Theorizing Institutional Entrepreneuring: Arborescent and rhizomatic assembling

Abstract

A growing body of research has cataloged the myriad actors involved in tackling persistent institutional problems. Yet we lack a theoretical toolkit for explicitly conceptualizing and comparing diverse modes of institutional entrepreneuring—the processes whereby actors are created and equipped for institutional action—aimed at ameliorating grand challenges. Drawing on assemblage theory, we articulate two ideal-typical modes of assembling actorhood: arborescent and rhizomatic. We differentiate each mode along four principles: association, combination, division, and population. Building on our theorization, we propound an arborescent-rhizomatic space comprising clusters of arborescent, rhizomatic, and hybrid actorhood. To explore the generativity of our framework, we revisit selected research at the intersection of institutional entrepreneurship and grand challenges. We close by articulating how our concept of assembling actorhood reorients research toward institutional entrepreneuring and contributes to the application of assemblage theory within organization studies.

Turning rebellion into money? Social entrepreneurship as the strategic performance of systems change

“…Field‐building actors such as Ashoka and the Skoll Foundation extolled the virtues of supporting new models that would bring about “systems change.” In 2006, Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their work to “create economic and social development from below.” Early academic work borrowed from Schumpeterian traditions to develop the notion of the charismatic “hero” social entrepreneur as someone who recognizes injustice, disrupts inequitable structures and forges new, more equitable, “equilibria” (Martin & Osberg, 2007). In popular rhetoric, the assumption was that in contrast to institutional entrepreneurs seeking to change the same structures that condition their behavior (Gehman, Sharma, & Beveridge, 2022; Holm, 1995), the social entrepreneur was considered to be immune to this paradox since they are positioned as sitting outside the systems they seek to change. Fifteen years later, it is perhaps startling to reflect on the extent to which social entrepreneurship has captured popular and academic attention despite there being little evidence of such structural change occurring (Saebi, Foss, & Linder, 2019).…”

Confronting Power Asymmetries in Partnerships to Address Grand Challenges

“…Second, exploration is needed of how the power differentials among parties affect the “modes of actorhood”—“the essential features that constitute actors” (Hwang & Colyvas, 2020, p. 570)—in partnerships to address grand challenges. MSPs to address grand challenges constitute a fertile context for advancing research on institutional entrepreneuring—the processes whereby actors are created and equipped for institutional action to ameliorate grand challenges (Gehman, Sharma, & Beveridge, 2021). Infusing the notion of institutional entrepreneuring with power differentials may shed new light on how different modes of actorhood affect institutional arrangements such as partnerships for addressing grand challenges.…”

Robust Action: Advancing a Distinctive Approach to Grand Challenges

“…Scaffolding (Ansell, 2011;Casasnovas & Ferraro, 2021;Mair et al, 2016) Fictional expectations (Augustine et al, 2019;Beckert, 2016) Distributed actorhood: non-humans and cities (Gehman et al, 2021;Zuzul, 2019) Source: Ferraro et al (2015) and authors' analysis in this article.…”

“…For grand challenges researchers, apprehending actorhood in decentered ways remains a key theoretical frontier (Gehman, Sharma, & Beveridge, 2021). Field studies that explore particular issues and contexts appear to enable greater acuity than case studies focused on specific organizational actors, and managers in particular.…”