Laying a smoke screen: Ambiguity and neutralization as strategic responses to intra-institutional complexity

Abstract

Our research contributes to knowledge on strategic organizational responses by addressing a specific type of institutional complexity that has, to date, been rather neglected in scholarly inquiry: conflicting institutional demands that arise within the same institutional order. We suggest referring to such type of complexity as “intra-institutional”—as opposed to “inter-institutional.” Empirically, we examine the consecutive spread of two management concepts—shareholder value and corporate social responsibility—among Austrian listed corporations around the turn of the millennium. Our work presents evidence that in institutionally complex situations, the concepts used by organizations to respond to competing demands and belief systems are interlinked and coupled through multiwave diffusion. We point to the open, chameleon-like character of some concepts that makes them particularly attractive for discursive adoption in such situations and conclude that organizations regularly respond to institutional complexity by resorting to discursive neutralization techniques and strategically producing ambiguity.

Introduction: Into the Fourth Decade

“…Given its early centrality to institutional accounts, it is not surprising that this theme has attracted '[v] What is notable from their review is that, although our understanding of these issues has significantly advanced, there are still many gaps and confusions. More recent research has begun to address what happens after adoption -to the practices that diffuse (e.g., Ansari, Fiss, & Zajac, 2010;Gehman, Trevino, & Garud, 2013) or the organizations (e.g., Weber, Davis, & Lounsbury, 2009), or how the adoption of practices influences future decisions depending on whether the practices enact the same or competing institutional logics (Meyer & Höllerer, 2016;Shipilov, Greve, & Rowley, 2010). There is, too, growing interest in how 'controversial or counter-normative' practices diffuse (or not).…”

Envisioning the ‘Sharing City’: Governance Strategies for the Sharing Economy

“…An example for such a case, within one sector of the sharing economy, is the regulation of commercial actors (such as Uber) while partnering with noncommercial actors (for instance, with private peer-to-peer car sharing initiatives). Meyer and Höllerer (2016) describe this as 'intra-institutional' complexity (as opposed to 'interinstitutional') and emphasize ambiguity as way to deal with such complexity. In addition, heterogeneous responses can also origin from different subunits of the city administration being confronted with different demands from their environment (Binder 2007), such as the planning department of a city versus the tax office.…”

The Interlinking Theorization of Management Concepts: Cohesion and Semantic Equivalence in Management Knowledge

“…In this way, we address the concerns of scholars who contend that management concepts should not be analysed in isolation but are linked to each other in various ways (e.g. Abrahamson & Fairchild, 1999;Meyer & Höllerer, 2016;Shipilov et al, 2010). We build on and extend such literature by suggesting a conceptual framework that (a) covers a whole population of management concepts, and (b) allows us to disentangle direct and indirect relationships between management concepts and study their implications for theorization.…”

“…Existing research in this area has suggested that management concepts exhibit distinct relationships to each other (e.g. Abrahamson & Fairchild, 1999;Meyer & Höllerer, 2016;Shipilov et al, 2010) and are also embedded in broader discourses or myths of modernity (e.g. Chreim, 2006;Shenhav, 1999;Zeitz et al, 1999).…”