Conciliando agência e contexto na dinâmica da mudança institucional

Abstract

ResumoEste ensaio apresenta estrutura analítica que busca conciliar elementos da agência e do contexto na análise de processos de mudança institucional. A estrutura está baseada na articulação entre as abordagens do institutional work e da mudança institucional gradual. Ambas as abordagens foram criadas como alternativas a perspectivas que enfatizavam demasiadamente elementos estruturais (como a path dependence theory) ou a ação (como o empreendedorismo institucional). No entanto, apesar dos ganhos analíticos que ambas trouxeram para o estudo da mudança institucional, ainda mantêm fortes vínculos com os pressupostos das tradições de pesquisa das quais emergiram. Uma aproximação entre tais esquemas teóricos permite maior rigor para investigar processos de mudança institucional e possibilita aos pesquisadores maior consciência sobre os pressupostos inerentes a cada perspectiva, assim como incentiva a busca por abordagens que encadeiem elementos capazes de prover explicação adequada para a manutenção e a mudança institucionais. No centro dessa proposta, encontra-se a busca por entender a dinâmica da vida institucional. O contexto institucional possui certo nível de plasticidade e pode ser modificado de acordo com a disponibilidade de práticas, significados e recursos. A efetivação desse potencial de mudança está relacionada à capacidade dos atores, seus níveis de reflexividade institucional e munificência de recursos. As práticas de criação, manutenção e dirupção das instituições em determinado contexto serão, portanto, resultado da interação entre as características do contexto institucional (nível de plasticidade institucional) e dos tipos de atores sociais (nível de discricionariedade institucional).

Institutional Work Affecting Institutions in a Tourism Cluster

“…The focus of institutional work is concentrated on the agency dimension through the involvement of actors in processes of institutional change through physical and mental efforts, to affect institutions (Baratter, Ferreira, & Costa, 2010). Therefore, individuals and organizations that are involved in the creation, interpretation, maintenance, and change of institutional rules and standards can provide collective responses to the environment (Coraiola, Jacometti, Baratter, & Gonçalves, 2015;Hasselbladh & Kallinikos, 2000;Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006;Scott, 1994).…”

“…Institutional work scholars seek to clarify the role of the agency in the institutional dynamics (Coraiola et al, 2015), that is, its focus is on understanding how action influences the existing social and institutional structures through the work of individuals, groups, and organizations to promote the creation, maintenance or disruption of institutions (Lawrence, Suddaby, & Leca, 2009;Moisander, Hirsto, & Fahy, 2016). In this stream of research, institutional creation is the category that has been drawing the most attention from organizational scholars (Coraiola et al, 2015;Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006), specifically regarding understanding the necessary characteristics and conditions for the emergence of new institutions. Moreover, institutional work involves the construction of rules and their inherent rewards and sanctions (Canning & O'Dwyer, 2016).…”

“…However, the most powerful institutions resort to it for being relevant and effective. Moreover, understanding the maintenance work is essential to evaluate the social conduct of the actors embedded in the institutional environment (Coraiola et al, 2015).…”

A decade of institutional work: context and opportunities for research

“…Flexibility is key to this new construct that is used to demonstrate that two extremes of institutional theory -institutional work and institutional logic -are not antagonistic or established in a duality of behavior, but have limits that are porous and sometimes may overlap, based on the reflexivity of the individual (DEROY; CLEGG, 2015) The authors' request, therefore, is that future research adopts recursive contingency to understand the processes of reproduction of institutions over time and also the unexpected collapse of institutional structures. From the perspective of institutional reproduction, the "Brazilian way" ("jeitinho brasileiro" 1 ), as a characteristic practice of interpersonal relationships, is mapped as a relevant phenomenon (PEDROSO; MASSUKADO-NAKATANI; MUSSI, 2009) However, from the perspective of the unexpected collapse of institutional structures, the abrupt rupture of the Brazilian shipbuilding program (SILVA;MARTINS, 2007), as well as the economic recession of 2015(ROLDÃO et al, 2018 provide unique characteristics to be analyzed.…”

“…Although the theoretical perspective has progressively evolved in international journals, the subject is still embryonic in the context of studies regarding the Brazilian context. By the end of 2017, there were fewer than a dozen articles that used the theory in their empirical studies (i.e., JACOMETTI; GONCAVES; DE CASTRO, 2014; SANDER; CUNHA, 2013; LEONEL JUNIOR; CUNHA, 2013; MIRANDA; CALMON, 2016) or articulated it with other lenses of analysis (CORAIOLA et al, 2015;DONELLY, 2010;TURETA;JÚLIO, 2016). A possible reason for the absence of papers using this theoretical perspective lies in the novelty of this approach to Brazilian authors.…”