We study the emergence of organizational forms, focusing on two mechanisms-reconfi guration and transposition-that distinguish the founding models of the fi rst 26 biotechnology companies, all created in the industry's fi rst decade, from 1972 to 1981. We analyze rich archival data using hierarchical cluster analysis, revealing four organizational variants of the dedicated biotech fi rm (DBF). Three were products of reconfi guration, as executives from Big Pharma used past practices to incorporate new science. One DBF variant resulted from 'amphibious' scientists who imported organizing ideas from the academy into their VC-funded start-ups. We argue that such transpositions are fragile, yet charged with generative possibilities.

This paper presents an inductive account of how two divisions of the same corporation sought to standardize their engineering work. Although both groups achieved ISO 9000 certification, each was guided by historical antecedents and internal processes that left different legacies: a culture of cynicism and chaotic work practices in one division vis-a-vis a system of standardized work practices that are voluntarily (and often enthusiastically) followed in the other. The contrasting cases shed light on what happens when an external standard is adopted by an organization, converted into a formal directive, and then confronted by the norms and practices of an existing occupational community. More generally, the paper articulates how three common modes of social regulation-standards, directives, and norms-are interconnected in the process of implementing a standard in an organization, and the conditions under which institutional exigencies are either decoupled from or tightly coupled to technical work.

To protect themselves against deskilling and obsolescence, professionals must periodically revise their claims to authority and expertise. Although we understand these dynamics in the broader system of professions, we have a less complete understanding of how this process unfolds in specific organizational contexts. Yet given the ubiquity of embedded professionals, this context is where jurisdictional shifts increasingly take place. Drawing on a comparative ethnographic study of human resources (HR) professionals in two engineering firms, we introduce the concept of jurisdictional entrenchment to explain the challenges embedded professionals face when they attempt to redefine their jurisdiction. Jurisdictional entrenchment describes a condition in which embedded professionals have accumulated tasks, tactics, and expertise that enable them to make jurisdictional claims in an organization. We show how such entrenchment is a double-edged sword: instrumental to the ability of professionals to withstand challenges to their authority but detrimental when expertise and skills devalued by the professionals remain in high demand by clients, thus preventing the professionals' shift to their aspirational jurisdiction. Overall, our study contributes to a better understanding of how embedded professionals renegotiate jurisdictional claims within the constraints of organizational employment.