has shown that institutional entrepreneurs may arise to question institutional arrangements (DiMaggio, 1988), resisting them strategically (Oliver, 1991; Ang & Cummings, 1997), disrupting and deinstitutionalizing them (Ahmadjian & Robinson, 2001; Oliver, 1992), and reconstructing them to suit the desires of different actors (Anand & Peterson, 2000; Hargadon & Douglas, 2001; Zilber, 2002). Much of the prior work on institutional entrepreneurship has tended to focus retrospectively on the path of a single institutional innovation as it gained support in an emerging or existing field, often displacing an existing set of institutional arrangements (e.g. Greenwood, Suddaby & Hinings, 2002; Maguire, Hardy & Lawrence, 2004; Munir, 2005). Throughout this work, competing or independently evolving innovations which may also have been candidates for institutionalization are generally not discussed.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/84717