Designing organised clusters as social actors: a meta-organisational approach

Abstract

In this paper, we aim at exploring whether and how ‘organised’ clusters can be conceived of as deliberate actors within their contexts. Seeing such clusters as meta-organisations, we suggest that these can make ‘organisationality’ design choices, or decisions regarding full or partial implementation of the five elements constitutive of formal organisations: membership, hierarchy, rules, monitoring, and sanctions. To explore the relationship between clusters’ organisationality and actorhood, we conduct two qualitative case studies of organised clusters in Australia. Our findings suggest that clusters can deliberately ‘construct’ themselves both as organisations and social actors. Furthermore, drawing upon the institutional work perspective, we propose that clusters can engage in deliberate identity, boundary, and practice work. However, in doing so, they address both internal and external legitimating audiences. Finally, our findings suggest that clusters’ organisationality design choices may influence the locus of their actorhood resulting in more or less collaborative approaches to institutional work.

Want An Innovative Company? Build An Effective Innovation Strategy

“…The key kernel here is that incentives for collaboration are provided in highly innovative firms. Many silos exist in less innovative firms because the culture does not promote collaboration (Serrat, 2017b;Lupova-Henry et al, 2021). Silos by themselves are not a bad thing, there just needs to be some form of connection channel between them to enable engagement across silos (Serrat, 2017c).…”

Meta-Organizations: A Clarification and a Way Forward

“…Therefore, the meta-organization concept cannot be applied to forms of interorganizational relations that are not organized to some extent. For example, so-called clusters cannot qualify as meta-organizations if there is no organization at the meta level (Lupova-Henry et al, 2021). Similarly, business ecosystems can be studied as meta-organizations only if and when there is a system of decisions encompassing members of the ecosystem.…”

“…Multistakeholder meta-organizations are increasingly conducting this task of regulation, especially in a perspective of socio-ecological transition (Berkowitz et al, 2020;Carmagnac & Carbone, 2019). But as relatively weak organizations, meta-organizations are often primarily producers of standards or soft law for their own members (Lupova-Henry et al, 2021;Rasche et al, 2013;Vifell & Thedvall, 2012). In the extreme case of the EU (Ahrne, Brunsson, & Kerwer, 2016;Kerwer, 2013), however, meta-organizations can even organize and regulate states by producing large-scale international or transnational regulatory frameworks, which may have repercussions beyond their own organizational boundaries.…”

Clusters as institutional entrepreneurs: lessons from Russia

“…Indeed, a new form of a "managed" or "organized" cluster has taken hold and has been spreading over the globe (Lindqvist, Ketels, & Sölvell, 2013;Sölvell, Lindqvist, & Ketels, 2003). Such clusters have-although to varying degrees-the attributes of formal organizations, such as membership, monitoring, rules, sanctions, and hierarchy (Ahrne & Brunsson, 2011;Leys & Joffre, 2014;Lupova-Henry et al, 2021). They can thus be seen as "context-embedded meta-organizations" (Lupova-Henry, Blili, & Dal Zotto, 2021a: Innovation-centric cluster business model: Findings from a designoriented literature review.…”

“…While traditionally clusters have been seen as "geographic concentrations of organizations" (Porter, 1990), a recent line of studies suggests that "managed" or organized clusters can more precisely be described as "organizations of organizations" or metaorganizations (cf. Gadille, Tremblay, & Vion, 2013;Lupova-Henry, Blili, & Dal Zotto, 2021). As such, these are not only acted upon by external forces but can themselves be deliberate actors and agents of change.…”