Children Without Bruised Knees: Responding to Material and Ideational (Mis)alignments

Abstract

Institutional theorists have predominantly focused on the symbolic and cognitive side of institutions. So far, the role of materiality has been largely overlooked in institutional studies. Material aspects of organizing can nevertheless critically shape actors' responses to institutional pressures, not least because material and ideational aspects are often intermingled. In this paper, we extend Oliver's (1991) conceptual framework of strategic responses. We show how managers assess and compare the material and ideational aspects of new institutional requirements with their existing material and ideational situation and balance both aspects in their strategic responses. We find that the degree of (mis)alignment subsequently shaped their evaluation of the consequences of (non)conformity and the breadth of responses available to them. In fact, we find that the nature of institutional requirements -material versus ideational -actually restricts the range of strategic response options.

Towards an Articulation of the Material and Visual Turn in Organization Studies

“…For example, Christiansen (2018) examines how visual framing allows a collective organization to establish an expert identity in an issue field. Raaijmakers, Vermeulen and Meeus's (2018) study of organizations' strategic responses to new institutional requirements captures how rules related to materiality tend to restrict the range of organizational responses. An example of a dialogical approach, according to which visuals can be comprehended as a 'trigger' that speak to deeper elements of human consciousness (Meyer et al, 2013), is the work of Arjaliès and Bansal (2018).…”

“…These theoretical perspectives include broader fields that have recently acknowledged a need for more attention to materiality and visuality. For instance, in relation to institutional theory, Höllerer et al (2018b) see opportunities in discursive construction of institutions, Puyou and Quattrone (2018) in legitimacy, Raaijmakers et al (2018) in strategic responses to institutional pressures, and Stowell and Warren (2018) in institutional maintenance. Articles in this issue also build on and advance more specific perspectives, such as organizational framing (Christiansen, 2018), actorhood (Halgin et al, 2018), the study of devices (Arjaliès & Bansal, 2018) and designers' aesthetic knowledge (Stigliani & Ravasi, 2018).…”

“…Articles in this issue also build on and advance more specific perspectives, such as organizational framing (Christiansen, 2018), actorhood (Halgin et al, 2018), the study of devices (Arjaliès & Bansal, 2018) and designers' aesthetic knowledge (Stigliani & Ravasi, 2018). Empirically speaking, they investigate the interaction of material, visual and verbal realms in contexts and settings as diverse as the global financial crisis (Höllerer et al, 2018b), the Dutch childcare sector (Raaijmakers et al, 2018), a French socially responsible investment fund (Arjaliès & Bansal, 2018), a UK-based collective organization dealing with the issue of responsible drinking (Christiansen, 2018), a UK-based SME in e-waste recycling (Stowell & Warren, 2018) and a US-headquartered worldwide design consultancy (Stigliani & Ravasi, 2018).…”

“…For example, Arjaliès and Bansal (2018) show how visuality (via the human-like faces of emojis) 'incarnates' environmental, social and governance issues, thereby facilitating decisions related to socially responsible investments. Raaijmakers et al (2018) examine interaction effects between the verbal and the material realm as co-determinants of organizational responses to institutional pressures in the context of the Dutch childcare sector, suggesting that the ideational realm (e.g. cognitive frames and symbols) and the material realm are intermingled.…”

“…A number of articles deal with responses. For example, Raaijmakers et al (2018) find that managers' options for strategic responses to new institutional requirements are restricted when materiality is at stake. Based on their findings, they suggest that compliance with material requirements is more visible and easier to assess than similar requirements in the ideational realms, and thereby more difficult to avoid or openly resist.…”