Institutionalization in the Context of Institutional Pluralism: Politics as a Generative Process

Abstract

Institutionalizing a new organizational template in a pluralistic environment where multiple institutional logics coexist entails unique challenges where actors must negotiate conflict and carry out integrative and adaptive work. This paper examines how organizational actors in a large service sector trade union managed to craft integrative processes out of contentious processes in institutionalizing a new organizational template. Recently, renewed attention has focused on politics as a means through which integration is achieved in organizations under multiple institutional pressures. However, we know relatively little about how politics achieves organizational integration in pluralistic contexts. This paper sheds light on how successful institutionalization processes actually unfold in organizations. While extant literature on intra-organizational political processes has depicted politics mainly as a zero-sum game, findings in this study suggest that politics can be a generative process through which organizations adapt to changing conditions.

Institutional Pluralism, Organizations, and Actors: A Review

“…While the literature reviewed above generally implies that organizations wittingly choose their responses to pluralism, the purposiveness of organizational responses has been debated (Greenwood et al : 352). Empirical findings have suggested that outcomes under pluralism cannot always be foreseen because they are products of complex negotiations that sometimes produce unintended consequences (Kraatz and Block ; Yu ). A process and interaction‐based approach recognizes that logics and organizational templates can be innovated on or altered by actors that interpret situational needs over time (Jay ; Yu ; Zietsma and Lawrence ).…”

“…Yu () documented the negotiated orders (Hallett and Ventresca ) that emerged in the process of integrating competing logics in an American union. Yu's () finding that political contestation against the social movement logic prompted proponents to graft a centralized bureaucratic structure to a formerly decentralized union suggests that intra‐organizational politics can generate greater heterogeneity. Further research is required to examine such unintended consequences of organizational responses to institutional pluralism (Kraatz and Block ).…”

Equity in REDD+: Varying logics in Tanzania

“…The logics of the family, in turn, have been attributed to the nuclear family, characterized by close emotional relations (Friedland and Alford, 1991). Fields and organizations also face institutional complexity (Greenwood et al, 2010(Greenwood et al, , 2011Yu, 2013;Kraatz and Block, 2008), and draw from multiple logics in their everyday functions. Fields and organizations also face institutional complexity (Greenwood et al, 2010(Greenwood et al, , 2011Yu, 2013;Kraatz and Block, 2008), and draw from multiple logics in their everyday functions.…”

Non-domination, contestation and freedom: The contribution of Philip Pettit to learning and democracy in organisations

“…Rather, the opportunity to discuss and deliberate decisions should be institutionalised; without such changes workers remain vulnerable to domination in that managers retain the ability to act against workers' interests should they wish to do so. Indeed, given the corrupting effects of power and the incentives inherent within modern capitalism, managers might be expected to act in ways that dominate subordinates (Courpasson 2000;Kerr and Robinson, 2012;Reed, 2012;Yu, 2013).…”