Agency and Institutions in Organization Studies

Abstract

Agency and institutions are essential concepts within institutional theory. In this Perspectives issue, we draw on a select group of Organization Studies articles to provide an overview of the topic of agency and institutions. We first consider different ways of defining agency and institutions and examine their implications for institutional theory. We then analyse the relationship of actors and institutions through four lenses -the wilful actor, collective intentionality, patchwork institutions and modular individuals. Our analysis leads us to dissociate agency from individuals and view it as a capacity or quality that stems from resources, rights and obligations tied to the roles and social positions actors occupy. Roles and social positions are institutionally engineered. It is social actors qua occupants of roles and positions (not individuals) that enter the social 'stage' and exercise agency.

Does context matter for sustainability disclosure? Institutional factors in Southeast Asia

“…By adopting Scott's (2008b) arguments to consider all the three institutional influences in tandem to generate a comprehensive understanding of institutions which could engender SD, we provide an alternative framework to identify external influencing factors, and overcomes the narrow operationalisation of institutions (Abdelnour, Hasselbladh, & Kallinikos, 2017).…”

A geographic relational perspective on the internationalization of emerging market firms

“…For example, resourcebased theory identifies how resource needs propel EMFs to go abroad (Deng, 2009;Yamakawa, Khavul, Peng, & Deeds, 2013), but it lacks discussion on the international processes of EMFs in their spatial contexts. In addition, micro-based behaviors of agencies tend to be absent, even though research on micro-level practice can make convincing explanations for macrophenomena such as the processes behind the catch-up strategy of EMFs and their acquisitions of DMFs (Abdelnour, Hasselbladh, & Kallinikos, 2017;Zheng, Wei, Zhang, & Yang, 2016). The springboard perspective (Luo & Tung, 2007 integrates learning with resource-based arguments, but it faces challenges of empirical verification and causal identification (Ramamurti, 2012).…”

“…In summary, our research focus is on the emergence or the ''becoming'' that ensues from these processes, and on explaining this emergence of an international firm in terms of relational systems and actors, and their recurrent context-relevant patterns of interaction (Abdelnour et al, 2017;Gluckler & Panitz, 2016). The unit of analysis is an actor's networks, relationships, and interactions (Gluckler & Doreian, 2016;Yeung, 2005).…”

“…Actors are proactively involved in the construction and reconstruction of institutional resources within and across national contexts (Abdelnour et al, 2017). These actions are overlain by the temporal and spatial dimensions of context (Autio, Kenney, Mustar, Siegel, & Wright, 2014).…”

Whither design science research?

“…The notion of the ensemble artefact and the relationship among socio-technical systems, socio-materiality and work systems are other areas to which DSR researcher are likely to make contributions. Other contemporary domains where DSR seems to offer considerable promise is in understanding the socio-technical nature of agency, information infrastructures and platforms, without the black-boxing of technology common in other disciplines (Abdelnour, Hasselbladh, & Kallinikos, 2017;Plantin, Lagoze, Edwards, & Sandvig, 2018). DSR researchers recognise platforms and algorithms are purposefully designed and seek not only to understand the implications of these on social practices and institutions but to find ways to ascertain positive outcomes.…”