From Novel Practice to Consecrated Exemplar: Unity Temple as a Case of Institutional Evangelizing

Abstract

Institutional theorists focus on practices that spread because they conform with and build on established cultural assumptions and resources. Novel practices, however, not only fail to conform to, but also challenge the dominant institutional order. We seek to understand the process by which novel practices move from entrepreneurial anomaly to consecrated exemplar within a field. We contrast Unity Temple by Frank Lloyd Wright—a building that challenged the accepted practices of ecclesiastical design in the architectural profession—with the most prominent churches during the same period. We find two distinct legitimation processes—institutional evangelism where creators express their identity and generate novel practices versus adaptive emulation where adopters focus on prestigious others and emulate their established practices. We reveal that actors engaged in institutional evangelism and adaptive emulation, employing institutional work and leveraging ideas, materials and identities to effect, transform, and maintain institutions. Our comparative cases show the key role of materiality, particularly collective identity markers, in institutional work and institutional processes.

Crossing the streams: HRM in multinational enterprises and comparative HRM

“…Whilst this school of thought is already established in both streams, we argue that the more refined developments within this theoretical discourse -often developing into theoretical streams of their own under the broader umbrella of the overall theory -have neither fully found their way into the HRM discourse, nor been used to explain convergence and divergence nor, for that matter, standardisation and differentiation. For example, the neoinstitutionalist discourse has produced a number of theoretical insights which point more towards potential mechanisms of standardisation/convergence such as interlocks (Shipilov, Greve, & Rowley, 2010), proximity (Knoben & Oerlemans, 2006), exemplars (Jones & Massa, 2013), or carriers (Scott, 2003); and towards mechanisms of differentiation/divergence, in particular translation and diffusion (Czarniawska & Sevón, 2005), and intra-organisational dynamics, visibility/status, and core-periphery location. For example, the literature on different types of proximity allows a more differentiated understanding of the role of various types of proximity, geographical, technological and organisational, for analysing the HRM developments over time at both the national level and at the level of MNEs.…”

Children Without Bruised Knees: Responding to Material and Ideational (Mis)alignments

“…We have shown how key decision-makers include both material and ideational considerations as they grapple with the institutional contradictions that new institutional demands may elicit (Greenwood et al, 2011;Pache & Santos, 2010;Powell & Colyvas, 2008;Seo & Creed, 2002). Our findings indicate that limiting our focus to 'the ideational or symbolic' at the expense of 'the material' necessarily limits our understanding of the underlying motivations that drive organizational actors to exhibit differential responses (Jones & Massa, 2013;Thornton et al, 2012). Therefore, we infer that specifying the content of institutional pressures by including both material and ideational aspects of institutions enhances our understanding of the nature of organizational responses.…”

“…For instance, new safety prescriptions of regulative authorities can demand the redesign and reconstruction of buildings or technologies often in the interest of safety (Scott, 2008, p. 82). Next to being actively shaped by institutional pressures, these same physical objects also transfer meaning, norms and values imposed by institutional requirements, because physical objects embody prevailing ideas, beliefs, norms and values (Barley, 1986;Jones & Massa, 2013;Orlikowski, 2000;Scott, 2008). Nevertheless, the 'material side' of institutions has received far less attention from institutional scholars who predominantly focused on symbolic aspects Lepoutre & Valente, 2012;Orlikowski & Scott, 2008;Scott, 2008).…”

“…Material and visual artifacts can have important social implications, as they embody ideas, travel through time and space, constitute objects of (re) interpretation, capture our imagination and trigger a range of cognitive, emotional and substantive responses (e.g. Fiol & O'Conner, 2006;Friedland, 2013;Gieryn, 2002;Jones & Massa, 2013;Rafaeli & Vilnai-Yavetz, 2004;Raviola & Norbäck, 2013;Stigliani & Ravasi, 2012;). However, in their translation to organizational theories, these material elements seem to be lost along the way .…”

Complex field-positions and non-imitation: Pioneers, strangers, and insulars in australian fine-wine

“…These prescriptions are pivotal in shaping the practice to be institutionalized. They are typically set by acclaimed, successful, highstatus actors, who theorize, evangelize, or promote practices gaining exemplarity through positive evaluation by recognized audiences (Greenwood, Suddaby, & Hinings, 2002;Jones & Massa, 2013;Rao, Monin, & Durand, 2003;Strang & Meyer, 1993). Exemplary high-status actors serve as role models for other field-members who scrutinize and imitate their practices, particularly when uncertainty and ambiguity are high, as in emerging fields (Aldrich & Fiol, 1994;Stinchcombe, 1965).…”