M HBB

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/314712184
Institutional Theory Approaches
Chapter · March 2017

DOI: 10.1002/9781118955567.wbieoc113
CITATIONS READS
45 57,454
2 authors, including:
John C Lammers
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
50 PUBLICATIONS 1,652 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by John C Lammers on 22 October 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

CHAPTER 8
Institutional Theory
John C. Lammers and Mattea A. Garcia
T his chapter contends that the institu-

tional perspective holds tremendous
promise for scholars of organizational
communication. At its heart, institutional theory
seeks to explain the “the elaboration of rules and
grown beyond its sociological field of origin1, and
the vines of organizational communication are
also creeping beyond their early managerial con-
cerns. The interpenetration of organizational
communication and institutionalism is far from
requirements to which organizations must con- complete, however. Indeed, we believe the oppor-
form if they are to receive support and legiti- tunities for these fields to inform each other are
macy” (Scott & Meyer, 1983, p. 140). The strength very exciting. The chapter aims to document the
of this perspective today may flow from the fact reach of institutional theory into organizational
that that the world is awash in rules and require- communication and to provide examples of orga-
ments in every sector, industry, and nation-state. nizational communication scholarship that have
However, we think a case must be made for the special relevance for institutionalism.
relevance of institutional theory to organizational
communication. After all, organizational com-
munication frequently focuses on the communi- Definition and Characteristics
cative behavior of individuals in groups and
organizations or, more specifically, their “lan- As with many organizational concepts, institu-
guage and social interaction that promote coordi- tions have been defined in multiple ways
nated action toward a common goal” (Eisenberg, (Greenwood, Oliver, Sahlin, & Suddaby, 2008;
2009, p. 700). It seems appropriate, therefore, to Scott, 2001). This chapter draws from Lammers
treat the larger institutional landscape as outside and Barbour’s (2006) definition of institutions
and beyond the purview of organizational com- as “constellations of established practices guided
munication. The reason for the distance between by enduring, formalized, rational beliefs that
status quo organizational communication and transcend particular organizations and situa-
institutionalism probably lies in their roots: the tions” (p. 357). This definition points to a num-
former in practical matters of post-WWII social ber of key characteristics that scholars draw on
psychology, the latter in 19th- and early 20th- to develop institutional theory and situate it as
century sociology. But institutionalism today has an area of study. First, institutions are enduring
195
196——SECTION I. Theories of Organizational Communication
social phenomena—they persist across time and example, the long-lived corporation) becomes
space, particularly in comparison to the organi- institutionalized, we mean that it has become an
zations and conventions observable in any given established and taken-for-granted pattern of prac-
period (fixity is the term used by Giddens, 1984, tices and communication. Institutional theory
p. 69). Second, institutions take on lives of their aims to explain how these patterns arise and to
own that have social meaning beyond strict demonstrate their effects on organizations.
functional requirements (Selznick, 1949). Third, The literature in institutional theory is volu-
institutions organize social life across and minous and multilayered. Although we cannot
through organizations (Lammers & Garcia, review all the literature in this area, we can
2009). Fourth, institutions are manifest in a identify broad philosophical features that make
broad range of social phenomena, including institutional theory distinct and note its compat-
“cultural-cognitive, normative, and regulative ibility with organizational communication
elements” (Scott, 2001, p. 48). Fifth, institutions research. We then turn to a discussion of older
take on a subtlety, because they are “more-or-less and newer strands of institutional theory and
taken-for-granted repetitive social behavior(s) research. We consider institutionalization as a
that [are] underpinned by normative systems process that begins with the establishment of
and cognitive understandings that give meaning institutional patterns across organizational
to social exchange and thus enable self-reproduc- fields. We review three fundamental concepts
ing social order” (Greenwood et al., 2008, p. 5). related to this process: legitimacy, the rational
Sixth, drawing on Commons’s (1934) “working myth, and isomorphism. We then explore four
rules” (p. 79), institutions reflect a rational pur- areas of institutional scholarship that share
pose that guides behaviors toward certain ends. intellectual ground with organizational commu-
Perhaps a useful distillation of these characteris- nication: institutional logics, entrepreneurship,
tics is that institutions are composed of estab- institutional work, and deinstitutionalization. We
lished patterns of communication and conduct then turn to the intersections of institutionalism
that transcend specific organizations. and communication: institutional rhetoric, dis-
Though the taken-for-granted features of insti- course, and messages. To highlight the possibility
tutions make them difficult to define, scholars of future collaborations between institutionalists
have offered various examples. Weber (1968) and organizational communication scholars, we
identified the church and the state as dominant consider the case of professions. We close this
institutions in the 19th century. In the 18th chapter with comments about methods, limita-
through the 20th centuries, the family, markets, tions, and future possibilities for institutional
and political structures (such as representative organizational communication.
democracy) arose as institutions (Berger, Berger,
& Kellner, 1973; Gehlen, 1988). The idea that a
single organization or agency of the government Distinctive Features
could become institutionalized took root in the of Institutional Theory
20th century, as documented by Selznick (1949,
1957). Abbott (1988) observed that professions are Several detailed summaries of institutional theory
institutionalized occupations—a topic we pursue are readily available (Greenwood et al., 2008;
in some detail below. Jepperson (1991) identified Powell & DiMaggio, 1991). To provide a concise
social objects such as marriage, wage labor, the description of institutionalism, we summarize
corporation, and voting as contemporary institu- institutional theory in terms of four interrelated
tions. Today, when an agency (for example, a constructs: functionalism and limited rationality,
government), a practice (for example, racial or external environments, attenuated consciousness,
gender discrimination), or an organization (for and the symbolic life of organizations. Tolbert
Chapter 8. Institutional Theory——197
and Zucker (1996) observed that the development an institutional perspective complements the root
of institutionalism in the late 1970s was a reaction metaphor of communication as constitutive of
to the unsatisfying results of research following organizations (McPhee & Zaug, 2000).
functionalist assumptions about organizations. The third fundamental construct, attenuated
Functional analysis assumed that “components of consciousness, focuses on the degree to which
a system must be integrated for the system to actors are conscious of institutional conditions.
survive” (p. 176), that changes in one component This concern is an empirical question and is at
necessitated changes in other components, and least as problematic for institutional researchers
that change would occur when the dysfunctions as it is for critical scholars (Deetz & Kersten,
of structural arrangements outweighed their 1983; Mumby, 1988). This is because institutions
functionality. A number of theorists argued that are part of the taken-for-granted conditions on
functional rationality had its limits (e.g., Cohen, which organizing occurs. As Zucker (1983) said,
March, & Olsen, 1972; March & Simon, 1958). “The taken for granted quality of institu-
Much of institutional theory and research con- tions . . . implies that participants are not con-
cerned the unintended consequences of action in scious of their central values” (p. 5). Thus the
organizations (Merton, 1936). This thread of fixed routines that define institutions lead to an
antirationalism connected institutional theorists attenuation of consciousness such that institu-
across the decades (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983, tions operate less as visible objects and more as
1991; Drori, 2008; Merton, 1936; Meyer & Rowan, unacknowledged trellises upon which organizing
1977; Selznick, 1949, 1957). A hallmark of institu- occurs and organizations grow.
tionalism historically, then, was that organized Finally, institutionalism emphasizes the sym-
actors’ intentions were shaped and even thwarted bolic role of formal organizational structures in
by their institutional environments. Institutional- contrast to informal interactions and specific
ists thus began and have continued with a view of local or technical interests (Powell & DiMaggio,
rationality as situated (Drori, 2008; see also Kuhn, 1991). For example, legitimacy is viewed as social
2005; Trethewey & Ashcraft, 2004). acceptance that results from adhering to regula-
This discussion leads to a second fundamental tive and normative organizational policies as well
construct in institutionalism: the role of the exter as cognitive norms and expectations (Deephouse
nal environment of organizations. As Tolbert and & Carter, 2005, p. 332). The current interest in
Zucker (1996) observed, institutionalism devel- corporate social responsibility (CSR) is viewed
oped at the same time that other approaches were by many scholars as working from an institu-
also taking environments seriously, including tional perspective and as an example of what
population ecology (Hannan & Freeman, 1977) Meyer and Rowan (1977) referred to as “ceremo-
and resource dependency (Pfeffer & Salancik, nial activities” (p. 355) that are undertaken to
1978). Institutional studies focus on the boundary assure access to perceived legitimacy (Bertels &
between authority in the organization and legiti- Peloza, 2008; Levis, 2006; Truscott, Bartlett, &
macy bestowed by the institutional environment Tywoniak, 2009; Winn, MacDonald, & Zietsma,
(Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Selznick, 1949). This 2008). From an institutional view, organizations
distinction reaches beyond a micro-macro issue or in their very structures communicate symboli-
even an interconnected view of organizations. cally with their environments, absorbing infor-
The insight of institutionalism is that organiza- mation from the environment and signaling their
tions and organizing are transcended by conformity to established norms and values.
institutional(ized) ideas, beliefs, rules, and mes- These features of institutionalism (namely, lim-
sages (Lammers, 2011; Lammers & Barbour, 2006; ited rationality, external forces, attenuated con-
Lammers & Garcia, 2009). Thus with the recogni- sciousness, and symbolism) are familiar territory
tion of a preexisting institutional environment, for organizational communication researchers.
Organizational communication scholarship is structures. Selznick, however, was not inter-

quite at home in casting rationality as situated ested in abstractions. Similar to many organiza-
(e.g., Meisenbach, Remke, Buzzanell, & Liu, 2008) tional communication scholars today, he was
or problematic (Mumby & Stohl, 1996). Moreover, interested in actual organizations and commu-
the concepts, constructs, and arguments of insti- nities and deeply concerned about democratic
tutional theory offer avenues for research that action. His best-known book, TVA and the
incorporate cross-organizational variables, such as Grass Roots (1949) was a study of a New Deal-
professional and trade associations, rules and reg- era U.S. federal agency designed to maximize
ulations, and market forces. Also, actors’ uneven citizen participation at the local level.2 The Ten-
awareness of institutional forces, such as the nessee Valley Authority (TVA) was the federal
specifications of standard contract language in agency created to develop hydroelectricity in
health insurance or procurement protocols in gov- the Tennessee River Valley to improve the living
ernment spending policies, creates new opportu- standards of the surrounding farming commu-
nities for communication scholars to explore the nities. Selznick found that, as with other New
limits and dynamics of conscious action. Finally, Deal social experiments, the actual result of the
studying the symbolic life of organizations as it TVA was not what was planned. He observed a
is manifested in texts and discourse is a well- special case of unintended consequences in the
established focus of organizational communica- development of the TVA: cooptation. He defined
tion scholarship (Cooren, 2000; Cooren, Taylor, & cooptation as “the process of absorbing new ele-
Van Every, 2006). In the next section, we examine ments into the leadership or policy determining
the specific concepts that form the institutional- structure of an organization as a means of avert-
ists’ armament. Even though institutional scholars ing threats to its stability or existence” (p. 13).
share fundamental constructs, the development of As he noted, “Cooptation tells us something
the field has not been straightforward. In particu- about the process by which an institutional envi
lar, an older form of institutionalism focuses more ronment impinges itself upon an organization
on specific organizations than on environments. and effects changes in its leadership, structure,
or policy” (p. 13; emphasis added).
Although cooptation certainly seems to be a
Old Institutionalism powerful mechanism, it has been studied fairly
rarely in organizational communication research
Weber (1968), typically the earliest scholar to (for exceptions, see Brimeyer, Eaker, & Clair,
whom institutionalists refer, defined institutions as 2004; Golden, 2009; Stohl & Coombs, 1988).
“involuntary associations,” thereby emphasizing an Stohl and Coombs (1988) used the concept to
element of control in institutionalized life (p. 52). describe the development of quality circles in
In the United States, however, Selznick (1949) set U.S. industry and found that training manuals
forth a sociology of institutions with his observa- for quality circles advanced managerial interests
tion that “the important thing about organizations over workers’ interests.
is that though they are tools each nevertheless has Through Selznick’s (1949) analysis of the
a life of its own. . . . [T]hey universally resist com- TVA, and later, the Bolshevik revolution (1952)
plete control” (p. 10). Selznick referred to this and administrative theory (1957), he influenced
resistance as “recalcitrance” (p. 10) and noted later organizational scholarship of the 1950s (Dalton,
that organizational practices could become 1959; Gouldner, 1954) and laid the ground work
“infused with value beyond the technical require- for later (new) institutional analyses: “(1) seek
ments of the task at hand” (1957, p. 17). the underlying implications of the official doc-
One might see the institutional perspective trine . . . ; (2) avoid restriction to the formal
as a focus on larger, distant, or abstract social structure of the organization . . . ; and (3) observe
the interaction of the agency with other institu- of technical requirements. By then, Selznick’s
tions in its area of operation” (1949, p. 11). work was called old institutionalism and the
Whereas Selznick focused on a particular organi- later analyses were new institutionalism (Powell
zation and its institutional environment, later & DiMaggio, 1991). DiMaggio and Powell
scholarship placed greater emphasis on the envi- (1991) saw the new institutionalism as focusing
ronment rather than a focal organization (Powell on the symbolic role of formal structure (rather
& DiMaggio, 1991, pp. 11–15). than on the informal organization), and they
A notable exception, and one of interest for treated the organization as constituted by the
organizational communication scholars, is environment in which it was embedded. New
Kraatz and Block’s (2008) concern with institu- institutionalism, they argued, focused on the
tional pluralism, which grows directly out of “homogeneity of organizations” and the
Selznick’s concern with the institutional envi- “stability of institutional components” (p. 14).
ronment. Kraatz and Block (2008) defined insti Moreover, DiMaggio and Powell viewed the
tutional pluralism as “the situation faced by an unreflective activity in organizations as evidence
organization that operates within multiple insti- for a critique of a utilitarian view of organiza-
tutional spheres” (p. 243). In this situation, the tions. Organizations receive (perhaps unwit-
organization answers to multiple regulatory tingly) classifications, routines, scripts, and
agencies and follows multiple sets of norms, schema, which function as key forms of cogni-
values, or legal requirements. Kraatz and tion. Beginning in the late 1970s and continuing
Block suggested that organizational legitimacy to the present day, institutional scholars (mostly
“requires symbolic conformity with cultural in business schools) have developed a range of
norms and expectations” (p. 245). Pluralism, concepts through which the institutionalization
they argued, challenges the idea of organiza- process may be explored. We contend that these
tional stability and makes organizational change ideas map well onto the interpretive (Putnam &
less surprising (p. 257). Organizations will Pacanowsky, 1983), constitutive (McPhee &
have “multiple, institutionally derived identities” Zaug, 2000), and the Montréal school (Cooren,
(p. 243). Examples of these types of organiza- 2001; Cooren et al., 2006) approaches to organi-
tions include hospitals, universities, and multi- zational communication. In the following sec-
national firms. This type of analysis—examining tions, we begin with institutionalization and end
the multiple entities that constrain or shape an with deinstitutionalization; in between, we
organization—represents an opportunity for review three concepts used in institutional anal-
communication scholars who are concerned ysis with particular relevance for organizational
with organizational identities, organizational communication scholarship: institutional logics,
change, and symbolic transactions. entrepreneurship, and work.
Institutionalization. Meyer and Rowan (1977)

New Institutionalism described institutionalization as the process by
which “social processes, obligations, or actuali-
For about 20 years, Selznick’s type of analysis ties come to take on a rule-like status in social
lay fallow. It was not until 1977 with the publi- thought and action” (p. 342). From their per-
cation of Meyer and Rowan’s article on formal spective, this process is driven as much by
organizational structure as myth and ceremony external forces as functional requirements or
that organizational scholars picked up institu- internal organizational rationality. Their core
tional analysis again. Meyer and Rowan (1977) contribution was communicative; that is, orga-
noted that organizational environments were nizations absorb policies and structures to
actually “littered” (p. 345) with values in excess signal to their environments that they are
legitimate; legitimacy, in turn, serves as a sym- legitimacy is an important resource for organi-
bolic resource for organizations. zations, particularly in highly regulated environ-
Tolbert and Zucker (1996) hypothesized a ments. They recognized that the structure of
series of processes by which organizational prac- organizations is derived not only from the func-
tices may become institutionalized or develop tional requirements of production but also from
habitualized actions (Berger & Luckmann, 1967). the external symbolic pressures perceived as
The processes, which can occur simultaneously legitimate, that is, “the extent to which the
and independently in different settings, include array of established cultural accounts provide
innovation, habitualization, objectification, and explanations for [an organization’s] existence,
sedimentation. Tolbert and Zucker did not theo- function, and jurisdiction, and lack or deny
rize about innovation, instead noting that it is a alternatives” (Meyer & Scott, 1983, p. 201).
“largely independent activity” (1996, p. 181).3 Moreover, Meyer and Rowan (1977) suggested
Indeed, innovation might be best understood in that an organization uses rational myths (untest-
contrast to institutionalization, as it may occur as able means-ends statements such as “This orga-
individual organizations seek to solve problems nization engages in affirmative-action hiring
outside established conduct. In contrast, an impor- policies.”) to signal its legitimacy. These activi-
tant aspect of the second process, habitualization, ties involve the efforts of managers and leaders
is that routine actions take on lives independent of to persuade workers about the adoption of prac-
actors and can be classified and typified (Tolbert & tices congruent with externally established
Zucker, 1996, p. 180). This observation leads to norms (Deephouse & Carter, 2005).
the third process of institutionalization, objecti Several studies in organizational communica-
fication. Organizational structures that are tion illustrate this thread, including O’Connor
habitualized and objectified may be said to be and Shumate (2010) and Barbour and Lammers
“semi-institutionalized” (p. 183), while full insti- (2007). Lammers (2003) argued that the high
tutionalization requires historical continuity or salaries paid to CEOs reflected established stan-
sedimentation (p. 184). It is worth noting that dards of legitimacy that operated in the absence
innovation, habitualization, objectification, and of any evidence for a high correlation between
sedimentation are essentially communicative pro- firm performance and CEO salaries. In other
cesses. Deetz (1992, p. 126) used sedimentation words, symbolic, not functional, requirements
with reference to institutionalization in essentially explained these remuneration practices. Similarly,
the same sense. Kuhn (2005) applied this model to Zorn, Flanagin, and Shoham (2011) studied the
the adoption of interpretive scholarship within the roles of efficiency (functional) and legitimacy
field of organizational communication. Tolbert (symbolic) goals in the adoption of information
and Zucker’s (1996) framework offers communi- technology among nonprofit organizations. They
cation scholars an opportunity to unpack the com- suggested that “efficient use of ICTs [information
municative features that underlie the processes of and communication technologies] may be
innovation, habitualization, objectification, and spurred by institutional isomorphic pressures if
sedimentation. In addition to understanding the organizations have the autonomy (i.e., leadership)
processes by which practices come to be institu- and resources (i.e., knowledge and size) to find
tionalized, scholars are concerned with why these workable structures to make use of ICTs” (p. 24).
practices become institutionalized. Meyer and These findings explain the ways that certain prac-
Rowan (1977) contributed insights here by guid- tices come to be institutionalized and show how
ing scholars to explore the quest for legitimacy. these practices are embedded in or influenced by
widespread social norms. Thus in the area of
Legitimacy and the Rational Myth. Meyer and legitimacy, organizational scholars should con-
Rowan (1977) argued that the appearance of sider the influence of institutional pressures,
including hiring practices, wage and benefit prac- pressures were at work. Coercive pressures are
tices, and performance evaluations on workplace those that involve the influence of more powerful
policies and communication technology deci- organizations. Mimetic pressures lead organiza-
sions. Another institutional insight is that such tions to imitate others perceived as successful.
practices are commonly shared across organiza- Normative pressures are those associated with
tions and industries and may therefore be field practices shared across organizations via trade
specific. and professional associations (pp. 150–154).
These “mechanisms through which institutional
Fields and Isomorphism. Organizational fields isomorphic change occurs” (p. 150) have vastly
consist of “those organizations that, in the aggre- influenced organizational studies (see Davis &
gate, constitute a recognized area of institutional Marquis, 2005; Green, Babb, & Alpaslan, 2008;
life: [including] key suppliers, resource and prod- Scott, 2001) and remain rich soil for scholars to
uct consumers, regulatory agencies, and other till, especially by unpacking the processes in
organizations that produce similar services or which these practices are adopted.
products” (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983, p. 148). Organizational communication scholarship
Organizations that make up a field are similar in has participated in the development of these
structural and symbolic ways and share similar ideas. For example, Berteotti and Seibold (1994)
motivations for gaining legitimacy. DiMaggio observed isomorphic forces at work in the devel-
and Powell (1983) drew heavily on sources and opment of a hospice team. The hospice team
themes familiar to organizational communica- “experienced coercive isomorphic processes as it
tion scholars in developing the theory of institu- tried to implement a team approach to health
tional fields: care within the context and [the] constraints of
hierarchically structured organizations” (p. 127).
The process of institutional definition, or They also found that the team “had to struggle
“structuration,” consists of four parts: an to avoid modeling itself on non-hospice organi-
increase in the extent of interaction among zations,” and “that normative pressures played a
organizations in the field; the emergence of role as the members tried to create organiza-
sharply defined interorganizational struc- tional norms to define the conditions” (p. 127)
tures of domination and patterns of coali- of their work. Sheets (2007) argued that scholars
tion; an increase in the information load should look for signs of isomorphism in the
with which organizations in a field must public communication rather than the struc-
contend; and the development of a mutual tures of these companies. She proposed an
awareness among participants in a set of examination of major oil firms’ responses to the
organizations that they are involved in a Kyoto protocol. Similarly, O’Connor and Shu-
common enterprise. (DiMaggio & Powell, mate (2010) found evidence of mimicry in the
1983, p. 148) CSR statements of Fortune 500 companies. They
noted that imitation is “one way corporations
In brief, DiMaggio and Powell (1983) observed reduce the uncertainty of crafting messages for
that organizations in established fields were stakeholders” (p. 534).
becoming more similar, referring to this as iso Despite the uptake of the isomorphic con-
morphism: “a constraining process that forces cepts, the central thrust of the DiMaggio and
one unit in a population to resemble other units Powell (1983) article—how fields are structured
that face the same set of environmental condi- (with an emphasis on fields instead of individual
tions” (p. 150). They argued that competition organizations) has yet to be tapped by organiza-
alone could not explain isomorphism but that tional communication scholars. Yet it is clear that
coercive, mimetic, and normative institutional communicative processes are at work in the
structuration of fields and that these processes Regulatory agencies and industry standards
have consequences for organizational members. transmit logics through written rules and regula-
By emphasizing the broader structures within tions, and individuals may communicate logics
which organizations operate, institutional schol- via everyday talk or through the creation of
ars have observed that fields not only constrain texts. A communicative approach to logics
the appearance of organizations but also shape would also explore the rhetorical strategies
members’ cognitions and perceptions. In other employed to establish certain views or how orga-
words, what makes sense to organizational mem- nizations respond to external pressures. Logics
bers is, in part, a function of institutional logics. constrain which actions are taken and what
actions are even available. To understand how
Institutional Logics. Both institutionalization and institutional logics may change, scholars often
deinstitutionalization involve alterations in focus on entrepreneurs.
underlying ways of doing business or making
sense of work. These ways can be thought of as Institutional Entrepreneurship. DiMaggio (1988)
logics. Institutional logics are “[sets] of material asserted that “new institutions arise . . . when
practices and symbolic constructions—which organized actors with sufficient resources (insti-
constitute [an institutional order’s] organizing tutional entrepreneurs) see in them an opportu-
principles and which [are] available to organiza- nity to realize interests that they value highly”
tions and individuals” (Friedland & Alford, 1991, (p. 14). Maguire, Hardy, and Lawrence (2004)
p. 248). These logics, or guiding principles, can defined institutional entrepreneurship as the
“constrain and enable the potential agency of “activities of actors who have an interest in par-
actors” (Suddaby & Greenwood, 2005, p. 37). For ticular institutional arrangements and who lever-
example, in the case of DDT disuse, Maguire and age resources to create new institutions or to
Hardy (2009) found that actors, via the creation transform existing ones” (p. 657). Research on
of discourses that endured over time, had to institutional entrepreneurship considers what
change the underlying logics of an institution to types of actors can become entrepreneurs, what
exert agency and disrupt the prevailing practice. field conditions are necessary to allow for change,
Of particular interest to communication and the “role of interpretive struggles” and “pat-
scholars is that “the interests, identities, values, terned actions” used to change a field (Hardy &
and assumptions of individuals and organiza- Maguire, 2008, p. 199). Entrepreneurs negotiate
tions are embedded in institutional logics” and shape boundaries, mobilize resources, and
(Thornton & Ocasio, 2008, p. 103). Logics make construct logics to create change.
certain ways of thinking and communicating Institutional entrepreneurship strikes at the
possible or unlikely. Institutional logics “provide heart of a classical problem in organizational
individuals with vocabularies of motives and studies: embedded agency. How do actors change
with a sense of self ” (Friedland & Alford, 1991, institutions if those very institutions limit their
p. 251). While these authors do not refer specifi- actions and rationality? Seo and Creed (2002)
cally to Mills (1940), they note that vocabularies advanced a “dialectical framework” that identi-
of motives are analyzable and institutionally fied “institutional contradictions and human
specific. praxis as the key mechanisms linking institu-
In this vein, Lammers (2011) argues that tional embeddedness and institutional change (p.
actors know institutional logics via institutional 223). They proposed that the conditions for
messages (discussed further below). A commu- change include contradictions or “inconsisten-
nicative perspective suggests examining institu- cies” and a “partially autonomous social actor
tional messages to reveal underlying logics and situated in a contradictory social world” (p. 230).
the ways that actors transmit and take up logics. Beckert (1999) argued that an entrepreneur is
able to “take a reflective position towards the fieldwide forces of isomorphism on the one
institutionalized practices and can envision” hand and the individualistic implications of
alternatives (p. 786). Hardy and Maguire (2008) entrepreneurship on the other, institutionalists
suggested that entrepreneurs could be individu- may appear to have limited room for agency, but
als, organizations, professions, or networks. For an emerging area known as institutional work
example, Wijen and Ansari (2007) explored the suggests that institutions are constructed, recon-
possibility of “collective institutional entrepre- structed, and changed in an ongoing way.
neurship” (p. 1079). They studied state-level
actors who developed global climate policies. Institutional Work. Institutional work is an alter-
Even though entrepreneurs may not have a great native approach to understanding agency and
deal of power, they may hold positions that pro- institutions. The term refers to the “purposive
vide access to other institutional fields and thus action of individuals and organizations aimed at
other practices (Hardy & Maguire, 2008, p. 201). creating, maintaining, and disrupting institu-
These actors must “dislodge existing practices (in tions” (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006, p. 215). Even
the case of mature fields), introduce new ones, though institutional entrepreneurship and insti-
and then ensure that [the new practices] become tutional work share an emphasis on the roles of
widely adopted and taken for granted” (p. 206). actors in creating or changing institutions, Law-
Battilana, Leca, and Boxenbaum (2009) rence and Suddaby (2009) criticized the scholar-
claimed that entrepreneurs craft rhetorical argu- ship on institutional entrepreneurship, arguing
ments that embody institutional logics and align that it “[overemphasized] the rational and ‘heroic’
with “the values and interests of potential allies” dimension . . . while ignoring the fact that all
(p. 82). Entrepreneurial actors are reflexive about actors, even entrepreneurs, are embedded in an
existing logics and develop strategies—for exam- institutionally defined context” (p. 5).
ple, texts of recurring patterns to influence exist- An institutional work perspective treats insti-
ing discourses (Phillips, Lawrence, & Hardy, tutions as the products of specific actions, cre-
2004). Such texts support or reject current insti- ated by a “wide range of actors, both those with
tutional logics. Entrepreneurs reframe current the resources and skills to act as entrepreneurs
problems and offer alternative ideas, as in the and those whose role is supportive or facilitative
case of the Stockholm Convention, when a dis- of the entrepreneur’s endeavors” (p. 217). While
cursive struggle ensued over the difference institutional studies often “accentuate the role of
between precaution and sound science (Maguire collective actors” (p. 5), institutional work also
& Hardy, 2006). Zilber (2007) found that while considers the role of individual organizational
crisis narratives in a high-tech industry in Israel actors in providing a “middle ground of agency”
reinforced the institutional order, counter stories (p. 6). Unlike Tolbert and Zucker’s (1996) view of
called for change. These stories influenced how institutionalization in which habitualized actions
other actors understood the institutional order. and processes take on lives independent of actors,
In another study, Zilber (2002) found that pow- institutional work accounts for the “awareness,
erful individuals at a rape crisis center controlled skill, and reflexivity of individual and collective
institutional meanings “by offering one official actors” (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006, p. 219).
account” (p. 237). The struggle over meanings Lawrence, Suddaby, and Leca (2009) argued
influenced power dynamics and, subsequently, that “institutional work highlights the intentional
the center’s services. actions taken in relation to institutions” (p. 1).
Organizational communication scholars can Studies on institutional work recognize that all
contribute to research in this area by exploring practices occur within “sets of institutionalized
the narratives, discursive struggles, and textual rules” (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006, p. 220) but
patterns of institutional entrepreneurship. With also that actors can make intentional efforts to
affect institutions. For example, Zietsma and The established or institutionalized practice then
Lawrence (2010) examined how the British “erodes or discontinues” (p. 564).
Columbia coastal forest industry engaged in Lawrence and Suddaby (2006) argued that the
types of institutional work to maintain or change literature on deinstitutionalization makes room
existing practices. During periods of stability, for the possibility that individuals can strategi-
institutional work was aimed at maintenance, cally act to destroy institutions. They borrow
and during conflict cycles, institutional work from the sociology of practice, which “[focuses]
included disrupting organizational and industry on the situated actions of individuals and groups
practices. as they cope with and attempt to respond to the
The creation and dissemination of texts, nar- demands of their everyday lives” (p. 218). For
ratives, definitions, and other forms of discourse example, Maguire and Hardy (2009) found that
can also be seen as institutional work. Sahlin and through the creation, distribution, and consump-
Wedlin (2008) argued that ideas, in particular, tion of texts of practices, discourses drive the
are “actively transferred and translated in a con- process of deinstitutionalization. They examined
text of other ideas, actors, traditions, and institu- texts that problematized current practices associ-
tions” (p. 229). For example, actors engage in ated with DDT use and argued that “individual
defining or constructing “rule systems that con- acts of translation . . . can change discourse” and
fer status or identity, define boundaries of mem- thus the underlying logics of an institution
bership or create status hierarchies within a field” (p. 149). The idea of deinstitutionalization chal-
(Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006, p. 222). These rule lenges the idea that practices, once institutional-
systems are communicated formally and infor- ized, are nigh impossible to alter and instead
mally in a variety of ways. In studies of profes- draws attention to the conditions under which
sions, for example, individuals not only create they can be altered or rejected. More broadly, the
professional associations and educational literature on new institutionalism focuses on how
requirements to establish membership, they also practices and rules come to be taken for granted,
develop a unique jargon to accompany member- altered, or disrupted and the relationship between
ship. For example, Garcia (2011) found in her structure and agency. Organizational communi-
study of librarians that individuals engaged in cation scholars can contribute to this research by
strategic rhetorical constructions of their profes- exploring the role of discourse, the creation and
sion and individual professional identities. The circulation of texts, and the communicative strat-
aforementioned studies of institutional logics, egies actors use to disrupt institutional practices.
entrepreneurship, and work focus on the cre- We turn now to areas of scholarship that organi-
ation, change, disruption, or maintenance of zational communication and institutional studies
institutions. We now turn to the concept of dein- already share conceptual terrain.
stitutionalization.
Deinstitutionalization. Institutional stability Conceptual Territory

requires organizational actors to accept a taken- Shared by Institutionalism
for-granted legitimacy about certain practices, and Communication
but deinstitutionalization reflects “a discontinu-
ity in the willingness or ability of organizations to The last few years have revealed a turn toward
take for granted and continually re-create an rhetorical and discourse analysis in organization
institutionalized organizational activity” (Oliver, and institutional studies (Green et al., 2008; Hardy,
1992, p. 564). Political, functional, and social 2011; Phillips et al., 2004; Powell & Colyvas, 2008)
pressures, aggravated by inertia and entropy, can and a similar turn among rhetorical and discourse
lead to the dissipation or rejection of a practice. scholars toward institutional analysis (Cheney,
1991; Finet, 2001; Ford, 2003; Hartelius & corporate suasion” (p. 469), and mass audiences.
Browning, 2008; Hoffman & Ford, 2010; In this rhetorical approach, the institution is an
Jablonski, 1989; Keranen, 2007; Lynch, 2005; entity that speaks for itself and, by proxy, for its
Schwarze, 2003; Sproule,1988). In particular, members. For example, Jablonski (1989) and
institutional scholars have called for considering Cheney (1991) examined the rhetoric of the
the role of language in studies on institutionaliza- Catholic Church. In both cases, the Church was
tion. Phillips et al. (2004), for example, criticized seen as an institution that rhetorically managed
the institutional literature for focusing more on multiple identities and responded to the pressures
social behaviors and structural arrangements of a broader socio-political context, including
than on the discursive elements of social interac- external and internal audiences. While not explic-
tion that contribute to institutionalization. In the itly drawing from institutional theory, these
following section, we show how scholarship in studies nonetheless make a contribution to our
institutional rhetoric, institutional discourse, and understanding of how institutions work.
institutional messages explicitly or implicitly use Finet (2001) proposed a view of institutional
institutional concepts and ideas. rhetoric that involved the “collective expression
[of organizations] intended to influence the
larger social normative climate” (p. 274). This
Institutional Rhetoric approach to organizational rhetoric reveals the
“embeddedness of organizations” and the “recip-
A focus on rhetoric allows scholars to account rocal influences” of organizations and their envi-
simultaneously for the structural elements of ronments (p. 270). An expanding literature has
institutions and the discursive actions of indi- also focused on the rhetoric CSR (Battilana et al,
vidual and organizational interactions. Hartelius 2009; see May & Roper, Chapter 31). Schwarze
and Browning (2008) argued that rhetoric serves (2003) argued that “a rhetoric of CSR must have
as a “theoretical lens” as well as “a framework for an interorganizational focus” (p. 625). In this
understanding the role of narrative and rational view, he comes very close to the institutional
organizational discourses” (p. 33). Rhetorical approach. Organizational and institutional
analysis of texts produced by actors in institu- research in CSR includes both rhetorical and
tional environments has led to useful discoveries discourse analysis. We argue that examining
about the role of language in circulating ideas institutional rhetoric allows scholars to explore
(Sahlin & Wedlin, 2008), persuading actors to the strategic collective expressions of organiza-
subscribe to new logics or altering current prac- tions as they seek legitimacy in their institutional
tices or beliefs. environments.
A number of studies in communication have In addition to CSR statements, scholars have
employed the idea of institutional rhetoric (see, also studied texts of rules and practices that
for example, Cheney, 1991; Finet, 2001; Ford, become institutionalized. For example, Keranen
2003; Hartelius & Browning, 2008; Hoffman & (2007) analyzed the institutionalization of resus-
Ford, 2010; Jablonski, 1989; Keranen, 2007; citation, demonstrating that code status work-
Lynch, 2005; Schwarze, 2003). For Sproule (1988), sheets (patients’ end-of-life documents) served
a new type of rhetorical criticism was necessary to as part of a system of rules that influenced the
account for “institutions, ideologies, media, and taken-for-granted status of resuscitation. Green
audiences” (p. 477). He argued that a “new mana- et al. (2008) examined the corporate control
gerial rhetoric” arose as a way of accounting for rhetoric of board members, arguing that it
the spokespersons of “whole industries” (p. 460), “shapes the institutional logics of control and
the media as an institution composed of profes- thus legitimizes the dominant stakeholder group
sionals in the “impersonal institutional voice of in the institutional field” (p. 41). Suddaby and
Greenwood (2005) used transcripts from com- conversations. Grant, Keenoy, and Oswick
mission hearings. Examining classical categories (2001) argued that discourse analysis examines
of rhetoric (e.g., logos), they suggested that “rhe- “meta-discourses . . . which congregate to form
torical strategy is a significant tool by which dominant paradigms, institutional practices,
shifts in a dominant logic can be achieved” and collective social perspectives (p. 11).
(p. 41). In these examples, rhetoric is a tool used Discourse analysis offers a way to get at institu-
by organizational actors to influence logics, and tional logics (reflected in institutional work) and
its analysis can account for institutionalization or even institutional entrepreneurship. For example,
institutional change. Kuhn (2006) studied attorneys and government
Rhetorical scholars have much to offer institu- officials and suggested that these officials drew
tional studies. For example, Lawrence and discursive resources from the social practices
Suddaby’s (2006) typology of institutional work around them. Similarly, studies of institutional
lends itself to a communication perspective. The dialogue show how talk in institutionalized
authors describe types of institutional work settings—for example, among professionals in
(e.g., advocacy and theorizing), which are spe- health care organizations—contributes to a range
cifically communicative in nature and could be of concerns, such as identity, roles, and constraints
analyzed from a rhetorical perspective. Addition- on behavior (see Grant et al., 2004, p. 11). As
ally, evidence of institutional work is found in the Grant et al. (2004) noted, scholars can focus on the
texts and conversations that occur in and around “socially situated aspects of everyday talk” (p. 3;
organizations. In sum, reframing existing schol- see also Drew & Heritage, 1992). Certainly, the
arship on organizational rhetoric as explicitly institutional context is an important influence on
institutional offers rich avenues and new direc- everyday talk, the management of identities, and
tions for future studies of institutional rhetoric. the performance of organizational tasks.
These issues surface in both organizational
and institutional discourse research. For exam-
Institutional Discourse ple, Clair (1993) studied the discourse of sexual
harassment at large universities. She used institu
Rhetoric and discourse are sometimes used tional discourse to refer to relatively established
interchangeably or indiscriminately, but it is discourses in a large organization, and she did
useful to distinguish them for conducting insti- not distinguish the organizational from the insti-
tutional analysis (see Fairhurst & Putnam, tutional arena. However, her work echoes issues
Chapter 11). Citing Burke (1969) and Mills related to institutional logics. In particular, the
(1940), Castello and Lozano (2011) observed dominant discourses revealed underlying logics
that rhetorical analysis “focuses on persuasive that were reflected in established practices and
texts fostering a specific response to social rules. More recent research has identified institu-
change,” while discourse analysis “examines tional discourse as a level of analysis. For exam-
texts without supposing how recipients of their ple, O’Connor and Shumate (2010) studied CSR
messages will be influenced” (p. 4). Grant, statements of Fortune 500 companies and found
Hardy, Oswick, and Putnam (2004) included that at both the institutional and economic
rhetoric as a “domain” of organizational dis- industry levels of analysis, corporations gave pri-
course (p. 3). Cheney, Christensen, Conrad, and macy in their CSR discourse to their “ethical and
Lair (2004) suggested that a rhetorical approach philanthropic responsibilities over their legal and
is concerned primarily with the strategic dimen- economic responsibilities” (p. 547). As noted
sions of discourse. At the institutional level, earlier, the mimicry found in CSR statements
discourses reflect shared management philoso- illustrates corporations’ attempts to reduce
phies, procedures, and published texts as well as uncertainty and to gain legitimacy.
For practices to change, however, discourse interactions are characterized by an obligatory

about those practices must also change. Hardy and asymmetry; that is, the disembodied institution
Maguire (2010) found that less powerful actors speaks for itself, and the rules are followed. At
influenced change because “field-configuring the organizational level, institutional messages
events,” such as the Stockholm Convention, “gen- aim to align the organization’s core values and
erate multiple discursive spaces that are governed interests with those of its environment. Such
by different rules and understandings regard- messages are conveyed both to internal (as in
ing text production” (p. 1365). This analysis of the case of policies to which all employees must
discourse and discursive spaces explains the con- adhere) and external audiences (as in the case of
ditions necessary for embedded agents, entrepre an organization conveying to a funding agency
neurs, to engage in processes that might lead to that its practices are consistent with the agency’s
change. Institutional discourse attends to the sym- aims and goals). As institution-level phenom-
bolic ways that actors attempt to influence the ena, institutional messages project a rational
institutional arrangements around them. feature of modernity; namely, they are spread
across specific organizations and interaction
moments through educational practices, con-
Institutional Messages4 sultants, and interagency and interorganiza-
tional agreements and are enforced with rules
A third area in which institutional and organi- and sanctions.
zational communication scholars share interests The variety of settings and levels at which
is in the identification and analysis of institu- institutional messages may be observed and ana-
tional messages, “collations of thoughts that are lyzed led Lammers (2011) to suggest that institu-
intentional, enduring, have a wide reach, and tional messages could be understood in four
encumber organizational participants to engage ways: establishment, reach, incumbency, and
in certain behaviors or to take performative intentionality. Established messages are unequiv-
responses” (Lammers, 2011, p. 154). In contrast ocal, are sent or exchanged frequently, and are
to discourse or rhetorical analysis, a focus on thus enduring. The reach of messages refers to
messages is reductionist rather than holistic, pos- the size and number of audiences in which the
iting that relatively discrete components of com- message may be received. Incumbency refers to
munication play a role in the persistence and the duty—implicated in the message itself—of
development of institutions. The analysis of mes- the respondent to heed and comply with the mes-
sages offers clues to several institutional issues, sage. Finally, institutional messages can be char-
such as the institution-organization interface, the acterized by their intentionality; the message may
question of how institutions endure, and how be varyingly congruent with the conscious, stated
institutional logics are transmitted. purposes of the members of the field in which it
Institutional messages can be observed at is exchanged.
interactional, organizational, and institutional Institutional messages also figure promi-
levels of analysis. An important feature of insti- nently in McPhee and Zaug’s (2000, 2009)
tutional messages is that they can take the form influential articulation of the communicative
of an implicit command, obligating receivers to constitution of organizations. Of their four
engage in some form of action (Lammers, 2011, message flows, institutional positioning bears
p. 162). Institutional messages communicate directly on the recognition that communica-
logics, or the “means by which ends are tion constitutes organization when actors rec-
achieved” (Friedland & Alford, 1991, p. 256), as ognize the extraorganizational, preexisting
persons draw upon and incorporate them in constraints on the actions and resources at
their speech and established interactions. Such their disposal (McPhee & Zaug, 2009). The
importance and complexity of institutional The Special Case of Professions

positioning was described in Browning, Greene,
Sitkin, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld’s (2009) description The concepts reviewed in this chapter can also be
of a United States Air Force maintenance and used to study communication and the profes-
repair unit’s effort to coordinate its activities sions in new ways. Abbott (1988) referred to
with external agency rules. professions as “institutionalized occupations,”
Sahlin and Wedlin (2008) reviewed a concept (p. 323; see also Douglas, 1986). As Lammers and
related to messages in their discussion of the circu- Garcia (2009) pointed out, the profession is part
lation of ideas in institutional fields. Summarizing of the (external) institutional environment of
research in the field of Scandinavian institutional- work, because professionals bring norms and
ism, they observed that although organizations rules with them into the organizations where
embrace ideas for ceremonial and symbolic pur- they work. Scott (2008) argued that professions
poses (Meyer & Rowan, 1977), they also adopt are cultural-cognitive, normative, and regulative
policies, practices, and routines that influence agents of institutionalization (pp. 224–226). As
functional activities as well. They noted that orga- such, they do much to shape organizations and
nizations adopted ideas because of normative organizational communication. The concepts
forces (“appropriateness and fashion,” p. 222) generated by institutionalists over the last 50
through imitation and identification processes. years can offer organizational communication
One shortcoming of these observations is that the scholars approaches for studying the professions.
researchers tended to anthropomorphize organiza- Specifically, conceptual tools such as coopta-
tions. Nonetheless, this research and others in this tion, rational myths, institutional fields and
vein have developed a robust set of concepts logics, and institutional work are available to
(including translation, editing, flows, prototypes, communication scholars to aid in understanding
and templates) to describe the processes by which how professions shape organizational life. An
ideas spread across fields. institutionally infused study of communication
The notion of institutional messages holds between professionals and managers is likely to
considerable promise for organizational commu- find examples of institutionalized cooptation. For
nication researchers who work with institutional example, associate attorneys in large law firms
ideas (Barley, 2011; Hardy, 2011; Suddaby, 2011). may be understood as coopted by the managing
However, the concept may be overly determinis- partners of their firms, and physicians may be
tic in its emphasis on enduring social structures seen as coopted by the managers of hospitals. The
(Hardy, 2011; Suddaby, 2011). Hardy argued that rise of the professions historically (for example,
such messages are in fact the creations of indi- Starr, 1982) and contemporarily (for example,
viduals and that institutions gain their power and Cheney, Lair, Ritz, & Kendall, 2010) provide
force through the communicative behavior of accounts of legitimacy as part of the adoption of
individuals. In addition, Barley (2011) pointed rational myths or ways that work should be
out that institutional messages may be vague or accomplished. Professionals are also the designers
ambiguous by design; that is, laws and other of stable practices and knowledge domains and
policies are often worded imprecisely to allow for thus influence the development of recognizable
a range of interpretations. For organizational institutional fields organized by underlying insti
communication researchers, research on institu- tutional logics (Douglas, 1986; Scott, 2008). The
tional messages offers the opportunity for schol- effort to professionalize various fields is an exam-
ars to participate in these debates by addressing ple of institutional work, notably characterized
the structure/agency relationship, the issue of as institutional entrepreneurship. Cheney and
ambiguity, and the types and varieties of institu- Ashcraft (2007) argue that having professional
tional messages. status is something occupants struggle for control
over. Individual or collective struggles to gain A few scholars explicitly relied on institutional
professional status represent efforts to institution- theory to explore the relationship between com-
alize occupational practices. munication and professions. Lammers and Garcia
Just as the rise of a profession may be under- (2009) found that the profession served as an
stood as a process of institutionalization, the extraorganizational force that influenced veteri-
demise of a profession may be seen as deinstitu narians’ work experiences, including their deci-
tionalization. Both of these concepts, as well as the sion making and communication. Barbour and
ongoing maintenance or re-creation of profes- Lammers (2007) also argued that institutional
sional autonomy and control, provide examples of beliefs mediated physicians’ responses to man-
institutional rhetoric and discourse. And the pres- aged health care. Further, Barbour (2010) urged
ence and dominance of a profession may be recog- scholars to focus on the day-to-day conversations
nized by the strength of institutional messages, in health care organizations to examine how insti-
such as “Is there a doctor in the house?” Employ- tutions “control and constrain talk . . . [and how]
ing these conceptual tools of communication and actors appropriate institutions to their own ends”
institutionalism can advance knowledge about the (p. 450). Dunn and Jones (2010) analyzed medical
role of the profession in organizational practices. education and found that the logics of care and
Communication scholars have begun to rec- science in medical education competed and
ognize professionals as unique organizational changed over time. They argued that as logics are
members who play institutional roles (e.g., thrown “out of balance,” the profession becomes
Cheney & Ashcraft, 2007; Cheney et al., 2010, pp. “vulnerable to threats from interprofessional
123–158; Lammers & Garcia, 2009; Real & rivals, intraprofessional groups, and external
Putnam, 2005; Trethewey, 2001). Cheney et al. invaders like managed care” (p. 140). Communi-
(2010), in an examination of ethics at work, con- cation scholars, then, can examine the creation,
sidered the influence of professionalism on maintenance, and change of institutions by fol-
careers and organizations and recognized profes- lowing professions and professionals through
sions as institutions that organize knowledge in these processes. This brief overview of the profes-
society (p. 129). More commonly, communica- sion serves as evidence of a particularly rich area
tion researchers have viewed professionalism as a of mutually informed research in institutional
special identity project. Trethewey (2001) con- and organizational communication studies.
sidered issues of gender and identity for profes-
sional women, and Ashcraft (2005) and Real and
Putnam (2005) explored pilots’ discourse regard- Conclusion
ing defense of their profession. Heaton and
Taylor (2002) explored how knowledge commu- This chapter has aimed to encourage organiza-
nities find a “collective identity in professional tional communication scholars to employ
associations” (p. 212). Although only a few of institutional analyses. To this end, we under-
these scholars explicitly relied on institutional score the mutually enriching compatibilities of
theory, these studies demonstrated how particu- the institutional perspective, particularly its
lar occupations served as institutionalized com- emphases on limits to rationality, external
munication. As Cheney and Ashcraft (2007) forces on organizations, socially constructed
argued, professionalization is a “rhetorical pro- consciousness, and symbolism as well as its
cess” in which identity and status are “constantly prevailing ideas in organizational communica-
negotiated through discursive activity” (p. 165). tion. We have also pointed to the concepts of
Their argument points to important connections legitimacy and rational myth, isomorphism,
between communication and professionalization institutional fields, institutional logics, institu-
as forms of institutionalization. tional entrepreneurship, and institutional work
as available for organizational communication Limitations of the

scholarship. Rhetorical and discourse analysis Institutional Approach
are already examining how institutions rise,
persist, or decline. In this conclusion, we draw Institutional approaches are often criticized
attention to methodological considerations as theoretically imperialistic; that is, they pur-
and limitations of the institutional approach as port to encompass and explain everything about
organizational communication scholars look organizations. Thus all external forces are com-
to institutional theory as a framework for monly seen as institutional, and all behavior in
future studies. organizations is held to be a manifestation of
institutional forces. Also, institutions in contem-
porary industrial and postindustrial societies
Methodological Considerations may actually represent a particular type of cul-
tural development. Hence, it is difficult to distin-
Institutional theory does not privilege a guish analytically between the external cultural
particular methodology, but the task of investi- environments of organizations and their institu-
gating institutions strongly calls for certain tional environments. We also observe that the
methodological moves and empirical foci. First, institutional approach has a tendency to elude
studies must adopt diachronic methods (see straightforward specification and operational-
Barley & Tolbert, 1997). Institutions cannot be ization of terms, including concepts such as
captured effectively with the single-point obser- institution and rational myth. And yet this is
vations that organizational communication where organizational communication, with its
studies often employ. Another key feature of careful attention to interaction, discourse, per-
institutions is that they transcend individual suasion, audience, interpretation, and messages,
organizations. This characteristic requires is able to inform institutional theory.
scholars to observe populations, fields, indus- The institutional perspective is one of the
tries, or interorganizational relationships rather dominant theoretical paradigms in organization
than single organizations. In this respect, studies today (Palmer, Biggart, & Dick, 2008).
O’Connor and Shumate’s (2010) study of web- Under its aegis, a wide range of organizational
based CSR statements is a good example. A studies have been and continue to be published.
third and related point is that an institutional Many of these projects have strong implications
perspective emphasizes external influences on for organizational communication, especially in
organizations, suggesting that institutionally studying how individuals exercise agency while
informed studies should include external embedded in institutions. As Battilana et al.
sources of information and influence. Fourth, (2009) observe, “It seems important to develop
the institutional perspective focuses on rules, finer-grained analyses that will account for the
norms, and laws more than on interpersonal actions and values of all of the agents involved in
interactions. With its roots in interaction, orga- the process of shaping institutions” (p. 95).
nizational communication scholars have typi- Another area ripe for investigation is the use
cally bypassed archival sources as the basis of of network analysis to demonstrate the endur-
meaning in organizations. Few studies focus on ance of established institutional patterns (see
the role of contracts and regulations in explain- Pentland, 1999). The current interest in non-
ing organizational communication. Geist and profit and nongovernmental organizations also
Hardesty’s (1992) study of hospital workers’ offers organizational communication researchers
reactions to the adoption of a federal Medicare an opportunity to examine institutional change
reimbursement scheme, known as diagnosis and persistence (Doerfl, Lai, Chewning, 2010;
related groups, provides a notable exception. Taylor & Doerfl, 2011). Communication studies
of organizational change (Lewis, 2007; see also Beckert, J. (1999). Agency, entrepreneurs, and institu-
Lewis, Chapter 20) have tended to dwell on intra- tional change: The roles of strategic choice and
organizational issues but have begun to consider institutionalized practices in organizations.
institutional forces as well (Lewis, 2011, p. 210). Organization Studies, 20(5), 777–799.
Berger, P., Berger, B., & Kellner, H. (1973). The home
In addition, the core concepts of institutional
less mind: Modernization and consciousness. New
theory—in particular, legitimacy and logics—
York, NY: Random House.
need to be unpacked in terms of communication.
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construc
Both legitimacy and logics are communicatively tion of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowl
constructed and implicated in scholars’ concerns edge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
for uncertainty, identity, and power. With a Bertels, S., & Peloza, J. (2008). Running just to stand
strong tradition of carefully designed and closely still? Managing CSR reputation in an era of ratch-
focused research, organizational communication eting expectations. Corporate Reputation Review,
can make a substantial contribution to institu- 11(1), 56–73.
tional theory and research. In its most recent Berteotti, C. R., & Seibold, D. R. (1994). Coordination
manifestations, institutional theory offers a and role-definition problems in health-care
fertile field for reframing organizational commu- teams: A hospice case study. In L. R. Frey (Ed.),
Group communication in context: Studies of natu
nication scholarship and for showing how insti-
ral groups (pp. 107–131). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
tutions are communicatively constituted.
Erlbaum.
Brimeyer, T. M., Eaker, A. V., & Clair, R. P. (2004).
Rhetorical strategies in union organizing: A case
References of labor versus management. Management
Communication Quarterly, 18(1), 45–75.
Abbott, A. (1988). The systems of professions: An essay Browning, L., Greene, R., Sitkin, S., Sutcliffe, K., &
on the division of expert labor. Chicago, IL: Obstfeld, D. (2009). Constitutive complexity:
University of Chicago Press. Military entrepreneurs and the synthetic charac-
Ashcraft, K. L. (2005). Resistance through consent? ter of communication flows. In A. Nicotera &
Occupational identity, organizational form, and L. Putnam (Eds.), Building theories of organiza
the maintenance of masculinity among commer- tion: The constitutive role of communication
cial airline pilots. Management Communication (pp. 89–116). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
Quarterly, 19(1), 67–90. Burke, K. (1969). A grammar of motives. Berkeley:
Barbour, J. B. (2010). On the institutional moorings of University of California Press.
talk in health care organizations. Management Castello, I., & Lozano, J. M. (2011). Searching for new
Communication Quarterly, 24(3), 449–456. forms of legitimacy through corporate responsi-
Barbour, J. B., & Lammers, J. C. (2007). Health care bility. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(1), 11–29.
institutions, communication, and physicians’ Cheney, G. (1991). Rhetoric in an organizational soci
experience of managed care: A multilevel analy- ety: Managing multiple identities. Columbia:
sis. Management Communication Quarterly, University of South Carolina Press.
21(2), 201–231. Cheney, G., & Ashcraft, K. L. (2007). Considering “the
Barley, S. R. (2011). Signifying institutions. Manage professional” in communication studies: Impli
ment Communication Quarterly, 25(1), 200–206. cations for theory and research within and beyond
Barley, S. R., & Tolbert, P. S. (1997). Institutionalization the boundaries of organizational communication.
and structuration: Studying the links between Communication Theory, 17(2), 146–175.
action and institution. Organization Studies, Cheney, G., Christensen, L. T., Conrad, C., & Lair, D. J.
18(1), 93–117. (2004). Corporate rhetoric as organizational dis-
Battilana, J., Leca, B., & Boxenbaum, E. (2009). How course. In D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick, &
actors change institutions: Towards a theory of L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of orga
institutional entrepreneurship. Annals of the nizational discourse (pp. 79–103). London,
Academy of Management, 3(1), 65–107. England: SAGE.
Cheney, G., Lair, D. J., Ritz, D., & Kendall, B. E. (2010). Doerfel, M. L., Lai, C., & Chewning, L. V. (2010). The
Just a job? Communication, ethics, and profes evolutionary role of interorganizational communi-
sional life. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. cation: Modeling social capital in disaster contexts.
Clair, R. P. (1993). The bureaucratization, commodifi- Human Communication Research, 36(2), 125–162.
cation, and privatization of sexual harassment Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1992). Talk at work:
through institutional discourse: A study of the interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge,
Big Ten universities. Management Communication UK: Cambridge University Press.
Quarterly, 7(2), 123–157. Drori, G. S. (2008). Institutionalism and globalization
Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A studies. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K., Sahlin, &
garbage can model of organizational choice. R. Suddaby (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational
Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25. Institutionalism (pp. 449–472). Thousand Oaks,
Commons, J. R. (1934). Institutional economics: Its CA: SAGE.
place in political economy. New York, NY: Dunn, M. B., & Jones, C. (2010). Institutional logics
Macmillan. and institutional pluralism: The contestation of
Cooren, F. (2001). The organizing property of commu care and science logics in medical education
nication. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John 1967–2005. Administrative Science Quarterly,
Benjamins. 55(1), 114–149.
Cooren, F., Taylor, J. R., & Van Every, E. J. (Eds.). Eisenberg, E. (2009). Organizational communication
(2006). Communication as organizing: Empirical theories. In S. Littlejohn & K. Foss (Eds.),
and theoretical explorations in the dynamic of text Encyclopedia of communication theories (vol. 2,
and conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence pp. 700–705). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Erlbaum Associates. Finet, D. (2001). Sociopolitical environments and
Dalton, M. (1959). Men who manage. New York, NY: issues. In F. M. Jablin & L. Putnam (Eds.), The
John Wiley & Sons. new handbook of organizational communication:
Davis, G. F., & Marquis, C. (2005). Prospects for orga- Advances in theory, research, and methods
nization theory in the early twenty-first century. (pp. 270–290). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Organization Science, 16(4), 332–343. Ford, D. J. (2003). Prism analysis of the debate over
Deephouse, D. L., & Carter, S. M. (2005). An examina- the American Medical Association’s Health
tion of differences between organizational legiti- Access America Plan. Proceedings of the 2004
macy and organizational reputation. Journal of Alta Conference on Argumentation, National
Management Studies, 42(2), 329–360. Communication Association, Washington, DC.
Deetz, S. A. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society
colonization: Developments in communication and back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional con-
the politics of everyday life. Albany: State tradictions. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio
University of New York Press. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational
Deetz, S. A., & Kersten, A. (1983). Critical models analysis (pp. 232–263). Chicago, IL: University of
of interpretive research. In L. L. Putnam & Chicago Press.
M. E. Pacanowsky (Eds.), Communication and Garcia, M. A. (2011). Ask a librarian: The profession,
organizations: An interpretive approach (pp. 147– professional identities, and constitutive rhetoric of
171). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE. librarians (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
DiMaggio, P. J. (1988). Interest and agency in institu- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
tional theory. In L. G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional Urbana, IL.
patterns and organizations: Culture and environ Gehlen, A. (1988). Man, his nature and place in the
ment (pp. 3–22). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. world. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage (Originally published as Der Mensch; seine Natur
revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collec- und seine Stellung in der Welt. Frankfurt am Main:
tive rationality in organization fields. American Äthenäum Verlag, 1966).
Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. Geist, P., & Hardesty, M. (1992). Negotiating the crisis:
Douglas, M. (1986). How institutions think. Syracuse, DRGs and the transformation of hospitals.
NY: Syracuse University Press. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. perspective on the knowledge-based organiza-

Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge, tion. Management Communication Quarterly,
UK: Polity. 16(2), 210–236.
Golden, A. G. (2009). Employee families and organiza- Hoffman, M. F., & Ford, D. J. (2010). Organizational
tions as mutually enacted environments: A sense- rhetoric: Situations and strategies. Thousand
making approach to work-life interrelationships. Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Management Communication Quarterly, 22(3), Jablonski, C. J. (1989). “Aggiornamento” and the
385–415. American Catholic bishops: A rhetoric of institu-
Gouldner, A. (1954). Patterns of industrial bureau tional continuity and change. Quarterly Journal of
cracy. New York, NY: Free Press. Speech, 75(4), 416–432.
Grant, D., Hardy, C., Oswick, C., & Putnam, L. (Eds.). Jepperson, R. L. (1991). Institutions, institutional
(2004). The SAGE handbook of organizational effects, and institutionalism. In W. W. Powell &
discourse. London, England: SAGE. P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in
Grant, D., Keenoy, T., & Oswick, C. (2001). organizational analysis (pp. 143–163). Chicago,
Organizational discourse: Key contributions and IL: University of Chicago Press.
challenges. International Studies of Management Keranen, L. (2007). “‘Cause someday we all die”:
and Organization, 31(3), 5–24. Rhetoric, agency, and the case of the “patient”
Green, S. E., Jr., Babb, M., & Alpaslan, C. M. (2008). preferences worksheet. Quarterly Journal of
Institutional field dynamics and the competition Speech, 93(2), 179–210.
between institutional logics: The role of rhetoric Kraatz, M. S., & Block, E. S. (2008). Organizational
in the evolving control of the modern corpora- implications of institutional pluralism. In
tion. Management Communication Quarterly, R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby
22(1), 40–73. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational
Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K., & Suddaby, R. institutionalism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
(2008). Introduction. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, Kuhn, T. (2005). The institutionalization of Alta
K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE hand in organizational communication studies.
book of organizational institutionalism. Thousand Management Communication Quarterly, 18(4),
Oaks, CA: SAGE. 618–627.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman J. (1977). The population Kuhn, T. (2006). A “demented work ethic” and a “life-
ecology of organizations. American Journal of style firm”: Discourse, identity, and workplace
Sociology, 82(5), 929–964. time commitments. Organization Studies, 27(9),
Hardy, C. (2011). How institutions communicate; or how 1339–1358.
does communicating institutionalize? Manage Lammers, J. C. (2003). An institutional perspective on
ment Communication Quarterly, 25(1), 191–199. communicating corporate responsibility.
Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2008). Institutional entrepre- Management Communication Quarterly, 16(4),
neurship. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, 618–624.
& R. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of Lammers, J. C. (2011). How institutions communicate:
organizational institutionalism (pp. 198–217). Institutional messages, institutional logics, and
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. organizational communication. Management
Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2010). Discourse, field- Communication Quarterly, 25(1), 154–182.
configuring events, and change in organizations Lammers, J. C., & Barbour, J. B. (2006). An institu-
and institutional fields: Narratives of DDT and tional theory of organizational communication.
the Stockholm Convention. Academy of Communication Theory, 16(3), 356–377.
Management Journal, 53(6), 1365–1392. Lammers, J. C., & Garcia, M. A. (2009). Exploring the
Hartelius, E. J., & Browning, L. D. (2008). The applica- concept of “profession” for organizational com-
tion of rhetorical theory in managerial research: munication research: Institutional influences in a
A literature review. Management Communication veterinary organization. Management Communi
Quarterly, 22(1), 13–39. cation Quarterly, 22(3), 357–384.
Heaton, L., & Taylor, J. (2002). Knowledge manage- Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions
ment and professional work: A communication and institutional work. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy,
T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of Merton, R. K. (1936). The unanticipated consequences
organization studies (2nd ed.). London, England: of purposive social action. American Sociological
SAGE. Review, 1(6), 894–904.
Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2009). Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized
Introduction: Theorizing and studying institu- organizations: Formal structure as myth and cer-
tional work. In T. B. Lawrence, R. Suddaby, & emony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2),
B. Leca (Eds.), Institutional work: Actors and 340–363.
agency in institutional studies or organizations Meyer, J. W., & Scott, W. R. (1983). Centralization
(pp. 1–27). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University and legitimacy problems of local government. In
Press. J. W. Meyer & W. R. Scott (Eds.), Organizational
Levis, J. (2006). Adoption of corporate social responsi- environments: Ritual and rationality (pp. 199–
bility codes by multinational companies. Journal 215). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
of Asian Economics, 17(1), 50–55. Mills, C. (1940). Situated actions and vocabularies
Lewis, L. K. (2007). An organizational stakeholder of motive. American Sociological Review, 5(6),
model of change implementation communica- 904–913.
tion. Communication Theory, 17(2), 176–204. Mumby, D. K. (1988). Communication and power in
Lewis, L. K. (2011). Organizational change: Creating organizations. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
change through strategic communication. Mumby, D. K., & Stohl, C. (1996). Disciplining organi-
Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. zational communication studies. Management
Lynch, J. (2005). Rhetoric and the failure of the Communication Quarterly, 10(1), 50–72.
Catholic church’s pastoral letter on homosexual- O’Connor, A., & Shumate, M. (2010). Corporate social
ity. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 8(3), 383–404. responsibility communication: An economic
Maguire, S., & Hardy, C. (2006). The emergence of industry and institutional level of analysis of cor-
new global institutions: A discursive perspective. porate social responsibility communication.
Organization Studies, 27(1), 7–29. Management Communication Quarterly, 24(4),
Maguire, S., & Hardy, C. (2009). Discourse and dein- 529–551.
stitutionalization: The decline of DDT. Academy Oliver, C. (1992). The antecedents of deinstitutional-
of Management Journal, 52(1), 148–178. ization. Organization Studies, 13(4), 563–588.
Maguire, S., Hardy, C., & Lawrence, T. (2004). Palmer, D., Biggart, N., & Dick, B. (2008). Is the new
Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: institutionalism a theory? In R. Greenwood, C.
HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The
Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 654–679. SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. (pp. 739–768). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
New York, NY: John Wiley. Pentland, B. T. (1999). Organizations as networks of
McPhee, R. D., & Zaug, P. (2000). The communicative action. In J. Baum & B. McKelvey (Eds.),
constitution of organizations: A framework for Variations in organization science: In honor of
explanation. The Electronic Journal of Communi Donald T. Campbell (pp. 237–253). Thousand
cation, 10(1/2). Oaks, CA: SAGE.
McPhee, R. D., & Zaug, P. (2009). The communicative Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control
constitution of organization: A framework for of organizations: A resource dependence perspec
explanation. In L. L. Putnam & A. M. Nicotera tive. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
(Eds.), Building theories of organization: The con Phillips, N., Lawrence, T. B., & Hardy, C. (2004).
stitutive role of communication (pp. 21–48). New Discourse and institutions. Academy of
York, NY: Routledge. Management Review, 29(4), 635–652.
Meisenbach, R., Remke, R., Buzzanell, P. M., & Liu, M. Powell, W. W., & Colyvas, J. A. (2008). Microfoundations
(2008). “They allowed”: Pentadic mapping of of institutional theory. In R. Greenwood,
women’s maternity leave discourse as organiza- C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The
tional rhetoric. Communication Monographs, SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism
75(1), 1–24. (pp. 276–298). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (Eds.). (1991). The Sproule, J. M. (1988). The new managerial rhetoric and
new institutionalism in organizational analysis. the old criticism. Quarterly Journal of Speech,
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 74(4), 468–486.
Putnam, L. L., & Pacanowsky, M. E. (Eds.). (1983). Starr, P. (1982). The social transformation of American
Communication and organizations: An interpre medicine. New York, NY: Basic Books.
tive approach. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. Stohl, C., & Coombs, W. T. (1988). Cooperation or
Real, K., & Putnam, L. (2005). Ironies in the discursive cooptation: An analysis of quality circle training
struggle of pilots defending the profession. manuals. Management Communication Quarterly,
Management Communication Quarterly, 19(1), 2(1), 63–89.
91–119. Suddaby, R. (2011). How communication institution-
Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovation. New alizes: A response to Lammers. Management
York, NY: Free Press. Communication Quarterly, 25(1), 183–190.
Sahlin, K., & Wedlin, L. (2008). Circulating Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. (2005). Rhetorical strat-
ideas: Imitation, translation, editing. In egies of legitimacy. Administrative Science
R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & Quarterly, 50(1), 35–67.
R. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of orga Taylor, M., & Doerfel, M. L. (2011). Evolving network
nizational institutionalism (pp. 218–242). roles in international aid efforts: Evidence from
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Croatia’s post-war transition. Voluntas:
Schwarze, S. (2003). Corporate-state irresponsibility, International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit
critical publicity, and asbestos exposure in Organizations, 22(2), p. 311–334.
Libby, Montana. Management Communication Thornton, P., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics.
Quarterly, 16(4), 625–632. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, &
Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations. R. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organi
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. zational institutionalism (pp. 99–129). Thousand
Scott, W. R. (2008). Lords of the dance: Professionals Oaks, CA: SAGE.
as institutional agents. Organization Studies, Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1983). Institutional
29(2), 219–238. sources of change in the formal structures of
Scott, W. R., & Meyer, J. W. (1983). The organization of organizations: The diffusion of civil service
societal sectors. In J. W. Meyer & W. R. Scott reform 1880–1935. Administrative Science
(Eds.), Organizational environments: Ritual and Quarterly, 28(1), 22–39.
rationality (pp. 129–153). Beverly Hills, CA: Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1996). “The institution-
SAGE. alization of institutional theory.” In S. R. Clegg,
Selznick, P. (1949). TVA and the grass roots: A study in C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of orga
the sociology of formal organization. Berkeley: nization studies (pp. 175–190). Thousand Oaks,
University Of California Press. CA: SAGE.
Selznick P. (1952). The organizational weapon: A study Trethewey, A. (2001). Reproducing and resisting the
of Bolshevik strategy and tactics. New York, NY: master narrative of decline: Midlife professional
McGraw-Hill. women’s experiences of aging. Management
Selznick P. (1957). Leadership in administration: A Communication Quarterly, 15(2), 183–226.
sociological interpretation. Evanston, IL: Row, Trethewey, A., & Ashcraft, K. L. (2004). Practicing
Peterson & Company. disorganization: The development of applied per-
Seo, M. G., & Creed, W. E. D. (2002). Institutional spectives on living with tension. Journal of Applied
contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: Communication Research, 32(2), 81–88.
A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Truscott, R. A., Bartlett, J. L., & Tywoniak, S. (2009).
Review, 27(2), 222–247. The reputation of the corporate social responsi-
Sheets, P. (2007). Five distinct companies or one ‘big oil’? bility industry in Australia. Australasian
A test of institutional isomorphism in oil communi Marketing Journal, 17(2), 84–91.
cations (Unpublished manuscript). University of Weber, M. (1968). Economy and society (G. Roth &
Washington, Seattle, WA. C. Wittich, Trans.). Berkeley: University of
California Press. (Original work published organizations. Human Communication Research,

1906–1924.) 37(1), 1–33.
Wijen, F., & Ansari, S. (2007). Overcoming inaction Zucker, L. G. (1983). Organizations as institutions. In
through collective institutional entrepreneurship: S. B. Bacharach (Ed.), Advances in organizational
Insights from regime theory. Organization theory and research (vol. 2, pp. 1–43). Greenwich,
Studies, 28(7), 1079–1100. CT: JAI.
Winn, M. I., MacDonald, P., & Zietsma, C. (2008). The
dynamic tension between collective and competi-
tive reputation management strategies. Corporate Notes
Reputation Review, 11(1), 35–55.
Zietsma, C., & Lawrence, T. B. (2010). Institutional 1. It bears mentioning that institutional theory is
work in the transformation of an organizational by far the most invoked approach in organization
field: The interplay of boundary work and prac- studies today. Google returns about 342,000 sites in a
tice work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(2), search for institutional theory, and Google Scholar lists
189–221. 32,100 citations on the same search. A topic search in
Zilber, T. B. (2002). Institutionalization as an interplay the ISI Web of Knowledge renders 9,213 citations.
between actions, meanings, and actors: The case 2. Throughout TVA and the Grassroots, Selznick
of a rape crisis center in Israel. Academy of quite explicitly embraces the values of democratic
Management Journal, 45(1), 234–254. action at the local level and includes a discussion of
Zilber, T. B. (2007). Stories and the discursive dynam- local disenfranchisement of Black farmers and colleges
ics of institutional entrepreneurship: The case of in the region.
Israeli high-tech after the bubble. Organization 3. In an example of the disciplinary distance
Studies, 28(7), 1035–1054. between institutionalists and other scholars, Tolbert
Zorn, T. E., Flanagin, A. J., & Shoham, M. (2011). and Zucker (1983, 1996), in their discussion of diffu-
Institutional and non-institutional influences sion, make no mention of Rogers (1962).
on information and communication techno 4. This section draws upon and summarizes
logy adoption and use among nonprofit material in Lammers (2011).
View publication stats

M HBB

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

M HBB

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

M HBB

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Institutional Theory Approaches

Chapter · March 2017

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

T his chapter contends that the institu-

Organizational communication scholarship is structures. Selznick, however, was not inter-

Institutionalization. Meyer and Rowan (1977)

Deinstitutionalization. Institutional stability Conceptual Territory

For practices to change, however, discourse interactions are characterized by an obligatory

importance and complexity of institutional The Special Case of Professions

as available for organizational communication Limitations of the

Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. perspective on the knowledge-based organiza-

California Press. (Original work published organizations. Human Communication Research,

View publication stats

You might also like