重新思考去制度化:探索高度扩散和制度化实践的放弃与脱钩的边界条件

Herman Aksom
{"title":"重新思考去制度化:探索高度扩散和制度化实践的放弃与脱钩的边界条件","authors":"Herman Aksom","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3736139","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Deinstitutionalization of taken-for-granted practices as a natural consequence of ever increasing entropy seems to directly contradict the major institutional thesis, namely, that over time isomorphic forces increase and, as a result, possibilities for deinstitutionalization decrease culminating in the impossibility of abandoning in highly institutionalized fields. We argue that the possibilities for deinstitutionalization have been overestimated in organizational literature and offer a revisited account of deinstitutionalization vs. institutional isomorphism and institutionalized vs. highly diffusing-but-not-institutionalized practices. A freedom for choice between alternative practices exists during the pre-institutional stage but not when the field is already institutionalized. In contrast, institutionalized, taken-for-granted practices are immutable to any sort of functional and political pressures and they use to persist even when no technical value remains thus deinstitutionalization on the basis of a functional dissatisfaction seems to be a paradox. We offer a solution to this theoretical inconsistency by distinguishing between truly institutionalized practices and currently popular practices (highly diffused but non-institutionalized). It is only the later that are subject to the norms of progress which allow abandoning and replacing of existing organizational activities. Deinstitutionalization theory is thus can be applied to popular practices that are subject to reevaluation, abandonment and replacement with new optimal practices while institutions are immutable to these norms of progress. Institutions are immutable to deinstitutionalization and the deinstitutionalization of optimal practices is subject to the logic of isomorphic convergence in organizational fields. Finally, we revisit a traditional two-stage institutional diffusion model in order to explain the possibility and likelihood of abandonment during different stages of institutionalization.","PeriodicalId":255350,"journal":{"name":"Economic Sociology eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rethinking Deinstitutionalization: Exploring the Boundary Conditions for Abandoning and Decoupling Highly Diffused and Institutionalized Practices\",\"authors\":\"Herman Aksom\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3736139\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Deinstitutionalization of taken-for-granted practices as a natural consequence of ever increasing entropy seems to directly contradict the major institutional thesis, namely, that over time isomorphic forces increase and, as a result, possibilities for deinstitutionalization decrease culminating in the impossibility of abandoning in highly institutionalized fields. We argue that the possibilities for deinstitutionalization have been overestimated in organizational literature and offer a revisited account of deinstitutionalization vs. institutional isomorphism and institutionalized vs. highly diffusing-but-not-institutionalized practices. A freedom for choice between alternative practices exists during the pre-institutional stage but not when the field is already institutionalized. In contrast, institutionalized, taken-for-granted practices are immutable to any sort of functional and political pressures and they use to persist even when no technical value remains thus deinstitutionalization on the basis of a functional dissatisfaction seems to be a paradox. We offer a solution to this theoretical inconsistency by distinguishing between truly institutionalized practices and currently popular practices (highly diffused but non-institutionalized). It is only the later that are subject to the norms of progress which allow abandoning and replacing of existing organizational activities. Deinstitutionalization theory is thus can be applied to popular practices that are subject to reevaluation, abandonment and replacement with new optimal practices while institutions are immutable to these norms of progress. Institutions are immutable to deinstitutionalization and the deinstitutionalization of optimal practices is subject to the logic of isomorphic convergence in organizational fields. Finally, we revisit a traditional two-stage institutional diffusion model in order to explain the possibility and likelihood of abandonment during different stages of institutionalization.\",\"PeriodicalId\":255350,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Economic Sociology eJournal\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Economic Sociology eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3736139\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Economic Sociology eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3736139","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

作为不断增加的熵的自然结果,被视为理所当然的实践的去制度化似乎直接与主要的制度论点相矛盾,即随着时间的推移,同构的力量增加,结果,去制度化的可能性减少,最终在高度制度化的领域中不可能放弃。我们认为,在组织文献中,去制度化的可能性被高估了,并对去制度化与制度同构、制度化与高度扩散但非制度化的实践进行了重新审视。在制度前阶段存在着选择不同实践的自由,但当该领域已经制度化时就不存在了。相比之下,制度化的、被认为理所当然的做法对任何类型的功能和政治压力都是不变的,即使在没有技术价值的情况下,它们也会持续存在,因此,基于功能不满的去制度化似乎是一个悖论。我们通过区分真正制度化的实践和当前流行的实践(高度扩散但非制度化),为这种理论不一致提供了一个解决方案。只有后者才受到允许放弃和取代现有组织活动的进步规范的制约。因此,去制度化理论可以应用于重新评估、放弃和被新的最佳实践取代的流行实践,而制度对这些进步的规范是不变的。制度的去制度化是不可改变的,最优实践的去制度化服从于组织领域的同构收敛逻辑。最后,我们重新审视了传统的两阶段制度扩散模型,以解释在不同的制度阶段放弃的可能性和可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Rethinking Deinstitutionalization: Exploring the Boundary Conditions for Abandoning and Decoupling Highly Diffused and Institutionalized Practices
Deinstitutionalization of taken-for-granted practices as a natural consequence of ever increasing entropy seems to directly contradict the major institutional thesis, namely, that over time isomorphic forces increase and, as a result, possibilities for deinstitutionalization decrease culminating in the impossibility of abandoning in highly institutionalized fields. We argue that the possibilities for deinstitutionalization have been overestimated in organizational literature and offer a revisited account of deinstitutionalization vs. institutional isomorphism and institutionalized vs. highly diffusing-but-not-institutionalized practices. A freedom for choice between alternative practices exists during the pre-institutional stage but not when the field is already institutionalized. In contrast, institutionalized, taken-for-granted practices are immutable to any sort of functional and political pressures and they use to persist even when no technical value remains thus deinstitutionalization on the basis of a functional dissatisfaction seems to be a paradox. We offer a solution to this theoretical inconsistency by distinguishing between truly institutionalized practices and currently popular practices (highly diffused but non-institutionalized). It is only the later that are subject to the norms of progress which allow abandoning and replacing of existing organizational activities. Deinstitutionalization theory is thus can be applied to popular practices that are subject to reevaluation, abandonment and replacement with new optimal practices while institutions are immutable to these norms of progress. Institutions are immutable to deinstitutionalization and the deinstitutionalization of optimal practices is subject to the logic of isomorphic convergence in organizational fields. Finally, we revisit a traditional two-stage institutional diffusion model in order to explain the possibility and likelihood of abandonment during different stages of institutionalization.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信