Does Institutional Theory Need Redirecting?

Renate Meyer, Markus A. Höllerer

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Greenwood, Hinings and Whetten (2014) present two major criticisms of current institutional scholarship, and see need for a broad redirection: institutional organization theory, they argue, has lost sight of the claim to study organizations and, with its overwhelming focus on isomorphism and similarity, has fallen short on adequately theorizing differences across organizations. In our article, we offer support as well as a riposte. First, while we agree that the organizing of collective efforts needs to be at the core of organization research, we warn that focusing on formal organization – a rationalized cultural product itself – may direct attention away from studying alternative modes of organizing, and underestimates the dynamic developments that have transformed contemporary organizations into increasingly complex objects of inquiry. Second, we are concerned that, by abandoning the analysis of similarities in favour of differences, institutional theory may eventually lose sight of its pivotal quest: to study institutions.
Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Management Studies
Volume51
Issue number7
Pages (from-to)1221-1233
Number of pages13
ISSN0022-2380
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2014

Cite this

Meyer, Renate ; Höllerer, Markus A. / Does Institutional Theory Need Redirecting?. In: Journal of Management Studies. 2014 ; Vol. 51, No. 7. pp. 1221-1233.
@article{617f5ddb4992468d883b66f127447058,
title = "Does Institutional Theory Need Redirecting?",
abstract = "Greenwood, Hinings and Whetten (2014) present two major criticisms of current institutional scholarship, and see need for a broad redirection: institutional organization theory, they argue, has lost sight of the claim to study organizations and, with its overwhelming focus on isomorphism and similarity, has fallen short on adequately theorizing differences across organizations. In our article, we offer support as well as a riposte. First, while we agree that the organizing of collective efforts needs to be at the core of organization research, we warn that focusing on formal organization – a rationalized cultural product itself – may direct attention away from studying alternative modes of organizing, and underestimates the dynamic developments that have transformed contemporary organizations into increasingly complex objects of inquiry. Second, we are concerned that, by abandoning the analysis of similarities in favour of differences, institutional theory may eventually lose sight of its pivotal quest: to study institutions.",
keywords = "Archetypes, Bundles of practices, Institutional logics, Institutional theory, Organizing",
author = "Renate Meyer and H{\"o}llerer, {Markus A.}",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1111/joms.12089",
language = "English",
volume = "51",
pages = "1221--1233",
journal = "Journal of Management Studies",
issn = "0022-2380",
publisher = "Blackwell Publishing",
number = "7",

}

Does Institutional Theory Need Redirecting? / Meyer, Renate; Höllerer, Markus A.

In: Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 51, No. 7, 2014, p. 1221-1233.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Does Institutional Theory Need Redirecting?

AU - Meyer, Renate

AU - Höllerer, Markus A.

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Greenwood, Hinings and Whetten (2014) present two major criticisms of current institutional scholarship, and see need for a broad redirection: institutional organization theory, they argue, has lost sight of the claim to study organizations and, with its overwhelming focus on isomorphism and similarity, has fallen short on adequately theorizing differences across organizations. In our article, we offer support as well as a riposte. First, while we agree that the organizing of collective efforts needs to be at the core of organization research, we warn that focusing on formal organization – a rationalized cultural product itself – may direct attention away from studying alternative modes of organizing, and underestimates the dynamic developments that have transformed contemporary organizations into increasingly complex objects of inquiry. Second, we are concerned that, by abandoning the analysis of similarities in favour of differences, institutional theory may eventually lose sight of its pivotal quest: to study institutions.

AB - Greenwood, Hinings and Whetten (2014) present two major criticisms of current institutional scholarship, and see need for a broad redirection: institutional organization theory, they argue, has lost sight of the claim to study organizations and, with its overwhelming focus on isomorphism and similarity, has fallen short on adequately theorizing differences across organizations. In our article, we offer support as well as a riposte. First, while we agree that the organizing of collective efforts needs to be at the core of organization research, we warn that focusing on formal organization – a rationalized cultural product itself – may direct attention away from studying alternative modes of organizing, and underestimates the dynamic developments that have transformed contemporary organizations into increasingly complex objects of inquiry. Second, we are concerned that, by abandoning the analysis of similarities in favour of differences, institutional theory may eventually lose sight of its pivotal quest: to study institutions.

KW - Archetypes

KW - Bundles of practices

KW - Institutional logics

KW - Institutional theory

KW - Organizing

U2 - 10.1111/joms.12089

DO - 10.1111/joms.12089

M3 - Journal article

VL - 51

SP - 1221

EP - 1233

JO - Journal of Management Studies

JF - Journal of Management Studies

SN - 0022-2380

IS - 7

ER -