New themes in institutional analysis: topics and issues from European research

Abstract

Institutional theory has captured the attention of a wide range of scholars in organizational studies and has become one of the dominant organizational approaches over the past decades. Its roots can be traced to Europe, in particular to the German-speaking countries, leading back to the work of eminent sociological scholars such as Max Weber, Alfred Schütz, Thomas Luckmann, and Peter Berger. Given this legacy, surprisingly enough, it was only in the 1990s that the new institutional theory started to gain ground in the German-speaking countries. While sociological institutionalism had already become a leading paradigm in the English-speaking world (especially in North America) and was also beginning to thrive in Scandinavia (with the SCANCOR -Scandinavian Consortium for Organizational Research -connection to Stanford University), it was regarded somewhat unusual, even 'esoteric' in the German-speaking countries at this time. The few researchers who decided to draw on the perspective were dispersed at different universities and the physical separation together with the diverse research communities they were embedded in, made discussions and exchange of ideas even more difficult. Further, those who worked in the tradition of institutional theory found themselves confronted with the fact that not only were very few colleagues available for discussion and collaboration, but also that the discussions in the circles of the 'uninitiated' were almost exclusively limited to justifying the value of sociological institutionalism and delineating it from other variants of institutional theory, especially economic institutionalism.

Assessing International Sport Federations' Sustainability Practices: Toward Integrating Sustainability in Their Main Sports Events

“…Neo-institutional theory holds that the environment pressures organizations to conform with prevailing rules, requirements, and social norms. Since it emerged in the late 1970's (Meyer and Rowan, 1977 ; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983 ), the theory has become “one of the dominant organizational approaches” (Krücken et al, 2017 , p. 1). According to Palthe ( 2014 ), neo-institutional theory is also a useful framework for explaining organizational change.…”

Higher Education Organizations as Strategic Actors in Networks: Institutional and Relational Perspectives Meet Social Network Analysis

“…Our first perspective focuses on neoinstitutionalism. We argue that more recent advances in institutional theory-building hold important analytical potential for the study of higher education's contemporary dynamics (Kr ücken, Mazza, Meyer, & Walgenbach, 2017), especially cross-border competition and collaboration, global networks, and coauthorships (e.g., Dusdal, Oberg, & Powell, 2019;Gazni, Sugimoto, & Didegah, 2012;Powell & Oberg, 2017;Powell, White, Koput, & Owen Smith, 2005). Specifically, we direct attention to strategic action fields (SAFs) (Fligstein & McAdam, 2012), not least because neoinstitutional theory has long been criticized for neglecting agency, interests, and power (e.g., Mutch, Delbridge, & Ventresca, 2006, p. 608), also due to misunderstandings and limited readings (Wiseman, Astiz, & Baker, 2014).…”

Emergent market innovation: A longitudinal study of technology-driven capability development and institutional work

“…This process is contingent on the capabilities and institutional arrangements of the value-proposing actor. The institutional work required for market innovation in turn should be purposeful but also accepting of serendipity (Krücken, Meyer, & Walgenbach, 2017)-especially in organizational settings (e.g., markets as ecosystems) in which it is difficult to direct or orchestrate the efforts of multiple contributors. We argue against the widespread assumption that institutional work always entails a clear connection between effort and explicit market innovation goals (Marti & Mair, 2009).…”