Microfoundations and Multi-Level Research on Institutions

Haack, Patrick; Sieweke, Jost; Wessel, Lauri

doi:10.1108/s0733-558x2019000065a005

Cited by 36 publications

(75 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The two effects need to be separated, as previous research has suggested that propriety (and legitimacy more generally) can be conceptualized as a bipolar construct, meaning that it ranges from positive propriety to negative propriety (impropriety) (Hudson, 2008; Suddaby et al, 2017). Consistent with the work of Haack and colleagues (2020b), we expect these effects to be stronger within high‐consensus conditions, as participants are more likely to follow their validity beliefs (i.e., their beliefs about what others believe) and to hide their propriety beliefs in these contexts. That is, if an evaluator holds unfavourable propriety beliefs about a valid legitimacy object (e.g., a hierarchical system or status order) and also knows that this object is unanimously approved (i.e., consensus is high), that evaluator will be less likely to voice unfavourable propriety beliefs and more likely to adapt his or her propriety beliefs over time (strong cancelling effect).…”

Section: Advancing Legitimacy Research With Experimentssupporting

confidence: 71%

“…Based on the theoretical notions developed above, we posit that the formation of propriety beliefs regarding a legitimacy object is contingent on both the perceived validity of that object and the degree to which it is consensually regarded as appropriate for its social context. Specifically, it can be assumed that propriety beliefs are likely to be revised and also disclosed in contexts characterized by high validity and low consensus, because a lack of consensus casts doubt on whether legitimacy objects perceived as valid represent an objective and collectively approved fact (for a related argument in a field setting, see Haack et al, 2020b).…”

Section: Survey Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Legitimacy Revisited: Disentangling Propriety, Validity, and Consensus

Haack

Schilke

Zucker

2020

J Management Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent research has conceptualized legitimacy as a multi-level phenomenon comprising propriety and validity. Propriety refers to an individual evaluator's belief that a legitimacy object is appropriate for its social context, whereas validity denotes an institutionalized, collective-level perception of appropriateness. In this article, we refine this multi-level understanding of legitimacy by adding a third, meso-level construct of 'consensus', which we define as the agreement between evaluators' propriety beliefs. Importantly, validity and consensus are distinct and can be incongruent, given that an institutionalized perception can hide underlying disagreement. Disentangling validity from consensus is a crucial extension of the multi-level theory of legitimacy, because it enables an improved understanding of the legitimacy processes that precede sudden and unanticipated institutional change. In particular, while previous works considered revised propriety beliefs as the starting point for institutional change, our account emphasizes that the disclosure of the actual (vs. merely assumed) belief distribution within a social context may instigate institutional change. To study the interplay of propriety, validity, and consensus empirically, we propose a set of experimental designs specifically geared towards improving knowledge of the role of legitimacy and its components in institutional change.

show abstract

Section: Advancing Legitimacy Research With Experimentssupporting

confidence: 71%

Section: Survey Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Legitimacy Revisited: Disentangling Propriety, Validity, and Consensus

Haack

Schilke

Zucker

2020

J Management Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In response to this deficiency, there has been a burgeoning interest in what is often referred to as the microfoundations or micro dynamics of 6 institutions (Haack, Sieweke, & Wessel, 2019). Work in this diverse domain wrestles with how people participate in institutional processes at the micro and meso levels.…”

Section: Cue the Burgeoning Interest In The Micro Dynamics Of Institumentioning

confidence: 99%

A Place in the World: Vulnerability, Well-Being, and the Ubiquitous Evaluation That Animates Participation in Institutional Processes

Creed

Hudson

Okhuysen

et al. 2022

AMR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We explain how and why people become motivated to participate in institutional processes. Responding to recent efforts to address the micro and meso in institutional analysis, we introduce two interrelated constructs, a person's embodied world of concern and a community's shared world of concern, which shape how people experience, evaluate, and participate in institutional arrangements. The world of concern, which is the product of people's sedimented experiences of thriving and suffering, becomes the basis for their commitments to antagonisms towards certain social arrangements. The world of concern, as a lens, sheds light on the complex ways the macro, meso, and micro levels are co-implicated in constructing commitments and attachments that animate action in institutional arenas by providing a new metaphor, one that links the realism of participant concerns to the micro dynamics that underpin institutions. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of these ideas for future research.

show abstract

“…In recent years, a tectonic move towards the study of the microfoundations of broader social processes is changeing the landscape of organization studies. This move is apparent in several different theoretical conversations, from strategy (Foss & Pedersen, 2016) to accounting (Power, 2020) and institutional theory (Haack, Sieweke, & Wessel, 2020), and it has been articulated in other disciplines as well, including sociology, anthropology and economics (Felin, Foss, & Ployhart, 2015). While ‘microfoundations’ may be understood in different ways (Haack et al, 2020), for me, the main question is ‘how the interactions of individuals lead to emergent, collective’ higher-level outcomes (Felin et al, 2015), and how those very interactions are structured by macro-level forces.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This move is apparent in several different theoretical conversations, from strategy (Foss & Pedersen, 2016) to accounting (Power, 2020) and institutional theory (Haack, Sieweke, & Wessel, 2020), and it has been articulated in other disciplines as well, including sociology, anthropology and economics (Felin, Foss, & Ployhart, 2015). While ‘microfoundations’ may be understood in different ways (Haack et al, 2020), for me, the main question is ‘how the interactions of individuals lead to emergent, collective’ higher-level outcomes (Felin et al, 2015), and how those very interactions are structured by macro-level forces. Hence, studies of microfoundations strive to explore the ‘black boxes’ within macro-level models (Barney & Felin, 2013; Powell & Rerup, 2017), like organizational structures, strategy and fields.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Methodology/Theory Interface: Ethnography and the Microfoundations of Institutions

Zilber

2020

Organization Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I explore the interrelations between methodology and theory by examining how specific research strategies afford specific lines of theorizing. My case study is recent studies in which scholars applied ethnography to examine the microfoundations of institutions. I show how ethnography – a research method designed to study actions, interactions, and the fine details of the here and now as these are articulated in the context of shared cultural meanings – was deployed through four different research strategies, including (a) zooming-in on micro-dynamics of a documented macro process; (b) exploring the micro patterns of an institutional problematics; (c) focusing on pivotal institutional moments; and (d) inquiring into micro-dynamics in specific institutional locations. Each of these research strategies affords specific ways to theorize the connections between the micro and macro in institutional processes. My exploration may serve as a road map for the ethnographic study of institutions’ microfoundations and other macro phenomena, as explicating the theoretical affordances of research strategies may help researchers in making more informed choices about the method/theory interface. More generally, it highlights the need – well established yet often neglected – to explore more deeply the interplay between method and theory, and how seemingly technical methodological choices bear profound theoretical implications, both for each study and for the discipline as a whole.

show abstract

Microfoundations and Multi-Level Research on Institutions

Cited by 36 publications

References 64 publications

Legitimacy Revisited: Disentangling Propriety, Validity, and Consensus

Legitimacy Revisited: Disentangling Propriety, Validity, and Consensus

A Place in the World: Vulnerability, Well-Being, and the Ubiquitous Evaluation That Animates Participation in Institutional Processes

The Methodology/Theory Interface: Ethnography and the Microfoundations of Institutions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About