L7: External Flashcards
Lounsbury, M., & Gehman, J. (2024): Institutional theory
Institutional theory emphasize the influence of social, normative, and cognitive forces that shape organizational behavior.
Isomorphism: Organizations seek legitimacy by adhering to widely accepted norms and practices, leading to isomorphism (increasingly similar companies in same field). This was critized in late 1980 –> institutional entrepreneurship
Wooten, M., & Hoffman, A. J. (2017). Organizational Fields
Organizational fields: comprises a community of organizations with shared meaning systems that interact more frequently with each other than with external entities.
Isomorphic pressures
Organizations within a field often become more homogeneous over time due to isomorphic pressures:
coercive (laws and regulations), mimetic (copying successful practices), or normative (professional standards).
Shift Towards Agency and responsiveness
The article highlights that later research has moved and DOES NOT view organizations as passive recipients of external pressures! Now some firms respond strategically to institutional pressures (institutional entrepreneurships)
In the future: Focus on relational spaces (diffrent roles in the field: mother/brother)
Greenwood, Raynard, et al. (2011). Institutional Complexity and Organizational Responses.
Institutional Complexity: Institutional complexity arises when organizations are exposed to conflicting demands from multiple institutional logics.
Figure 1
(+ Field structure: fragmentation, structuring, centralization) –> Institutional Complexity (+ Organizational attributes: Field Position, structure, ownership, identity) –> Organizational Responses –> Institutional Pluralism –>
Field structure
Field: Community of firms that partakes common meanings and interact more frequently
Field structure: 1) fragmentation: fragmentation of fields 2) structuring: how structured are these fragmentations 3) centralization: how central the field is (the government is very central –> powerful).
Organizational attributes
Organizational attributes (Pressures arising from institutional complexity do not affect all organizations equally):
- Field position: How firms are positioned in the field (periphere firms –> deviation vs. central –> more attention –> strict)
- Structure: The structure of the firm has on how the firm can adapt (decentrilized) or move as a unit (centralized)
- Ownership: Private companies (more freedom) vs. public (expectations)
- Identity: Traditionel vs. innovative
Organizational responses
How organizations respond to institutional complexity. They can focus on 1) strategies or 2) structures
1) strategies: e.g. decoupling (symbolically comply with certain logics externally, but not internally) or Hybridization (blend elements from different logics to meet expectation).
2) structures: e.g. Compartmentalization (Dividing the organization into separate units, each dealing with different logics)
Institutional Pluralism:
Firms are affected by fields. BUT Firms also affect field!
Organisationers samlede responser kan føre til ændringer i feltets struktur.
Når organisationer vælger at prioritere forskellige logikker, kan det føre til øget institutionel pluralisme (flere logikker eksisterer samtidig).
Greenwood, Díaz, et al. (2010). The Multiplicity of Institutional Logics and the Heterogeneity of Organizational Responses.
The paper highlights that institutional contexts are rarely homogeneous. Instead, organizations face various, often conflicting, logics. For example, in Spain, market logic coexists with strong nonmarket logics like state and family, affecting how firms act.
Market logic vs. non-market logic in Spain
Market logic encourages efficiency and competitiveness.
Non-market logic (family logic), reinforced by cultural and historical ties to the Catholic Church in Spain, can lead family-managed firms avoiding workforce reductions.
Larger and regional firms may be more influenced by these logics due to their visibility and importance within the community.
Carlsberg case
Carlsberg ville sælge Baltika (rusisk datterselskab), men Rusland overtog. C CEO ““tyveri”.
Institutionel pluralisme: Markedslogik (profit i R) vs. DK logik (Nægtelse af samarbejde) vs. R statslig logik (loyalitet til R)
Uber case
Forlad DK grundet taxa-regler i 2017. Tilbage til DK via app i 2025.
Institutional Pluralism:
Markedslogik (profit) vs. Statslig (love).
Field structure + organizational response: reguleringer og samarbejde.
