Building the Iron cage

Institutional creation work in the context of competing proto-institutions

Charlene Zietsma, Brent McKnight

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

54 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationInstitutional Work
Subtitle of host publicationActors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations
PublisherCambridge University Press
Pages143-176
Number of pages34
ISBN (Electronic)9780511596605
ISBN (Print)9780521518550
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2009

Fingerprint

Institutional arrangements
Iron
Institutional theory
Isomorphism
Institutional environment
Institutional innovation
Innovation
Institutional entrepreneurship
Institutional entrepreneur
Institutional structure
Technical efficiency
Organizational field
Legitimacy
Institutional support
Logic
Institutionalization

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Business, Management and Accounting(all)

Cite this

Zietsma, C., & McKnight, B. (2009). Building the Iron cage: Institutional creation work in the context of competing proto-institutions. In Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations (pp. 143-176). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511596605.006
Zietsma, Charlene ; McKnight, Brent. / Building the Iron cage : Institutional creation work in the context of competing proto-institutions. Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations. Cambridge University Press, 2009. pp. 143-176
@inbook{944ea50869904510925225b30e3ef204,
title = "Building the Iron cage: Institutional creation work in the context of competing proto-institutions",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Charlene Zietsma and Brent McKnight",
year = "2009",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1017/CBO9780511596605.006",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9780521518550",
pages = "143--176",
booktitle = "Institutional Work",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
address = "United Kingdom",

}

Zietsma, C & McKnight, B 2009, Building the Iron cage: Institutional creation work in the context of competing proto-institutions. in Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations. Cambridge University Press, pp. 143-176. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511596605.006

Building the Iron cage : Institutional creation work in the context of competing proto-institutions. / Zietsma, Charlene; McKnight, Brent.

Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations. Cambridge University Press, 2009. p. 143-176.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

TY - CHAP

T1 - Building the Iron cage

T2 - Institutional creation work in the context of competing proto-institutions

AU - Zietsma, Charlene

AU - McKnight, Brent

PY - 2009/1/1

Y1 - 2009/1/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84928058568&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84928058568&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/CBO9780511596605.006

DO - 10.1017/CBO9780511596605.006

M3 - Chapter

SN - 9780521518550

SP - 143

EP - 176

BT - Institutional Work

PB - Cambridge University Press

ER -

Zietsma C, McKnight B. Building the Iron cage: Institutional creation work in the context of competing proto-institutions. In Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations. Cambridge University Press. 2009. p. 143-176 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511596605.006