자연주의적 탐구조사(Naturalistic Inquiry)

Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques

Truth and method

What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organizations emerges as a field, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them. We describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative—leading to this outcome. We then specify hypotheses about the impact of resource centralization and dependency, goal ambiguity and technical uncertainty, and professionalization and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, we suggest implications for theories of organizations and social change.

The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields (Chinese Translation)

Organizations face institutional complexity whenever they confront incompatible prescriptions from multiple institutional logics. Our interest is in how plural institutional logics, refracted through field-level structures and processes, are experienced within organizations and how organizations respond to such complexity. We draw on a variety of cognate literatures to discuss the field-level structural characteristics and organizational attributes that shape institutional complexity. We then explore the repertoire of strategies and structures that organizations deploy to cope with multiple, competing demands. The analytical framework developed herein is presented to guide future scholarship in the systematic analysis of institutional complexity. We conclude by suggesting avenues for future research.

Institutional Complexity and Organizational Responses

We investigated an organizational field where competing institutional logics existed for a lengthy period of time We identified four mechanisms for managing the rivalry of competing logics that facilitated and strengthened the separate identities of key actors, thus providing a way for competing logics to co-exist and separately guide the behaviour of different actors We contribute to the institutional literature by showing that competing logics can co-exist and rivalry between logics can be managed through the development of collaborative relationships

Managing the Rivalry of Competing Institutional Logics

In this paper we develop a theoretical model that helps to understand change in mature organizational fields by emphasizing the role of competing institutional logics as part of a radical change process. Our investigation into a large-scale, government-led health reform initiative in Alberta, Canada, is based upon a qualitative case study approach to understanding the process of field recomposition. This study focuses on the later portions of change in an organizational field — that is, rather than explaining the sources of change, we investigate how a field becomes re-established after the implementation of a radical structural change.

The Recomposition of an Organizational Field: Health Care in Alberta

Drawing on the professions and institutional literature, we develop theory about how professional work can reflect multiple institutional logics by ana- lyzing changes in the work of pharmacists over time. Through a historical case study of U.S. pharmacists from 1852 to the present, we propose a new conceptualization of professionals and professional work as guided by a con- stellation of logics derived from broader society. We show that both com- petitive (segmenting) and cooperative (facilitative or additive) relationships among coexisting logics allow for the simultaneous influence of multiple log- ics on professionals and their work.

Constellations of Institutional Logics Changes in the Professional Work of Pharmacists

How do individual actors institute changes in established ways of working? Longitudinal research is the basis for our theoretical model showing how actors legitimize new practices by accomplishing three interdependent, recursive, situated “microprocesses”: (1) cultivating opportunities for change, (2) fitting a new role into prevailing systems, and (3) proving the value of the new role. These microprocesses are demarcated by an accumulating series of small wins that consolidate gains while facilitating continuing change efforts. Most accounts of institutional change focus on embeddedness as a constraint, yet our study shows how embeddedness can provide the foundation and opportunity for change.

Legitimizing a New Role: Small Wins and Microprocesses of Change

In this paper, we examine how a public sector organization developed a new strategic approach based on the identification and use of an internal dynamic capability (learning through experimenting). In response to the need for continual performance improvement in spite of reduced financial resources, this organization engaged in three overlapping phases as they shifted to this strategic approach. First, managers identified appropriate latent dynamic capabilities. Next, they used their leadership skills and built on established levels of trust to enable the use of these dynamic capabilities. Finally, they managed the tension between unrestricted development of local initiatives and organizational needs for guidance and control.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/joms_675.pdf?abstractid=994452&mirid=1&type=2

Trish Reay

Papers

Managing the Rivalry of Competing Institutional Logics

The Recomposition of an Organizational Field: Health Care in Alberta

Constellations of Institutional Logics Changes in the Professional Work of Pharmacists

Legitimizing a New Role: Small Wins and Microprocesses of Change

Identifying, Enabling and Managing Dynamic Capabilities in the Public Sector*