Seo InstitutionalContradictionsPraxis 2002

Institutional Contradictions, Praxis, and Institutional Change: A Dialectical Perspective
Author(s): Myeong-Gu Seo and W. E. Douglas Creed

Source: The Academy of Management Review , Apr., 2002, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Apr., 2002),
pp. 222-247
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4134353
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Academy of Management Review
This content downloaded from

171.248.114.193 on Tue, 07 May 2024 02:30:55 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
c Academy of Management Review
2002, Vol. 27, No. 2, 222-247.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTRADICTIONS, PRAXIS,

AND INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE:
A DIALECTICAL PERSPECTIVE
MYEONG-GU SEO
Boston College
W. E. DOUGLAS CREED
MIT Sloan
We use a dialectical perspective to provide a unique framework for understanding

institutional change that more fully captures its totalistic, historical, and dynamic
nature, as well as fundamentally resolves a theoretical dilemma of institutional
theory: the relative swing between agency and embeddedness. In this framework
institutional change is understood as an outcome of the dynamic interactions between
two institutional by-products: institutional contradictions and human praxis. In par-
ticular, we depict praxis--agency embedded in a totality of multiple levels of inter-
penetrating, incompatible institutional arrangements (contradictions)--as an essen-
tial driving force of institutional change.
During the past two decades, institutional the- existing ones changed over time (DiMaggio &
orists have been able to offer more insights intoPowell, 1991)?
the processes that explain institutional stability Many researchers attempt to address this theo-
than those that explain institutional change retical dilemma by tempering notions of institu-
(Barley & Tolbert, 1997; Clemens & Cook, 1999; tional determinism with ideas of discretion and
Oliver, 1991; Scott, 1991). This has been due, in strategic compliance, rooted in interests. For ex-
part, to the greater emphasis on how institu- ample, Oliver (1991) notes that organizations are
tional pressures force organizations to adopt not always passive but, instead, respond to insti-
similar practices or structures to gain legiti- tutional pressures according to their resource de-
macy and support (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). In pendencies. Similarly, Edelman (1992) found that
this context institutions have been variously de- organizations create departments and profes-
fined as "socially constructed, routine-repro- sional roles responsible for constructing the
duced programs or rule systems" (Jepperson, meaning of compliance with ambiguous institu-
1991: 149) and "supra-organizational patterns of tional prescriptions, such as EEO laws, in ways
human activity by which individuals and or- that accommodate managerial interests. In their
ganizations produce and reproduce their mate- study of corporate ethics programs in the defense
rial substance and organize time and space" industry, Scully and Meyerson (1996) found that
(Friedland & Alford, 1991: 243). If institutions are, various interests influenced both the content and
by definition, firmly rooted in taken-for-granted the mechanisms of legitimation, in a process
rules, norms, and routines, and if those institu-
marked by ambiguity, before more or less isomor-
tions are so powerful that organizations and in- phic practices emerged. Many other case studies
dividuals are apt to automatically conform to suggest that power and interests play important
them, then how are new institutions created or
roles in the evolution and/or change of organiza-
tional fields (e.g., DiMaggio, 1991; Leblebici,
Salancik, Copay, & King, 1991).
We thank Eric Abrahamson, Joy Beatty, Naomi Olson, The theoretical question of how institutions
Maureen Scully, Marc Ventresca, and participants in the are created and changed would seem to be at
1999 Institutions, Conflicts, and Change Conference at the
least partially answered by incorporating the
Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, for
their helpful comments and encouragement. We are also role of interest and agents into institutional the-
grateful to Dev Jennings and the anonymous reviewers for ory. However, these attempts often directly con-
their insightful comments and recommendations. tradict one of the most central assertions in in-
222

171.248.114.193 on Tue, 07 May 2024 02:30:55 +00:00
2002 Seo and Creed 223
stitutional theory-that actors and their ular type of human agency-praxis, which is
interests are themselves institutionally con- political action embedded in a historical system
structed (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991). A growing of interconnected yet incompatible institutional
body of literature advances this concern. Fried- arrangements. Praxis may be a core concept for
land and Alford (1991) oppose the depiction of reconciling two seemingly incompatible proper-
actors as having objective, universal interests, ties of institutional theory: institutional embed-
arguing that both interest and power are insti- dedness and transformational agency.
tutionally shaped. Powell (1991) also argues that We believe that our framework provides an
individual preferences and choices cannot be essential understanding of institutional change
understood apart from the larger cultural setting and, in particular, of the historical, dynamic,
and historical period in which they are embed- and complex processes that surround human
ded. Goodrick and Salancik (1996) contend that agency in multifarious and fragmented institu-
the direct incorporation of a strategic choice per-tional environments. These processes have not
spective into institutional theory risks discount- been adequately delineated in several recent
ing an essential premise of institutional theory: efforts to explain institutional change (e.g., Bar-
the social-fact quality of institutions. Likewise, ley & Tolbert, 1997; Greenwood & Hinings, 1996;
Brint and Karabel (1991) have found that both the Hirsch & Lounsbury, 1997). Adopting a dialecti-
origin and the realization of agents' interests cal framework also alerts us to the ways in
are shaped and channeled by the forces of ex- which institutional formation and change are
ternal and internal institutional arrangements, the outcomes of political struggle among multi-
such as power structures, field opportunities, ple social constituencies with unequal power.
and ideological orientations. This positions our theoretical concerns in the
The implied corrective-a renewed emphasis reemergent tradition of critical organizational
on the institutional embeddedness of interest analysis (e.g., Braverman, 1974; Burawoy, 1979,
and agency-leads to another dilemma, how- 1985; Edwards, 1979; Thompson, 1989). In this
ever: "How can actors change institutions if their vein, we build on recent treatments that have
actions, intentions, and rationality are all con- highlighted the value of a critical perspective
ditioned by the very institution they wish to for institutional analysis in particular (e.g., Jer-
change?" (Holm, 1995: 398). Addressing this the-mier, 1998; Oakes, Townley, & Cooper, 1998).
oretical paradox while discounting neither the
active role nor the institutional embeddedness
PARADOX IN INSTITUTIONAL THEORY AND A
of agency and interests seems to be one of the DIALECTICAL PERSPECTIVE
central issues of current institutional arguments
(Clemens & Cook, 1999; Hirsch & Lounsbury, Recently, several authors have attempted to
1997). resolve the theoretical paradox of embedded
In this article we attempt to address this cen- agency by integrating either political insights
tral paradox by employing and elaborating a from the "old institutionalism" or notions of
dialectical framework for understanding institu- structural dualism from structuration theory. For
tional change that depicts the historical devel- example, Hirsch and Lounsbury (1997) have as-
opment of institutional contradictions and hu- serted that, in general, institutional arguments
man praxis as the key mediating mechanisms have shifted away from the old institutional-
linking institutional embeddedness and institu- ism's focus on agency and interests toward the
tional change. Specifically, drawing upon Ben- new institutionalism's focus on structural em-
son's (1977) dialectical perspective, we identify beddedness, constitutive cognitive schema, an
concrete mechanisms that delineate how insti- higher levels of abstraction. The result is the
tutional arrangements create various inconsis- current overemphasis on structural constraint in
tencies and tensions within and between social institutional theory. To achieve a more balanced
systems (contradictions), how those contradic- understanding, these authors advocate adopt-
tions transform the embedded social actors into ing theoretical insights from Giddens (1984) or
the change agents of the very institutional ar-
Bourdieu (1988) that emphasize the mutually
rangements, and how those contradictions constitutive
fur- nature of structure and agency.
ther enable and foster the subsequent change In this vein, Greenwood and Hinings (1996)
processes. We also focus on theorizing a partic- provide a dynamic framework in which they

171.248.114.193 on Tue, 07 May 2024 02:30:55 +00:00
224 Academy of Management Review April
adopt insights fromand the

economicnew institutionalis
shock) may be necessary before
explain the normative contextual
actors can pressures
make such a collective choice. How-
constrain organizational change and insights ever, their theorizing still does not extend to two
from the old institutionalism to explain intraor-important questions. First, where does the con-
ganizational political dynamics that produce textual change come from (e.g., from an idiosyn-
change. Another example is found in Barley andcratic and exogenous or endogenous force)?
Tolbert's (1997) recursive process model of insti-Second, when and how do embedded actors in-
tutionalization, based on Giddens' (1984) struc- dividually and collectively come to that con-
turation theory, in which institutions are de- scious choice point-presumably, a point where
picted as not only constraints on action but alsothey recognize the need, the opportunities, and
as the objects of constant maintenance or mod- the appropriate courses for collective action for
ification through action. Barley and Tolbert changing existing institutional arrangements?
break down the reciprocal relationship betweenIn this paper we use a dialectical framework to
institutions and actions into four sequential andfill these theoretical gaps and to develop a more
researchable moments: (1) the encoding of insti-comprehensive theory of institutional change
tutional principles in actors' scripts, (2) actors' and action.
unreflexive enacting of those scripts, (3) actors' A dialectical perspective is a general view of
intentional efforts to revise the scripts or change social life that is abstracted from the Marxist
their automatic replication of scripted behav- analysis of social structure and its ramifications
iors, and (4) the objectification and externaliza- but is not limited to the specific categories and
tion of the patterned behaviors. arguments of that analysis. Various authors
Although each of these theoretical contribu- adopting the Marxist analytical point of view
tions are valuable attempts to reconcile the ap- have developed their own perspectives on dia-
parent contradictions between embeddedness lectic, but Benson's (1977) dialectical perspective
and agency and between stability and change, is especially suited for an analysis of institu-
all leave several important questions at best tional arguments.' Benson's framework incorpo-
only partially answered. For example, in Green-rates not only the viewpoints of several authors
wood and Hinings (1996), the two institutional- writing in the tradition of dialectical Marxism,
isms are hardly integrated and instead are con- such as Habermas (1971, 1973) or Lukacs (1971),
ceptualized as two separate processes; one but also the perspectives of phenomenological
process, involving normative pressures operat- sociologists, especially Berger and Luckmann
ing in the institutional context, influences the (1967), whose work provided the philosophical
other process-agents' political action within foundation of institutional theory (Scott, 1992).
organizations. When and how local agents Moreover, his relatively simple framework is
change the institutional context itself is not the well attuned to the dialectical study of complex
focus of their conceptualization. organizations. It focuses on the long-term, ongo-
Barley and Tolbert (1997) offer a conceptually ing processes through which organizational
more appealing theory, highlighting the mutu- arrangements are produced, maintained, and
ally constitutive relationship between institu-transformed:
tionalized scripts and the local reenactment A dialectical view is fundamentally committed to
and/or intentional revision of those scripted be- the concept of process. The social world is in a
haviors. However, they still leave an important continuous state of becoming-social arrange-
theoretical dilemma unresolved: when and how ments which seem fixed and permanent are tem-
do actors actually decide to revise behavioral
scripts when their actions and thoughts are con-
The problem of agency-structure dualism persists in the
stantly constrained by the existing institutional writings of those who adopt the Marxist analytic point of
system? In explaining institutional change, Bar- view (Jermier, 1985, 1998). We are open to any dialectical
ley and Tolbert propose, first, that a critical point of view that discounts neither the constraining power
number of actors must make a collective, con- of meaning structures on social actors nor the central role of
free agency in social change (e.g., Habermas, 1971, 1973;
scious choice before they can make a multilat-
Lukacs, 1971; Marcuse, 1969; Sartre, 1991). We adopted Ben-
eral departure from established patterns of son'sso- framework (1977) in this paper simply because of its
cial reproduction (scripts) and, second, that a simplicity, inclusiveness, and applicability to institutional
bigger contextual change (e.g., technological analysis.

171.248.114.193 on Tue, 07 May 2024 02:30:55 +00:00
porary, arbitrary
going social construction produces a complex
cial pattern is regarded as one among many
array of contradictions, continually generating
possibilities. Theoretical attention is focused
tensions and conflicts within and across social
upon the transformation through which one set
of arrangements gives way to another (Benson, systems, which may, under some circumstances
1977: 3). shape consciousness and action to change the
present order.
According to Benson (1977), four basic princi-
Finally, praxis is the free and creative recon-
ples guide dialectical analysis: social construc-
struction of social patterns on the basis of a
tion, totality, contradiction, and praxis. First, so-
cial construction focuses on the social process reasoned analysis of both the limits and the
through which orderly, predictable relations are potentials of present social forms. "People under
produced and reproduced. Through human in- some circumstances can become active agents
teractions, which are directed by people's inter- reconstructing their own social relations and ul-
ests and power, social patterns are gradually timately themselves" (Benson, 1977: 5-6). None of
built. Eventually, a set of institutional arrange- these four principles can be understood sepa-
ments is established and continually repro- rately, but, taken together, they constitute an
duced. overall perspective on the fundamental charac-
ter of social life.
Second, totality refers to the interconnected-
ness of these built-up social patterns. Any par- These four dialectical principles can be di-
ticular social structure is viewed not as an iso- rectly applied to the analysis of institutional
lated, abstract phenomenon but, rather,processes, as part as illustrated in Figure 1. Various
of a larger whole composed of multiple, institutions-
inter- organizations, organizational
penetrating social structures operating at fields,
mul- or states-can be understood as the multi-
tiple levels and in multiple sectors. However, level social arrangements that are continually
the linkages among the components are neither produced and reproduced by social interactions
complete nor coherent. Instead, the component (social construction). However, these ongoing,
social structures that make up the whole are multilevel processes produce a complex array of
loosely coupled and more or less autonomous. In interrelated but often mutually incompatible in-
light of the ongoing processes of social construc- stitutional arrangements (totality). Such institu-
tion and reproduction, the loose coupling be- tional incompatibilities provide a continuous
tween component social structures enables "di- source of tensions and conflicts within and
vergent, incompatible productions" within the across institutions (contradiction). The ong
larger, interconnected system as a whole (Ben- experience of contradictory reality reshap
son, 1977: 4). consciousness of institutional inhabitants, and
Third, contradiction refers to these various they, in some circumstances, act to fundamen-
ruptures and inconsistencies both among and tally transform the present social arrangements
within the established social arrangements. On- and themselves (praxis). This dialectical per-
FIGURE 1
Institutionalization and Institutional Change: Processes from a Dialectical Perspective
(New Social
Praxis Social interactions
(New) o Onstruction
Conflicts and tension,

reshaped conciousness Institutionalization
Multilevel,
mutually incompatible Totality
Contradiction institutional processes

171.248.114.193 on Tue, 07 May 2024 02:30:55 +00:00
spective provides a useful SOURCES OF INSTITUTIONAL

way to reso
paradox of embedded agency, CONTRADICTIONS first by
ing the critical role of agents (praxis)
We first propose four sources of contradictions
tional change, and second by depicting
that can arise over the long term as by-produc
lectical processes through which the actions
of the processes of institutionalization: (1) legi
and consciousness of those agents not only are
imacy that undermines functional inefficiency
shaped by the existing institutional arrange- (2) adaptation that undermines adaptability,
ments but also are continuously reshaped by the (3) intrainstitutional conformity that creates in-
institutions' inevitable by-products-institu- terinstitutional incompatibilities, and (4) isomor-
tional contradictions.
phism that conflicts with divergent interests.
Of course, the concept of institutional contra-
From a dialectical perspective, the accumula-
diction is not new in current institutional tion of these contradictions both within and be-
arguments. In a growing body of literature, re- provides the seeds of institu-
tween institutions
searchers suggest that various institutional con-
tional change. We are not suggesting that all
tradictions are not only a fundamental driving
institutions always and immediately produce
force of institutional change but alsoallthe fourkey
typestoof contradictions. Instead, we sug-
resolving the paradox of embedded agency gest that (e.g.,
as certain social relationships and ac-
DiMaggio & Powell, 1991; Friedland & Alford, tions become institutionalized over a long pe-
1991; Sewell, 1992; Whittington, 1992). For exam- riod of time, they are likely to produce one or a
ple, Jepperson (1991) notes that institutions can combination of these four types of contradic-
develop contradictions with their environments, tions. From a dialectical point of view, these
other institutions, or elementary social behav- contradictions are the impetus that drives, en-
ior, and these contradictions can force institu- ables, and constrains further institutional
tional change by blocking reproduction. Clem-change.
ens and Cook (1999) argue that an appreciation
of the multiplicity and heterogeneity of institu-
tions is essential for understanding the pro- Legitimacy That Undermines Functional
cesses that disrupt the reproduction of seem- Efficiency
ingly stable and durable institutions. In a case
One of the core premises of institutional the-
study of the U.S. broadcasting industry, Leble-
ory is that organizational success depends on
bici and his colleagues reach a similar conclu-
factors other than technical efficiency; organiza-
sion:
tions gain legitimacy and needed resources by
becoming isomorphic with their institutional en-
Institutional change is the product of endogenous
forces that are associated with the historical evo-
vironments (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Meyer &
lution of the field itself. Though they are productsRowan, 1977). However, scholars have long pre-
of practical consciousness, institutions produce dicted that conformity to institutional arrange-
unintended consequences that define the ends ments may conflict with technical activities and
and shape the means by which future economic efficiency demands. Meyer and Rowan (1977)
and political interests are determined and pur- suggest that institutional rules, which tend to be
sued (1991: 362).
categorical and general, are apt to conflict with
the logic of efficiency, because technical activi-
However, few scholars have provided a the- ties require diverse and customized solutions.
oretical framework that comprehensively and Zucker (1987) and Scott and Meyer (1991) main-
systematically explains (1) what the sources of tain that organizational conformity to the insti-
institutional contradictions are and (2) why, by tutional environment increases various re-
what mechanism, and under what conditions wards, such as reputation, resources, and
those contradictions lead embedded agents to survival chances, at the expense of efficiency.
take collective action for institutional change. Likewise, Powell argues that "organizations
In the following sections we use a dialectical adopt structures and practices that are in some
framework to propose answers to these ques- respects suboptimal in order to gain needed re-
tions, in our attempt to develop a comprehen- sources" (1991: 190). And the size and persistence
sive theory of action for institutional change. of this efficiency gap may increase with envi-

171.248.114.193 on Tue, 07 May 2024 02:30:55 +00:00
ronmental uncert
leads us to the next source of institutional con-
O'Neill, Pouder, & Buchholtz, 1998). tradiction.
For the most part, institutional theorists have
accommodated this contradiction between effi-
Adaptation That Undermines Adaptability
ciency and legitimacy with the notion of the
selective decoupling of formal structures from Certainly, institutional isomorphism that in-
activities in the technical core (Meyer & Rowan, creases legitimacy is an adaptive move for sur-
1977). Such decoupling allows for an organiza- vival. A widely noted paradox arises when such
tion's ritual conformity to rationalized myths- adaptive moves make adopters less able to
the source of legitimacy and meaning-while adapt over the long run. Through a series of
enabling discretion in operational sectors of the experiments, Zucker found that, once institution-
organization. However, most discussions of the alized, a structure or activity is maintained with-
efficiency gap implicitly point to the question- out further action: "Institutionalized elements
able effectiveness of decoupling in protecting become embedded in networks, with change in
organizations from the accumulation of ineffi- any one element resisted because of the
ciencies over the long run. changes it would entail for all the interrelated
The recent crisis in the Korean economy pro- network elements" (1991: 105). Powell (1991) pr
vides an example. Contrary to Orru, Biggart, vides a similar account, suggesting that prac-
and Hamilton's (1991) argument that the institu- tices and structures come to be perceived as
tional features observed in Taiwan and Korea natural and legitimate and, thus, go unques-
have been critical to achieving both the legiti-
tioned vis-a-vis alternatives. Efforts to change
macy and the technical fitness of organizations, those shared expectations are often resisted, he
when the currency crisis hit many Asian coun-
argues, because "they threaten individuals'
tries in 1997, the Korean economy, which sense has
of security, increase the cost of informa-
been highly dependent on densely interpene- tion processing, and disrupt routines" (Powell,
trating institutional arrangements, suffered a 1991: 194).
far more severe economic crisis than Taiwan, A similar theme is found even at the microin-
which has a more atomized market economy dividual level of analysis. Cognitive psychology
(Orru et al., 1991). The chronic, accumulated in-indicates that people develop various schemas
efficiency, rooted in the tightly woven institu- to better process complex information. But once
tional arrangements among the government, developed, these schemas become resistant to
banks, and corporations, is one of the funda- change, regardless of their usefulness (Bartunek
mental causes of the economic crisis in Korea & Moch, 1987; Fiske & Taylor, 1984). This resis-
(Samsung Economic Research Institute, 1998). tance, in the form of taken-for-grantedness, is a
The institutional arrangements that were once fundamental attribute of institutionalization
credited with enabling the Korean economy to (Jepperson, 1991).
gain efficiency and resources have created a Economic interdependence is another reason
web of vulnerability that is now threatening theinstitutions become maladaptive (Powell, 1991
very foundation of the entire economy by accu-When economic dependencies extend across o
mulating inefficiencies within the social system.ganizational boundaries, common practices or
In sum, the possibility of loose coupling not- procedures become resistant to change, despite
withstanding, one source of institutional contra-considerable evidence that they are suboptimal.
diction is the inefficiency produced by conform-This is not only because the perceived benefits
ing to institutional arrangements. Even if associated with familiarity easily outweigh the
institutionalized organizations make decisions anticipated gains associated with flexibility but
that improve both legitimacy and technical effi- also because a considerable amount of eco-
ciency in the short run, those decisions easily nomic resources are invested and "locked in."
become suboptimal if new optimal solutions are Path-dependent patterns of development
not continually pursued and adopted. This (Arthur, 1989) and "competency traps" (Levitt &
raises the issue of how suboptimal practices March, 1988) are good examples, in which initial
and structures are perpetuated over time or howtechnical choices preclude even those future op-
institutional arrangements prevent continuous tions that would have been more effective in the
pursuit of optimally efficient solutions, which long run. As adoption spreads, the technical in-

171.248.114.193 on Tue, 07 May 2024 02:30:55 +00:00
vestment becomes irreversible; because of this ply, but, at the same time, labor market prac-
lock-in feature, later competitive improvements tices may weaken the family system, as seen in
cannot be capitalized on easily (Powell, 1991). the current problem of work/family balance.
In sum, although institutionalization is an In one elaboration of this view, Scott and
adaptive process, once in place, institutions are Meyer (1991) suggest that decentralized states
likely to be both psychologically and economi- increasingly exhibit functionally differentiated
cally locked in and, in a sense, isolated from or sectors whose structures are vertically con-
unresponsive to changes in their external envi- nected, with lines stretching up to the central
ronments. This unresponsiveness creates a nation-state. However, the federalized authority
space where contradictions between those insti- at the national level makes control and coordi-
tutions and their external environments develop nation among differentiated sectors problem-
and accumulate over time.
atic, costly, and frustrating. These three fac-
tors-increasing heterogeneity between insti-
Intrainstitutional Conformity That Creates tutionalized sectors, increasing functional and
Interinstitutional Incompatibilities structural interconnectedness among those sec-
tors, and reduced ability to control and coordi-
The dialectical concept of totality shifts our those sectors at the societal level-all
nating
focus from intrainstitutional phenomenaimply to thethat interinstitutional contradictions be-
intricate ties between institutions and the comelarger
an increasingly common part of contem-
societal context, a context consisting of porary multi-social life.
ple, interpenetrating levels and sectors. From
For example, Cooper, Hinings, Greenwood,
this view, the ongoing production and reproduc-
and Brown's (1996) case study of two Canadian
tion of social interactions are carried out in
law firms reflects a process through which such
many different locations, resulting ininstitutional the morecontradictions become an increas-
or less autonomous local production of multiple
ingly common and important aspect of contem
and incompatible institutional arrangements.
porary society. The process by which shifts in
Thus, conformity to certain institutional ar-
the wider institutional context alter the interpre-
rangements within a particular level or sector
tation of organizational structures and system
may cause conflicts or inconsistencies with the
represents a "sedimentation" where one institu-
institutional arrangements of different levels or
sectors. tionalized logic (e.g., professionalism) is layered
Several institutional theorists have explored on another (e.g., managerialism or bureaucra-
cy), rather than a distinctive transformation
this source of contradictions. For example,
Meyer and Rowan (1977) suggest that organiza- where one logic sweeps away the residue of
tions are embedded in pluralistic institutional the other. This process results in sedimented
environments that are often imbued with structures and ideologies that provide resources
sharply inconsistent prescriptions for foraction,
competingall interests in institutionalization
supported by rationalized myths. Thus, organi- processes (reproduction or reconstruction).
zations tend to incorporate all sorts of incompat- D'Aunno, Sutton, and Price (1991) and Meyerson
ible structural elements, practices, and proce- (1994) also provide empirical evidence of the in-
dures in the search for legitimacy and stability. creasing penetration of interinstitutional contra-
Friedland and Alford maintain that the major dictions into the day-to-day practices of contem-
institutions of contemporary Western society-a porary organizations and its consequences.
capitalist market, the nuclear family, the bu- Clemens and Cook (1999) add that heterogeneity
reaucratic state, liberal democracy, and Judeo- and incompatibility also can come from inside
Christian religious traditions-have mutually an institutional boundary-for example,
interdependent and yet contradictory "central through ongoing learning and innovation.
logics-sets of material practices and symbolic In sum, individuals and organizations are in-
constructions-which constitute their organiz- creasingly exposed to multiple and contradic-
ing principles and which are available to organ- tory, yet interconnected, institutional arrange-
izations and individuals to elaborate" (1991: 256). ments and prescriptions-all of which are the
For example, capitalist markets may depend inevitable by-products of the ongoing social
upon families to minimize the costs of labor sup-construction of those institutions. Conforming to

171.248.114.193 on Tue, 07 May 2024 02:30:55 +00:00
certain sis on this source of contradictions: the funda-

institution
lated taken-for-gr
mental misalignment between a particular form
may create of social arrangementincons
and the interests of di-
compatibilities with behavioral expectations verse actors who enact, inhabit, and reproduce
stemming from institutional arrangements at that social arrangement. Specifically, propo-
different levels or in different sectors of society nents view those actors whose ideas and inter-
as a whole. More important for our task, devel- ests are not adequately served by the existing
oping a theory of human agency for institutional social arrangements as potential change agents
change, is the view that it is political processes who, in some circumstances, become conscious
that determine the appropriate relationships of the institutional conditions that leave their
among contradictory institutions or which insti- needs unmet and take action to change the
tutional logic should regulate particular social present order.
activities (Friedland & Alford, 1991). Although we have discussed the four sources
of contradictions individually, we do not sug-
gest that they are separate sources of contradic-
Isomorphism That Conflicts with
tions. Rather, it is likely that they are highly
Divergent Interests
interconnected as they unfold. For example,
Proponents of a dialectical perspective see nonadaptability may create an environment in
institutional arrangements as the products of which efficiency gaps or interinstitutional in-
political struggles among various participants compatibilities are unrecognized and thus per-
who have divergent interests and asymmetric petuated. In the following sections we link these
power. Thus, existing institutional arrange- four sources of institutional contradictions to in-
ments are likely to reflect the ideas and goals ofstitutional change through the key mediating
the more powerful political contestants in the mechanism of praxis. Since either the ongoing
social arena, while practices and structures of- reproduction or the change of institutional ar-
ten endure through the active efforts of those rangements is the outcome of political contests
who benefit from them (Benson, 1977). In other among pedple with divergent interests and un-
words, the formation and reproduction of insti-equal power, a dialectical theory of agency has
tutional arrangements are unlikely to satisfy the to show how these contradictions can give rise to
divergent interests of all participants, least ofa form of political action capable of challenging
all those interests of the less powerful. and transcending institutional constraints. A dia-
In a number of empirical investigations, re- lectical framework provides a unique theory of
searchers have found political contestation to action-the theory of praxis-to explain social
be an important factor in the construction of change in the midst of social embeddedness.
contemporary institutional arrangements, such
as corporate governance structures (Davis & PRAXIS AS THE CORE MEDIATING
Thompson, 1994), corporate systems of control MECHANISM OF INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE
over labor processes (Edwards, 1979), and labor
market structures (Gordon, Edwards, & Reich, A dialectical perspective embraces the view
1982; Stone, 1974). Covaleski and Dirsmith (1988) that institutional contradictions are the funda-
have shown that the institutionalization of a mental driving forces of institutional change,
university budget category is infused with but not the assumption that these contradiction
power and interest, both within the organization lead deterministically to such change. Instead,
and in extraorganizational relations. Brint and both the development and influence of contra-
Karabel (1991) have also found that community dictions are more or less specifiable probabili-
college administrators develop vocationaliza- ties, rather than inevitabilities (Heydebrand,
tion agenda in such a way as to enhance their 1977), and an important mechanism-human
own status. praxis-mediates between institutional contra-
In sum, the formation and reproduction dictionsof
andso-
institutional change. Locating hu-
cial arrangements are basically political pro- man praxis as a mediating mechanism recasts
cesses involving various participants who have the idea that any social arrangement is socially
divergent interests and unequal power. Propo- constructed as the argument that a change in
nents of dialectical view place a special empha- any social arrangement requires a social recon-

171.248.114.193 on Tue, 07 May 2024 02:30:55 +00:00
struction process tonomous

by social actor
the situated in a contradic-
inhabitants of
tory social world.
cial structure. Praxis, as the foundation of such a
reconstruction process, constitutes perhaps the
most important piece of the puzzle in under-
standing institutional change processes-in The Partially Autonomous Actor Situated in a
particular, the dynamic relationships among in-Contradictory Social World
stitutional embeddedness, contradictions, ac-
While highlighting the ways in which social
tors, and institutional change (Benson, 1977).
context affects awareness, Benson also sugges
Here we explore the dialectical concept of
that actors' consciousness is "partially autono
praxis and its key underlying concepts: the par-mous" from the contexts in which the actors
tially autonomous social actor in a contradictory
exist:
social world and the active exploiter of social
contradictions. We then turn to identifying un- Sometimes they may [participate in the repro-
der what conditions and through what mecha- duction of existing arrangements] in an auto-
nisms particular forms of institutional contra- matic, unreflective way; in other periods they
may become very purposeful in trying to reach
dictions can lead to particular components of beyond the limits of their present situation in
praxis. accordance with alternative conceptions of its
Jepperson (1991) has argued that institutional purposes, structures, technologies, and other
theory should distinguish between human be- features (1977: 7).
havior and action. Whereas human behavior
Many institutional theorists have advanced a
contributes to the automatic reproduction of so-
similar view of actors, since their attempts to
cial arrangements, action entails a particular
explain the role of agency and interests in insti-
type of human behavior, involving conscious
tutional change have required relaxing the as-
and purposeful departures from institutional-
sumption that all the means and ends available
ized social patterns (Jepperson, 1991). Adopting
to agents are institutionally conditioned. "Loose
this notion of human action, we define praxis as
coupling" (Powell, 1991), "incomplete institution-
a particular type of collective human action, sit-
alization" (DiMaggio, 1988), "nested systems"
uated in a given sociohistorical context but
(Holm, 1995), and "mutability" (Clemens & Cook,
driven by the inevitable by-products of that con-
1999) all are examples of concepts that have
text-social contradictions. The aim of praxis is
been introduced by institutional theorists to pro-
"the free and creative reconstruction of social
vide working space and autonomy for interests
arrangements on the basis of a reasoned and anal-
agency. However, an important question re-
ysis of both the limits and the [latent] potentials
mains unresolved: under what conditions do so-
of present social forms" (Benson, 1977: 5). cially embedded, unreflective actors become
To be more specific, based on the Hegelian- conscious of the social arrangements in which
Marxist tradition, the concept of praxis includes their interests are unmet, mobilize other simi-
the following three components: (1) actors' self- larly situated actors, and take collective action
awareness or critical understanding of the ex- for change? In short, how does praxis become
isting social conditions in which their needs and possible?
interests are unmet; (2) actors' mobilization, in- A dialectical perspective provides a clear an-
spired by the new, collective understanding of swer: the likelihood of praxis increases as con-
their social conditions and themselves; and tradictions within and across social systems de-
(3) actors' multilateral or collective action to re- velop, deepen, and permeate actors' social
construct the existing social arrangements and experience. Although actors can become reflec-
themselves (Bernstein, 1971). As this definition tive at any time, the likelihood of a shift in col-
suggests, praxis necessarily has both a reflec- lective consciousness that can transform actors
tive moment, involving the critique of existing from passive participants in the reproduction o
social patterns and the search for alternatives, existing social patterns into mobilized change
and an active moment, involving mobilization agents increases when actors continually and
and collective action (Benson, 1977). The theoret- collectively experience tensions arising from
ical and practical possibility of the reflective contradictions in a given sociohistorical context
moment relies on the concept of a partially au- (Benson, 1977).

171.248.114.193 on Tue, 07 May 2024 02:30:55 +00:00
Emirbayer and
tive institutional logics M
of action and systems of
argument meaning found regardin
in the larger heterogeneous so-
partially autonomous actors become active cial world. A growing number of institutional
change agents. They conceive of social action as theorists provide a similar view that the nexus
composed of a combination of three temporally of multiplicity and incompatibility in the social
rooted action orientations: (1) the past-directed, world is an important locus of institutional
"iterational" orientation fosters unreflective, ha- change, because social actors are active and
bitual behaviors that play a role in institutional artful exploiters of those social contradictions.
reproduction; (2) the future-directed, "projective" For example, Friedland and Alford (1991) ar-
orientation enables the imagining of alternative gue that although institutions constrain both the
social configurations, informed by a knowledge means and ends of action, human beings are
of multiple existing arrangements; and (3) the artful in mobilizing different institutional logics
present-directed, "practical-evaluative" orienta-to serve their purposes. Sewell (1992) argues that
tion enables pragmatic judgment about the via-social actors are capable of applying, transpos-
bility of imagined alternatives given present ing, and extending a wide range of different and
constraints. All of these action orientations- even incompatible cultural schemas to new con-
like notes in a chord-are found to varying texts. de-
Whittington (1992) also suggests that hu-
grees in any social action, but one or another man agency for social change entails the active
note will define the key in which action occurs. exploitation of the tensions and conflicts be-
Changes in key-from unreflective participation tween divergent structural principles and rules
in institutional reproduction to imaginative cri- derived from the wider society. The cases of the
tique of existing arrangements to practical ac- diffusion of grievance procedures (Friedland
tion for change-may occur, Emirbayer and & Alford, 1991), of corporate philanthropy
Mische argue, when actors face problematic sit-(Galaskiewicz, 1991), of work computerization
uations that require a reflective distance from (Prasad, 1993), and of gay and lesbian employee
past patterns and allow for greater imagination advocacy for changes in human resource poli-
and conscious choice (1998: 973). cies (Creed & Scully, 1998; Creed, Scully, & Aus-
Therefore, this concept indicates that the tin, de- in press) are among the numerous examples
velopment of social contradictions is a neces- that demonstrate how artfully agents adopt and
sary driving force for praxis, because contradic- use the alternative institutional logics available
tions enable a shift in partially autonomous in the broader societal context to achieve their
social actors' collective consciousness from a political purposes.
unreflective and passive mode to a reflective Putting these insights together, we see that
and active one. However, this shift in collective the dialectical concept of praxis implies that
consciousness is only one necessary element in human agency for institutional change is insep-
praxis. A theory of praxis still needs to explain arable from institutional contradictions. Institu-
how social actors, once they have become reflec-tional contradictions may not only trigger the
tive and active change agents, mobilize both the shift in actors' collective consciousness but also
other actors and the resources required to bringmay provide alternative logics of action and
about social change. In answer to this, a dialec- psychological and physical resources to be mo-
tical perspective offers another conceptualiza- bilized, appropriated, and transposed in the pro-
tion of human agency-that of the social actor cess of institutional change. This dialectical
as an active exploiter of social contradictions-- concept of human agency provides a theoretical
which fills in the rest of the praxis story. basis for more concrete predictions on how the
four types of institutional contradictions identi-
fied above may affect the social reconstruction
Active and Artful Exploiters of Institutional
Contradictions processes involved in institutional change.
Benson (1977) argues that praxis involves INSTITUTIONAL

not CONTRADICTIONS, PRAXIS,
only the reflective critique of existing social ar- AND INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE
rangements but also the active mobilization of
institutional inhabitants in the reconstruction of In this section we identify concrete and pre-
social arrangements through the use of alterna- dictable ways in which institutional contradic-

171.248.114.193 on Tue, 07 May 2024 02:30:55 +00:00
tions may trigger, enable, and limit

isting order. Therefore, praxis
we predict that the de-
institutional change. gree Our
to which angoal isarrangement
institutional not to is dev
a comprehensive linear causal
misaligned model,
with the interests and needs offor
its su
model could by no means capture
participants-in terms the
of both the number of com
dynamics possibly involved. Instead, we at- actors whose interests are not adequately
tempt to illustrate several conceptually impor-served by the institutional arrangement and the
tant relationships among particular types of degree to which those interests are not met by
institutional contradictions and particular com- the institutional arrangement-will be posi-
ponents of praxis. We highlight particular link- tively related to the probable emergence of
ages in a series of elaborations of a general praxis by affecting who will arise as change
framework recursively linking institutionaliza-agents (see arrow a in Figure 2A).
tion to institutional contradictions, praxis, and Greenwood and Hinings (1996) take this view,
institutional change. suggesting that one potential pressure for insti-
tutional change is the extent to which groups
are dissatisfied with how their interests are ac-
Misaligned Interests and Potential
commodated within an organization. Leblebici
Change Agents
and his colleagues (1991) also argue that insti-
From a dialectical perspective, the seed of tutional change is likely to be initiated by less
institutional change grows out of one of the corepowerful participants or parties from the periph-
sources of institutional contradictions-the fun- ery of an interorganizational field, because they
damental misalignment between the existing pay a lower cost for changing the existing order
social arrangements and the interests and and they are also less likely to be sanctioned by
needs of actors who constitute and inhabit those more central, powerful players. Numerous em-
very arrangements. This sets the stage forpirical the examples attest to both the idea that
emergence of potential institutional challengers misaligned interests provide a fundamental im-
from the population of actors whose interests petus for institutional change (e.g., Brint & Kara-
and ideas are not adequately served by the bel, ex- 1991; Davis & Thompson, 1994; Holm, 1995)
FIGURE 2A
Institutional Contradictions and the Emergence of Potential Change Agents
Institutionalization
Institutional Praxis
contradictions Io Institutional
change
Inefficiency Collective action
Nonadaptability Actor
mobilization
Interinstitutional Reflective shift

incompatibilities in consciousness
Misaligned
interests a + ? Potential chan
agents

171.248.114.193 on Tue, 07 May 2024 02:30:55 +00:00
and the idea that alternative practices and tion from outside. Below we treat these two
structures are likely to emerge from the marginspaths in two separate elaborations of our recur
or interstices (Morrill, in press). This discussion
sive model.
leads to our first proposition. Gradual reshaping of consciousness from
within. In some cases, when institutional ar-
Proposition 1: The presence and de- rangements are neither deeply embedded nor
gree of misaligned interests increase tightly coupled (see dotted arrow a in Figure 2B),
the likelihood and the scope of praxis the constant experience of problematic situa-
for institutional change by generating tions stemming from other institutional contra-
potential change agents. dictions may naturally and gradually lead insti-
tutional inhabitants to a critical understanding
Institutional Contradictions and the Reflective of and disengagement from their past patterns
Shift in Collective Consciousness of behavior and social reproduction (Benson,
1977; Emirbayer & Mische, 1998). This disengage-
A dialectical perspective neither discounts ment can be either individual or collective. One
the notion that interests cannot be understood possible result is what has been called "deinsti-
apart from their historical and institutional con-
tutionalization" or "dissipation," a process in
text nor underestimates the potentially powerful which the legitimacy of an institutionalized
constraining forces of existing social structures. practice gradually erodes (Oliver, 1992).
Instead, it regards the objective circumstances Both efficiency gaps and interinstitutional in-
in which actors' interests are not adequately compatibilities can be linked to gradual shifts
met as the necessary but insufficient condition in institutional inhabitants' consciousness and
for praxis (Benson, 1977). The strength of existing deinstitutionalization. First, the ongoing experi-
institutional constraints on participants' thoughts ence of an efficiency gap can be one trigger of
and behaviors will largely influence both the like- the critical reflection necessary for praxis (see
lihood that those institutional inhabitants will arrow b in Figure 2B). Oliver (1991) and Roberts
achieve a critical perspective on disadvantageous and Greenwood (1997) suggest that organiza-
social arrangements and the form their tions critical
are likely to engage in both the critical
understanding will take. Various concepts speak of current practices or institutional
evaluation
to the power of institutional arrangements to
arrangements and the search for alternatives
shape participants' beliefs, understandings, whenand those institutionalized practices begin to
behaviors, or the degree to which the participants conflict with the economic criteria of efficiency
are psychologically and economically locked in.
and effectiveness. For example, Kraats and
These concepts include the "capacity" ofZajac institu-
(1996) found that when faced with strong
tional arrangements (Clemens & Cook, 1999), the
market-based pressures in the early 1970s, lib-
extent of tight coupling (Greenwood & Hinings, eral arts colleges showed a gradual but obvious
1996), or the degree of embeddedness (Uzzi, pattern
1997). of disengagement from highly institu-
Such notions are encompassed by one particular tionalized norms, as seen in the vocationalizing
type of institutional contradiction framed above:
of their curricula.
nonadaptability. Second, the degree of subjective exposure to
We propose that nonadaptability-the extent multiple, incompatible institutional arrange-
to which institutional arrangements arements deeply may also facilitate such a gradual shift in
embedded and tightly coupled-is a situational actors' consciousness (see arrow c in Figure 2B).
variable that fundamentally conditions two pos- Clemens and Cook (1999) argue that exposure to
sible ways in which the reflective shift in collec- multiple institutions may facilitate a change in
tive consciousness may unfold. One way is actors' consciousness such that the relative
through the gradual reshaping of consciousness dominance of some institutional arrangeme
from within the institutional context; the other is is no longer seen as inevitable. Oliver (1992)
through revolutionary disruption from outside. suggests that actors' experience of normative
The greater the nonadaptability, the less likelyfragmentation-a loss of consensus among so-
the reflective shift in collective consciousness, cial actors on the meanings and interpretations
when it arises, can proceed gradually; instead, they attach to their daily lives-will increase
it may largely depend on revolutionary disrup- the vulnerability of certain institutional ar-

171.248.114.193 on Tue, 07 May 2024 02:30:55 +00:00
FIGURE 2B
Institutional Contradictions and Gradual Shift in Collective Consciousness Under Conditions of
Weak Nonadaptability
Institutionalization
contradictions ) Institutional
change
mobilization
Interinstitutional Reflective shift

incompatibilities c + in consciousness Gradual change through dissipation,
fragmentation
Misaligned Potential change

interests agents
i ,disinstitutionalization, or normative
rangements view. to For example, Edwards (1979) found that

conscious re
ticism. This new implies
forms of corporate controlthatover labor pro- th
likely to be cesses
where have emerged as a consequence
multiple of crises
tutions intersect (Clemens & Cook, 1999; Sewell, in firm operations brought on by intensifying
1992). These discussions lead to our second conflict between management and labor. Powell
proposition. (1991) suggests that the major institutional ac-
tors in the United States began to consider and
Proposition 2: Under conditions of
implement alternative forms of work organiza-
weak nonadaptability, efficiency
tions when they faced a serious economic crisis
gaps and interinstitutional incompat-
in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Based on the
ibility increase the likelihood of
study of the spread of diversification strategies
praxis for institutional change by
in American industry, Fligstein (1991) maintains
gradually undermining the perceived
that some form of shock in the organization's
inevitability of institutional arrange-
ments.
field is a necessary, although not sufficient, im-
petus for institutional change. However, none of
Revolutionary disruption from outside. these Fromtreatments
a have offered adequate expla-
dialectical perspective, a more common way in of what gives rise to institutional crisis
nation
which institutional contradictions facilitate and how institutional crisis facilitates institu-
shifts in actors' collective consciousness is by tional change (Hoffman, 1999).
causing an abrupt disruption of the existing so- A dialectical perspective provides important
cial order through institutional crisis. Benson theoretical insights for addressing both ques-
(1977) suggests that some contradictions pro- tions. Most important, proponents of this per-
duce crises by undermining the ongoing repro-spective view institutional crisis as a systematic
duction of social arrangements, which increasesoutcome of institutional contradictions rather
the possibilities for praxis. A number of dialec-than as an idiosyncratic event. Here we propos
tical and institutional scholars support this two concrete paths through which institution

171.248.114.193 on Tue, 07 May 2024 02:30:55 +00:00
contradictions concept of totality, sudden changes in pr govern-

the accumulated mental regulation and deregulation (Edelman, e
conformity 1992; Scully & Meyerson, 1996) to or technologicalsu
ments innovation (Tushman & Anderson,
may create 1986) can look
run (see arrow a in Figure 2C). As discussed more like the consequences of interinstitutional
earlier, institutional crisis is especially likely incompatibilities unfolding in different sectors
when the accumulation of institutionally rooted of the larger institutional field than like idiosyn-
inefficiencies reaches the point where decou- cratic, exogenous events.
pling the technical core from institutional prac- In a dialectical framework, the role of institu-
tices becomes an inadequate or infeasible tional crisis in driving institutional change be-
response. Such a crisis may not affect organiza- comes critical when the capacity of the existing
tions or actors individually because they are institutional arrangement to constrain its partic-
tightly interconnected with each other throughipants' thoughts and behaviors is strong (see
institutional arrangements. Instead, as the re- arrow c in Figure 2C). In this case, strong non-
cent crisis of the Korean economy exemplifies, itadaptability may, in the short run, prevent insti-
may occur like a systemic disaster, suddenly tutional inhabitants from behaving outside the
shaking up and jeopardizing the whole set of prescriptions of the existing order, whereas tak-
actors involved. en-for-granted approaches may make other
Second, interinstitutional incompatibilities types of problem solving unimaginable. How-
may also cause institutional crisis (arrow b in ever, in the long run, strong nonadaptability
Figure 2C). Latent interinstitutional contradic- renders institutional arrangements increasingly
tions become manifest threats to the existing vulnerable to external shocks by insulating the
institutional arrangements when the bound- participants from critical information that exists
aries between heterogeneous institutions are re- beyond the institutional boundary (Uzzi, 1997) or
laxed (Powell, 1991). Seen in light of the inter- by making them less motivated to actively re-
connectedness implied by the dialectical spond to it (Arthur, 1989; Levitt & March, 1988).
FIGURE 2C
Institutional Contradictions and Gradual Shift in Collective Consciousness Under Conditions of
Strong Nonadaptability
Institutionalization t
contradictions iInstitutional
chang
Institutional mobilization
crisis
Interinstitutional, "-- Reflective shift

-incompatibilities
incompatibilities .. cinstitutional crisis Revolutionary cha
. in consciousness

interests agents

171.248.114.193 on Tue, 07 May 2024 02:30:55 +00:00
Thus, strong nonadaptability structures necessarily involve may

two subpro-ultim
bring about institutional crises
cesses. One is developing by
alternative exacer
models of
the predictable results of accumulated ineffi- social arrangements, which have been vari-
ciencies vis-a-vis the broader economic systemsously labeled schemas, scripts, templates, and
(arrow d in Figure 2C) and/or accumulated in- logics of action in the organizational literature.
compatibilities with other powerful institutions The other is mobilizing resources for political
(arrow e in Figure 2C). Once induced, institu- action in challenging existing structures and
tional crisis may break down the institutional advocating and enacting new social arrange-
embeddedness, make the institutional system ments.
highly unstable (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991), and According to the literature on social move-
allow a radical shift in actors' collective con-
ments and resource mobilization (e.g., Gamson,
sciousness (arrow f in Figure 2C). 1992; McAdam, McCarthy, & Zald, 1988; Snow &
Such a process is consistent with Greenwood Benford, 1992), the former process-developing
and Hinings' prediction that "radical change in
and deploying alternative frames and mod-
tightly coupled institutional fields willels-is be un-particularly crucial for successful social
usual, but when it occurs, it will be revolution- reconstruction, because actors must use such
ary" (1996: 1030). Similarly, in his research on frames and models to justify their goals and
corporate environmentalism, Hoffman (1999) actions if they are to mobilize commitment and
found that disruptive events and crises in an
resources for political action. This points to a
interorganizational field played an important
critical question: how do institutional change
role in driving institutional change by thrusting
agents-predictably, marginalized or less pow-
social actors into periods of upheaval and bring-
erful participants within the existing institu-
ing to a sudden end the practices that had been
tional arrangements- develop and deploy al-
locked in by institutional inertia. Davis and
ternative logics and frames in a way that they
Thompson (1994) also argue that a takeover
can overcome the limits of the present institu-
wave in the 1980s disrupted the long-standing
tional arrangements and effectively mobilize
managerialist status quo by putting the discrep-
the commitment and resources of other partici-
ancies between the interests of managers and
pants for reconstruction?
shareholders in a new light, thus giving rise to
the shareholder rights movement and ultimately
The dialectical concept of social actors as ac-
tive exploiters of institutional contradictions,
enabling the radical departures from the insti-
tutionalized patterns of shareholder participa- discussed above in detail, provides important
tion. This leads to our third proposition. theoretical insights for answering this question.
It suggests that institutional change agents are
Proposition 3: Under conditions of unlikely to invent totally new frames or logics of
strong nonadaptability, efficiency action unfamiliar to other participants, because
gaps and interinstitutional incompat- to do so would make it difficult and costly to
ibility, mediated by institutional cri- gain consensus and support from those partici-
sis, promote praxis for institutional pants. Instead, agents are likely to adopt a
change by creating the conditions for frame or set of frames available in the broader,
the revolutionary breakdown of insti- heterogeneous institutional context-a frame
tutional inertia. that is sufficiently incompatible with the exist-
ing institutional arrangements to generate a
fundamental departure from the past while also
Institutional Contradictions and Mobilization
sufficiently resonant with some existing societal
for Reconstruction
systems of belief to mobilize substantial support
Once a group of social actors reaches a criti- and resources from other participants. Similarly,
cal understanding of both the limits and poten- Clemens and Cook (1999) argue that no institu-
tials of the present institutional arrangements, tion is created entirely anew; instead, institu-
they may begin searching for new possibilities tions are created and transformed within so-
and mobilizing other actors for the reconstruc- cially accepted frames or models. Thus, they
tion of alternative social arrangements (Benson, suggest that an important challenge for institu-
1977). The processes of creating new social tional entrepreneurs is to embed their change

171.248.114.193 on Tue, 07 May 2024 02:30:55 +00:00
initiatives within frames or models available in provides two important implications for under-
the broader society. standing institutional change. First, institu-
In light of these comments, it appears that
tional aheterogeneity or the number of interinsti-
fundamental feature of praxis is the selective tutional contradictions is positively related to
adoption and deployment of available institu- the likelihood of praxis for institutional change
tional logics that legitimize and mobilize politi- (arrow a in Figure 2D), because it increases the
cal action against incommensurate institutional number of institutional logics and frames that
logics. Further, the degree to which praxis will exist in a particular historical moment and
succeed may hinge on the ability of actors to within a social boundary and, thus, affords
adopt and customize a potent or resonant frame change agents a greater repertoire or tool kit
for directing and mobilizing collective action (Swidler, 1986) for developing alternative frames
(Snow & Benford, 1992). However, adopting and and models (Clemens & Cook, 1999). The second
adapting the most resonant frames-those with implication is, however, that not all the alterna-
the greatest mobilizing potential-from the tive frames and logics available in a given time
many available at a given time and in a given and space may have the same potential to legit-
society are complex and artful tasks. Both social imize and mobilize change efforts. Instead, the
movement and institutional scholars have em- variance in their mobilizing potential mirrors
phasized the importance of social actors' "as- the nature and structure of interinstitutional
sets" (Gamson, Fireman, & Rytina, 1982) or insti-contradictions that have developed within a so-
tutional entrepreneurs' "social skills" (Fligstein, cial boundary. Specifically, the mobilizing po-
1997a,b) for mounting successful challenges to tential of a particular frame or logic can be
existing institutional arrangements. While not understood as a function of (1) the degree to
ignoring the possibility that such skills are which it is endowed with some level of legiti-
widespread among social actors (Sewell, 1992; macy by other institutionalized meaning sys-
Whittington, 1992), scholars such as Benson tems within the same social boundary and
(1977) and Strang and Meyer (1993) emphasize (2) the degree to which those meaning systems
the critical role of "expert theorizers" and intel- potentially give rise to tension and contestation
lectual elites in the drama of praxis, because of over the legitimacy of the particular institu-
the high level of reflexivity, complexity, and cre- tional arrangements targeted for change.
ativity involved. In particular, Benson (1977) For example, according to Davis and Thomp-
calls for organizational scholars' active engage- son (1994), the logic of free market economics
ment in both critiquing present social and or- has long coexisted in the United States with
ganizational forms and searching for new pos- what has been, since the early 1930s, the domi-
sibilities. nant form of corporate governance-managerial
Although many institutional scholars have corporate control. In the 1980s, however, the ac-
emphasized the importance of alternative insti- cumulated effects of several institutional con-
tutional logics or frames in shaping and promot-tradictions resulted in unforeseen challenges
ing political actions, few have clearly explained the established managerialist order. These con-
either where those alternative logics and frames tradictions included (1) changes in the politica
come from or under what conditions they be- and regulatory climate during the Reagan ad-
come relevant as resources for such political ministration, whose policies, in general, aligne
action. Most scholars simply describe alterna- with the free market logic; (2) an increase in
tive logics and frames as external, ready-to- power and resources in the hands of institu-
wear variables, randomly available at any tional investors; (3) a wave of takeovers that
given time. However, a dialectical perspective threatened to substantially undermine the
clearly suggests that those alternative logics managerialist hegemonic position; and (4) a
and frames themselves are also the historical widespread popular backlash against per-
products of the interinstitutional contradictions, ceived antieconomic managerial misdeeds,
which are constantly and inevitably produced such as poison pills. In this context the logic of
and reproduced within and between various the free market, in the guise of the market for
levels and sectors of institutional arrangements. corporate control, provided shareholder activ-
This dialectical understanding of frames ists with an alternative frame with which to
and logics as dynamic and historical products mobilize themselves as an emergent social

171.248.114.193 on Tue, 07 May 2024 02:30:55 +00:00
FIGURE 2D
Institutional Contradictions, Mobilization for Reconstruction, and Collective Action for
Institutional Change
Institutionalization 1
contradictions 1 p Institutional
change
Inefficiency b +
Collective action * Dissensus
*" ? *aChanges in relative po
+ T Heterogeneous resour
Nonadaptability
c Actor Interacting with actor skills at mobilizing
mobilization alternative collective action frames
a + available and relevant
t in the broader
Interinstitutiona. Reflective shift
incompatibilities in consciousness

interests
movement and with which to challenge and ing change efforts. This effect will be
change the long-established features of the cor- mediated by actors' skills at adopting
porate governance system. and deploying the available institu-
This case suggests that the nature of institutional logics and frames in legitimiz-
tional contradictions can shape actors' political ing and mobilizing their change ef-
activism by conditioning which alternative forts.
frames and logics become available and rele-
vant as resources (Brint & Karabel, 1991). The
roots of change and resistance within institu- Collective Action and Institutional Change
tions arise from the contradictions among the
Collective action by a group of institutional
institutions themselves (Sewell, 1992). In this
challengers or entrepreneurs may not always
light, praxis appears not simply as a means
result in the intended change because of oppo-
through which a group of institutional challeng-
sition by vested interests better served by the
ers achieve their political goals but, rather, as a
existing institutional arrangements. In such
mechanism of human agency through which a
cases institutional change processes may entail
social system as a whole transcends its own
tensions and limitations. This leads to our next
intensive political contestation and negotiation
over the new forms of organizing (Hoffman,
proposition.
1999), in what has been described as "institu-
Proposition 4. The degree and number tional war" (White, 1992) in interorganizational
of interinstitutional incompatibilities"arenas of power relations" (Brint & Karabel,
increase the likelihood of praxis for 1991). At a micro level-much in line with
institutional change by increasing the Bacharach, Bamberger, and Sonnenstuhl's (19
number of frames and logics avail- observation-this aspect of institutional chan
able for the construction of alternative may look like political struggles over the ali
models of institutional arrangements ment, misalignment, and realignment of var
capable of legitimizing and mobiliz- frames and cognitive schema among small

171.248.114.193 on Tue, 07 May 2024 02:30:55 +00:00
numbers
logics is of partic
an important, even a necessary, condi-
tion for the emergence of
institutional new, encompassing
change
like social movements, entailing, at least in (transcending) frames or models of organizing
part, the fundamental realignment of a signifi- (Bartunek, 1993; Bartunek & Moch, 1987). More-
cant number of participants' frames and logics over, it is this possibility of transcending exist-
of action, all as a result of agents' active effortsing social structures that shapes a dialectical
at mobilization (Lounsbury, 2001; Snow, Roch- vision of the future. It is "not one of continuous,
ford, Worden, & Benford, 1986). predictable development through extension or
A dialectical perspective points to important consolidation of the present order" (Benson,
ways in which institutional contradictions may1977; 5); instead, it is the successive realization
influence this later stage of praxis. First, insti-of one of many possibilities, with the final de-
tutional contradictions may influence the polit-termination depending on human praxis.
ical dynamics by undermining the hegemonic The present is full of many latent possible
position of dominant groups or coalitions outcomes (Benson, 1977). At one end of the spec-
(Habermas, 1973; McAdam et al., 1988). In partic- trum of possible outcomes is the failure to tran-
ular, a performance crisis caused by accumu- scend existing institutional arrangements in a
lated inefficiencies may influence the dynamics manner that fundamentally resolves manifest
of political contestation by enhancing the rela- institutional contradictions. For example, one
tive political position of institutional challeng- form of organizing may simply give way to an-
ers (arrow b in Figure 2D). For example, Green- other (Bartunek, 1993), or dominant groups may
wood and Hinings argue that "performance develop partial solutions that address the im-
problems and crises act to trigger political dis-mediate problems, with neither the new form
sensus over existing arrangements and permit nor the stopgap solution ever addressing the
groups less committed to prevailing practices tounderlying contradictions themselves (Edwards,
more legitimately raise and promote alternative 1979). From a dialectical perspective, this may
perspectives" (1996: 1043). Similarly, Ocasio result in producing another source of contradic-
(1994) argues that economic adversity can un- tion, which will ultimately come back as a
dermine executives' institutionalized power greater force of institutional change, perhaps
bases and affect patterns of CEO succession in even in the near future. At the other end of the
U.S. corporations. spectrum is the reconstruction of social arrange-
Second, institutional contradictions, espe- ments through the resolution of underlying in-
cially interinstitutional incompatibilities, may stitutional contradictions. This will provide the
influence the political dynamics by determining social system with a period of relative stability,
the availability of resources necessary for polit- although it also will inevitably produce other
ical action (arrow c in Figure 2D). As resource contradictions over time.
mobilization theory indicates, the resources and
power available to actors are critical factors DISCUSSION
in determining the success of political action
(McAdam et al., 1988). The availability of power- The relative emphasis between agency/
ful, alternative institutional resources across in- interests and institutional embeddedness has
stitutional settings can be particularly impor- been one of the central issues of recent institu-
tant for less powerful institutional challengers.tional arguments. Overemphasizing the static,
Many scholars have found that various net- stable aspect of institutionalization, as was
works of professionals, professional institutions,
done in the early neoinstitutional literature, left
and social movement organizations provide unexplained the origins, evolution, and demise
agents with various types of resources and sup- of institutional arrangements (DiMaggio, 1988).
port, such as sponsorship, legitimated authority,Focusing only on agency and interests, how-
models of organizing, performance standards, ever, tilts us toward a view of institutional are-
and political pressures that can be enacted nas full of endless political struggles among
in diverse settings (e.g., Brint & Karabel, 1991;atomized, opportunistic actors unaffected by the
DiMaggio, 1991; Lounsbury, 2001). institutional embeddedness that shapes both
From a dialectical perspective, this process ofthe means (power) and ends (interests) of those
political struggle over conflicting frames and actors. In this article we have deployed a dia-

171.248.114.193 on Tue, 07 May 2024 02:30:55 +00:00
lectical perspective to resolve this theoreticalmined by existing social arrangements. Specif-

tension, attempting to go beyond the limitationsically, the historical development of contradic-
of some recent efforts (e.g., Barley & Tolbert, tions in a given institutional order sets the stag
1997; Greenwood & Hinings, 1996). We have also for the emergence of a transformational collec
elaborated on the dialectical perspective to de-tive consciousness and provides frames and re-
velop an integrative framework of institutional sources required for mobilizing collective ac-
change, which captures a dynamic, complex-set tion. Critique, pragmatism, and collective
of linkages between institutional context and action, rather than orthodox compliance or stra-
human agency in generating institutional tegic resistance, are the central logics of action.
change. A theory of institutional change incorporating
The dialectical framework first draws our at- the concept of praxis emphasizes agents' ability
tention to institutional contradictions-various to artfully mobilize different institutional logics
ruptures and inconsistencies within andand among
resources, appropriated from their contra-
institutionalized systems of meaning, forms dictoryofinstitutional environments, to frame and
organization, and logics of action. The historical
serve their interests. Thus, political contests
development of institutional contradictions is over the framing and mobilization of institu-
both the direct outcome of the inevitable, ongo- tional rules and resources, which entail the ac-
ing social construction of institutional arrange-tive exploitation of contradictions between insti-
ments and the potential source of challenges totutional structures and logics, become central
the legitimacy of those very institutional ar- features of institutional change processes. The
rangements. As a result of these tears in the possibility of institutional change, therefore, is
institutional fabric, potential change agents rooted in the aptitude and opportunity for prax-
arise, overcome the constraints of institutionalis-or in what Brown (1978) has described as an
ized scripts and logics of action, transcend theencounter between the human affinity for creat-
limitations of existing institutional arrange- ing and using logics and frameworks and the
ments, and mobilize collective action for institu- panoply of alternative logics available in a so-
tional change. cial world rife with contradiction.
In a dialectical framework, the critical human
agency in such a fragmented, contradictory so- IMPLICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS
cial world is conceptualized as praxis and is
positioned as the essential mediating mecha- The dialectical model presented in this pape
nism that links institutional embeddedness, is a general framework, applicable to a broad
contradictions, and change. We find an impor- range of institutional changes. For example, it
tant difference between the concept of praxis can be applied to changes of various types (rev-
and the conceptualizations of action and agency olutionary and incremental), changes at various
in most of the institutional literature. The latter levels (organizational, interorganizational, and
tend to take two extreme positions. On the societal),
one and changes in various institutional
hand, in much of the neoinstitutionalist litera- contexts (tightly coupled and loosely coupled).
ture, actors are implicitly depicted as passive However, to discuss more precisely the implica-
recipients of institutional frameworks, uncon- tions of our framework, we first specify several
sciously enacting institutional scripts. Ortho- circumstances under which this model is more
doxy is the logic of action (Scott, 1995). On the or less applicable.
other hand, many recent institutional theorists First, by emphasizing the role of praxis in the
view social actors as active, rational opportun- drama of institutional change, our model inten-
ists. Such actors are ready to take any action for tionally focuses on institutional changes that
institutional change that will enhance their in- are (1) driven by institutional participants
dividual interests, unconstrained by existing in- whose interests are not adequately served by
stitutional arrangements (e.g., North, 1991; Ol- the existing institutional arrangements and
iver, 1991). For such actors, unilateral strategic (2) directed toward a fundamental departure
compliance or resistance is the logic of action. from the previous principles of organizing. By
In contrast, the concept of praxis points to a default, this focus seems to exclude institutional
particular type of action, rooted in a collective changes initiated by other actors (presumably
consciousness that is conditioned but not deter- powerful actors) or directed at incremental mod-

171.248.114.193 on Tue, 07 May 2024 02:30:55 +00:00
ifications multiple models that do

of practice, conflicting struc-
derlying principles. However, the dialectical tural rules, and contradictory principles. These
perspective alerts us to the idea that social ar- organizational contradictions exacerbate con-
rangements are produced and reproduced flict, produce drastic disruptions, and/or frag-
through political struggles among people with ment organizational members into overlapping,
unequal power and that those who benefit from partially competitive interest groups, all of
social arrangements are likely to be active in which are strong driving forces for organization-
their reproduction and maintenance, especially al and institutional change (Benson, 1977).
in the face of challenges. This implies that re- The sources of institutional contradictions
production, incremental change, or change not identified in our dialectical model clearly in
involving fundamental institutional logics will cate that the seed of institutional change is
be more common than fundamental departures likely to grow where and when institutionalized
from existing logics of action. Although institu- norms and practices conflict with day-to-day
tional contradictions, such as efficiency crises or functional/efficiency needs, become incompati-
interinstitutional incompatibilities, may nonethe- ble with and unresponsive to changing eco-
less drive incremental or superficial changes, im- nomic and institutional environments, and/or no
plying a partial applicability of this model, such longer serve the interests and ideas of partici-
changes are not the main focus of this model. pants who enact those norms and practices. This
Second, the model also focuses on how polit- may help organizational members and scholars
ical action for institutional change initially better predict institutional upheaval and chal-
emerges in the midst of institutional embedded- lenges or practice praxis themselves. Both man-
ness. It says little, however, about the dynamics agers and the managed can exploit these con-
and processes of institutional change, once suchtradictions to empower and legitimate their
political actions are triggered. Although the conduct at work (Whittington, 1992).
model provides a general picture of what the Second, the dialectical model emphasizes the
later processes of institutional change look like role of less powerful or marginalized social ac-
and predicts several important effects of institu- tors whose interests are misaligned with the
tional contradictions on such processes, it is still existing rules, structures, and practices in the
far from providing a comprehensive analysis of drama of institutional change, depicting them
the later stages of institutional change. as potential change agents. This emphasis chal-
Finally, this model starts with an assumption lenges mainstream organizational theories and
that certain institutional arrangements are al- practices, in which scholars and practitioners
ready established enough to embed their inhab- have traditionally paid less attention to those
itants and attempts to explain how such well- marginalized organizational members who,
established arrangements are changed. This from a resource dependence perspective, are
implies that the model is more applicable to less powerful and therefore less interesting.
somewhat established institutional fields but However, contemporary organizations have wit-
less applicable to newly emerging fields, al- nessed the mobilization of various groups of
though an emerging field itself cannot be under-marginalized organizational members, includ-
stood without considering the totality of the sur- ing groups based on occupation, gender, race,
rounding interinstitutional structures from a and social class.
dialectical perspective. In addition, the emphasis on power and ma
Within these boundary conditions this dialec- ginality raises concerns about the possibiliti
tical framework holds several important practi-of dominance and alienation in the processes
cal implications for organizational members institutionalization that are seldom discussed in
and scholars, as well as directions for future the managerialist treatments of institutional
research. First, when applied to organizations, a
phenomena. Instead, rules, logics of action, and
dialectical perspective emphasizes that organi- institutionalized patterns of behavior have been
zational structures are the products of internal treated as something neutrally embedded
and external forces-including various eco- within people's cognitions and/or as external
nomic pressures, cultural shifts, and political givens of the broader society. Thus, we invite
struggles (Davis & Thompson, 1994; Gordon et conversations between institutional scholars
al., 1982; Stone, 1974)-and are constructed out of and critical theorists, who focus on the phen

171.248.114.193 on Tue, 07 May 2024 02:30:55 +00:00
ena of cultural and ideological dominance and sion management (Giacalone & Rosenfield,
alienation more in depth (Habermas, 1971, 1973; 1989; Leary & Kowalski, 1990), or "thinking out-
Jermier, 1998). side the box." Although institutional logics and
However, in the dialectical framework we do accounts can be actively adopted and used to
not assume that marginality or any interestsmanage are individual and organizational legiti-
objectively or universally defined; even some macy or to justify questionable actions (Elsbach,
members of management, typically considered 1994), initiating collective social reconstruction
to have a more or less secure and prestigious of institutional arrangements requires many
position within organizations, have been victim- complex, creative, and multidimensional skills.
ized under certain conditions, such as recent Theoretically, it entails at least the challenging
waves of takeovers (Davis & Thompson, 1994) of taken-for-granted belief systems, the rea-
and downsizing (Kets de Vries & Balazs, 1997). soned analysis of the limitations and latent pos-
Whittington further suggests that managers are sibilities of existing social patterns, the framing
potential change agents who can transform of alternatives, and the mobilization of re-
their firms into "vehicle[s] for realizing a much sources for the social construction of those alter-
wider range of socially legitimate values than natives.
capitalistic means and ends" (1992: 707) by ac- Fligstein (1997a,b) adds that social skills of
tively exploiting the tensions among the diver- institutional entrepreneurs include such politi-
gent institutional principles that permeate the cal skills as creating and maintaining a new
organizational world. collective identity for potential social actors and
Third, the dialectical framework highlights framing the meanings and means of action.
the pivotal role of actors' ability or skills to mo- Creed and his colleagues have found gay and
bilize institutional logics and resources from the lesbian workplace advocates deploying such
heterogeneous institutional environments so as skills in action, creating new shared identities
to legitimize and support their change efforts. by breaking down divisions between gay and
However, such tasks are extremely difficult and straight coworkers, often through mundane
challenging, involving not only a high level of demonstrations of their common humanity
reflexivity and creativity but also "the unlearn- (Creed & Scully, 2000), and working within the
ing of what has been ingrained over history and limits of institutional arrangements to frame
embedded into structures, policies, metrics, challenges to the often presumed illegitimacy of
rhetoric, and practice" (Hoffman & Ventresca, offering benefits to the same-sex partners of em-
1999: 1386). Moreover, many of the analyticalployees or guaranteeing freedom from discrim-
models and managerial skills that traditional ination (Creed et al., in press). Such grassroots
organizational theories and practices have pro- institutional entrepreneurship exhibits a dialec-
moted seem inadequate for addressing such a tical relationship among context, logics, action,
challenge. For example, stakeholder analysis and social identity, rooted in the practical con-
(e.g., Freeman, 1984; Jones & Wicks, 1999) is a cerns of the employee advocates.
model of political analysis frequently used to Finally, by depicting the framing and mobili-
identify, classify, and shape strategic responses zation of institutional logics and resources as
to the individuals and groups who can affect central aspects of praxis, our framework points
and/or are affected by organizational actions or to how organizational and intellectual elites, as
who have enforceable claims on a firm's perfor- the sources of organizational theories and logics
mance. However, it is a static and ahistorical of action, have privileged positions in the real-
model. With its focus limited to the functional ity-defining arenas of organizations that under-
and legal dependencies of the firm, it is incapa- gird both institutional stability and change.
ble of capturing the multiple logics and rules Moreover, it invites organizational scholars to
that arise from the institutional environment actively participate in the drama of institutional
and of handling the dynamics and historical change, based on a dialectical understanding of
relationships that embed organizations and or- the relationship between organizational ar-
ganizational members. rangements and organizational theories. On the
Similarly, the skills required for praxis go be- one hand, organizational theories are social
yond those highlighted in the management lit- constructions that reflect both the social con-
erature, such as symbolic leadership, impres- texts in which they are created (e.g., Barley &

171.248.114.193 on Tue, 07 May 2024 02:30:55 +00:00
Kunda, 1992) and the social location, practical on institutional change processes and out-
concerns, and interests of organizational schol- comes.
ars who create them (e.g., Mizruchi & Fein, 1999). Second, we invite both concept
On the other hand, these theories shape organ- ical works that expand our fram
izational actors' understandings and guide their ing the boundary conditions specified above,
actions as they organize themselves (Benson, without losing the dialectical perspective. In
1977). particular, our model implies an important link
This dialectical relationship vests substantial between praxis and institutional change but
power in organizational scholars to either legit- does not specify the concrete processes and
imize or challenge existing organizational forms mechanisms through which social actors' multi-
and practices. Therefore, organizational schol- lateral political actions (praxis) ultimately culti-
ars can promote organizational and institu- vate new, well-established institutional ar-
tional change not only through the critique of rangements. Although we project that this
existing organizational forms but also through period will entail intensive political contesta-
active commitment to social reconstruction of tion and negotiation among the key constituen-
organizational forms that move toward the cies, real-
and we also predict that institutional con-
ization of human potentialities, democratic plu- will still influence how the process
tradictions
ralism, liberty, and social equality (Benson, unfolds, more theoretical and empirical investi-
1977). These objectives resonate with the critical gations are required to provide more concrete
ideal of creating a society in which people de- and valid explanations of the factors, processes,
termine their own directions collectively, free
and dynamics involved in the later stage of in-
stitutional change.
from exploitation and oppression (Habermas,
1971, 1973; Jermier, 1998).
A third direction focuses on microsociological
aspects of institutional entrepreneurship. We
Of course, the implications discussed above
have proposed that research on institutionally
become meaningful only when the validity and
embedded agents, the practitioners of praxis,
usefulness of this dialectical analysis of institu-
should focus on the interplay of their actions,
tional change are firmly established by empiri- skills, social locations, and identities. This inter-
cal research. Therefore, we propose several
play has implicitly figured prominently in Flig-
broad agendas for future research. First, one
stein's (1997a) depiction of institutional entre-
direction for future research would be to directly
preneurs and their critical actions. Many of the
test either the entire or a part of the dialectical
actions he highlights echo key features of prax-
model presented in this article, focusing on the is: using the components of existing meaning
dynamic relationship among institutional con- systems to frame alternative legitimating logics
text, institutional contradictions, human agency, that challenge existing cultural templates, pro-
and institutional change. This could take the mulgating new meaning systems, and creating
form of a comparative study examining how a new shared social identities and roles as a
change triggered by seemingly similar external means of mobilizing collective support fo
causes unfolds differently in different institu- alternative social arrangements. Just wha
tional contexts. For example, although the re- of these actions looks like empirically in
cent Asian currency crisis profoundly disruptedstitutional contest warrants research, but in
the existing institutional arrangements in a other research we have chosen to explore the
number of Asian countries, the ways in which relationship between action and the social con-
the important social constituencies, such as struction of identity (Creed et al., in press).
firms, governments, and social activists, re- According to Bernstein (1997), social identity is
sponded to the crisis, and the resulting pro- a critical deployable resource in institutional
cesses and outcomes of institutional changes, change. Fundamental to the notion of praxis is
have been radically different across countries. the idea that, under some circumstances, people
This type of study may reveal how varying de- can become active agents in "reconstructing
grees of accumulated inefficiencies, institu- their own social relations and ultimately them-
tional inertia, and availability of alternative cul- selves" (Benson, 1977: 6). Yet, most work linking
tural frames and logics interact with various institutional forces with identity has focused on
institutional players to produce different effects how organizations create their identities vis-

171.248.114.193 on Tue, 07 May 2024 02:30:55 +00:00
a-vis the field. An alternative question

Barley, S. R., & Kunda, G. 1992. is "H
Design and devotion: Surges
of rational and
do individual agents create themselves" normative ideologies of control in (Hirs
man-
agement discourse. Administrative Science Quarterly,
& Lounsbury, 1997)? To be successful, must in- 37: 363-399.
stitutional change agents create themselves as
Barley, S. R., & Tolbert, P. S. 1997. Institutionalization and
they do the transformed institutions they in-
structuration: Studying the links between action and
vent-piecing together assemblages out of the institution. Organization Studies, 18: 93-117.
frames and models available in the broader so-
Bartunek, J. M. 1993. The multiple cognitions and conflicts
ciety (Bernstein, 1997)? We believe this may be
associated with second order organizational change. In
the case based on our examination of legitimat- J. K. Murnighan (Ed.), Social psychology in organizations:
ing accounts surrounding a controversial insti- Advances in theory and research: 322-349. Englewood
tutional change: the adoption of policies pre- Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
cluding workplace discrimination on the basis Bartunek, J. M., & Moch, M. K. 1987. First-order, second-order,
of sexual orientation. Both opponents and pro- and third-order change and organizational development
ponents of these measures embed in their re- intervention: A cognitive approach. Journal of Applied
spective legitimating accounts constructions of Behavioral Psychology, 23: 483-500.
their own and their opposition's social identi- Benson, J. K. 1977. Organizations: A dialectic view. Adminis-
ties-constructions designed to enhance their trative Science Quarterly, 22: 1-21.
superior claim and undercut their opposition'sBerger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. 1967. Social construction of
claim to logics of action that are culturally res- reality. New York: Doubleday.
onant enough to mobilize support (Creed et al.,Bernstein, M. 1997. Celebration and suppression: The strate-
in press). gic uses of identity by the lesbian and gay movement.
American Journal of Sociology, 103: 531-565.
Bernstein, R. J. 1971. Praxis and action: Contemporary philos-
CONCLUSION ophies of human activity. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
The dialectical perspective presented here of-
Bourdieu, P. 1988. Viva la crise! For heterodoxy in social
fers but an inchoate theory of institutional science. Theory and Society, 17: 773-787.
agency as praxis. It is one, however, at odds
Braverman, H. 1974. Labor and monopoly capital. New York:
with a "theory of practical action" that subordi-Monthly Review Press.
nates the political to the cognitive (DiMaggio &
Brint, S., & Karabel, J. 1991. Institutional origins and trans-
Powell, 1991) and, instead, points to the interde-
formations: The case of American community colleges.
pendence of the political and the cognitive in In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new insti-
the creation, maintenance, and change of insti-tutionalism in organizational analysis: 337-360. Chi-
tutional arrangements. We are not suggesting cago: University of Chicago Press.
that institutional contradictions, crisis, and hu- Brown, R. H. 1978. Bureaucracy as praxis: Toward a political
man praxis are the only factors mediating insti- phenomenology of formal organizations. Administrative
tutional change. We do suggest that institution- Science Quarterly, 23: 365-381.
ally embedded praxis is a far more common andBurawoy, M. 1979. Manufacturing consent. Chicago: Univer-
important factor in institutional change than in- sity of Chicago Press.
stitutional theories of either orthodox compli- Burawoy, M. 1985. The politics of production. London: Verso.
ance or strategic resistance suggest and, thus, Clemens, E. S., & Cook, J. 1999. Politics and institutionalism:
deserves greater theoretical and empirical at- Explaining durability and change. Annual Review of
tention. Sociology, 25: 441-466.
Cooper, D. J., Hinings, B., Greenwood, R., & Brown, J. L. 1996.
Sedimentation and transformation in organizational
REFERENCES change: The case of Canadian law firms. Organization
Studies, 17: 623-647.
Arthur, W. B. 1989. Competing technologies and lock-in by
Covaleski,
historical events: The dynamics of allocation under in- M. A., & Dirsmith, M. W. 1988. An institutional
creasing returns. Economic Journal, 99: 116-131. perspective on the rise, social transformation, and fall of
university budget categories. Administrative Science
Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P., & Sonnenstuhl, W. J. 1996.
Quarterly, 33: 562-587.
The organizational transformation process: The micro-
politics of dissonance reduction and the alignment ofW. E. D., & Scully, M. 1998. Switchpersons on the
Creed,
logics of action. Administrative Science Quarterly, tracks
41: of history: Situated agency and contested legiti-
477-506. macy in the diffusion of domestic partner benefits. Paper

171.248.114.193 on Tue, 07 May 2024 02:30:55 +00:00
presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of the German Sociological Association Conference on
Management, San Diego. Power and Organization, Hamburg.
Creed, W. E. D., & Scully, M. 2000. Songs of ourselves: Em- Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder
ployees' deployment of social identity in work place approach. Boston: Pitman.
encounters. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9: 391-412. Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. 1991. Bridging society back in:
Creed, W. E. D., Scully, M., & Austin, J. In press. Clothes make Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In
the person? The tailoring of legitimating accounts and W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institu-
the social construction of identity. Organization Science. tionalism in organizational analysis: 232-263. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
D'Aunno, T., Sutton, R. I., & Price, R. H. 1991. Isomorphism and
external support in conflicting institutional environ- Galaskiewicz, J. 1991. Making corporate actors accountable:
ments: A study of drug abuse treatment units. Academy Institution-building in Minneapolis-St. Paul. In W. W.
of Management Journal, 34: 636-661. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism
in organizational analysis: 293-310. Chicago: University
Davis, G. F., & Thompson, T. A. 1994. A social movement
of Chicago Press.
perspective on corporate control. Administrative Sci-
ence Quarterly, 39: 141-173. Gamson, W. A. 1992. The social psychology of collective
action. In A. Morris & C. M. Mueller (Eds.), Frontiers in
DiMaggio, P. J. 1988. Interest and agency in institutional
social movement theory: 53-76. New Haven, CT: Yale
theory. In L. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and or- University Press.
ganizations: Culture and Environment: 3-21. Cambridge,
MA: Ballinger. Gamson, W. A., Fireman, B., & Rytina, S. 1982. Encounters
with unjust authorities. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
DiMaggio, P. J. 1991. Constructing an organizational field as
a professional project: U.S. art museums, 1920-1940. In Giacalone, R. A., & Rosenfield, P. 1989. Impression manage-
W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institu- ment in the organization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erl-
baum Associates.
tionalism in organizational analysis: 267-292. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press. Giddens, A. 1984. The constitution of society. Berkeley:
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: versity of California Press.
Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in Goodrick, E., & Salancik, G. R. 1996. Organizational di
organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48: tion in responding to institutional practices: Hospita
147-160. and cesarean births. Administrative Science Quarterl
41: 1-28.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. 1991. Introduction. In W. W.
Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism Gordon, D. M., Edwards, R., & Reich, M. 1982. Segmented
in organizational analysis: 1-38. Chicago: University of work, divided workers: The historical transformation of
Chicago Press. labor in the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Edelman, L. B. 1992. Legal ambiguity and symbolic struc-
tures: Organizational mediation of civil rights law. Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. 1996. Understanding radical
American Journal of Sociology, 97: 1531-1576. organizational change: Bringing together the old and
Edwards, R. C. 1979. Contested terrain: The transformation of
the new institutionalism. Academy of Management
Review, 21: 1022-1054.
the workplace in the twentieth century. New York: Basic
Books. Habermas, J. 1971. Toward a rational society. London: Heine-
mann.
Elsbach, K. D. 1994. Managing organizational legitimacy in
the California cattle industry: The construction and ef- Habermas, J. 1973. Legitimation crisis. Bost
fectiveness of verbal accounts. Administrative Science
Heydebrand, W. 1977. Organizational cont
Quarterly, 39: 57-88. lic bureaucracies: Toward a Marxian the
zations. Sociological Quarterly, 18: 83-107
Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. 1998. What is agency? American
Journal of Sociology, 103: 962-1023. Hirsch, P. M., & Lounsbury, M. 1997. Ending
rel: Toward a reconciliation of "old" and "new" institu-
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. 1984. Social cognition. Reading,
tionalisms. American Behavioral Scientist, 40: 406-418.
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fligstein, N. 1991. The structural transformation of American Hoffman, A. J. 1999. Institutional evolution and change: En-
industry: An institutional account of the causes of diver- vironmentalism and the U.S. chemical industry. Acad-
sification in the largest firms, 1919-1979. In W. W. Powell emy of Management Journal, 42: 351-371.
& P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in or- Hoffman, A. J., & Ventresca, M. 1999. The institutional fram-
ganizational analysis: 311-336. Chicago: University of ing of policy debates: Economics versus the environ-
Chicago Press. ment. American Behavioral Scientist, 42: 1369-1393.
Fligstein, N. 1997a. Social skill and institutional theory.

Holm, P. 1995. The dynamics of institutionalization: Transfor-
American Behavioral Scientist, 40: 387-405. mation processes in Norwegian fisheries. Administra-
tive Science Quarterly, 40: 398-422.
Fligstein, N. 1997b. Fields, power, and social skill: A critical
analysis of the new institutionalism. Paper presented at
Jepperson, R. L. 1991. Institutions, institutional effects, and

171.248.114.193 on Tue, 07 May 2024 02:30:55 +00:00
institutionalism. In W.
changing
W. institutional
Powell field. Administrative
& P. J. Science DiMag
The new institutionalism in organizational analysis: Quarterly, 43: 257-292.
143-163. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ocasio, W. 1994. Political dynamics and the circulation of
Jermier, J. M. 1985. "When the sleeper wakes": A short story power: CEO succession in the U.S. industrial corpora-
extending themes in radical organizational theory. Jour- tions, 1960-1990. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39:
nal of Management, 11: 67-80. 285-312.
Jermier, J. M. 1998. Introduction: Critical perspectives on or-Oliver, C. 1991. Strategic responses to institutional pro-
ganizational control. Administrative Science Quarterly, cesses. Academy of Management Review, 16: 145-179.
43: 235-256.
Oliver, C. 1992. The antecedents of deinstitutionalization.
Jones, T. M., & Wicks, A. C. 1999. Convergent stakeholder Organization Studies, 13: 563-588.
theory. Academy of Management Review, 24: 206-221.O'Neill, H. M., Pouder, R. W., & Buchholtz, A. K. 1998. Patterns
Kets de Vries, M. F. R., & Balazs, K. 1997. The downside of in the diffusion of strategies across organizations: In-
downsizing. Human Relations, 50: 11-50. sights from the innovation diffusion literature. Academy
of Management Review, 23: 98-114.
Kraatz, M. S., & Zajac, E. J. 1996. Exploring the limits of the
new institutionalism: The case and consequences of Orru, M., Biggart, N. W., & Hamilton, G. G. 1991. Organiza-
illegitimate organizational change. American Sociolog- tional isomorphism in East Asia. In W. W. Powell & P. J.
ical Review, 61: 812-836. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organiza-
tional analysis: 361-389. Chicago: University of Chicago
Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. 1990. Impression manage-
Press.
ment: A literature review and two-component model.
Psychological Bulletin, 107: 34-47. Powell, W. W. 1991. Expanding the scope of institutional
analysis. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The
Leblebici, H., Salancik, G. R., Copay, A., & King, T. 1991.
new institutionalism in organizational analysis: 183-203.
Institutional change and the transformation of interor-
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
ganizational fields: An organizational history of the U.S.
radio broadcasting industry. Administrative Science Prasad, P. 1993. Symbolic processes in the implementation of
Quarterly, 36: 333-363. technological change: A symbolic interactionist study of
work computerization. Academy of Management Jour-
Levitt, B., & March, J. G. 1988. Organizational learning.
nal, 36: 1400-1429.
Annual Review of Sociology, 14: 319-340.
Roberts, P. W., & Greenwood, R. 1997. Integrating transaction
Lounsbury, M. 2001. Institutional sources of practice varia- cost and institutional theories: Toward a constrained-
tion: Staffing college and university recycling program.
efficiency framework for understanding organization
Administrative Science Quarterly, 46: 29-56.
design adoption. Academy of Management Review, 22:
Lukacs, G. 1971. History and class consciousness. London: 346-373.
Merlin.
Samsung Economic Research Institute. 1998. IMF and reform-
Marcuse, H. 1969. An essay on liberation. Boston: Beacon. ing economic structure. Seoul: Samsung Economic Re-
search Institute.
McAdam, D., McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. 1988. Social move-
ments. In N. J. Smelser (Ed.), Handbook of sociology: Sartre, J.-P. 1991. (First published in 1976.) Critique of dialec-
695-737. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. tical reason. London: NLB.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. 1977. Institutional organizations: Scott, R. W. 1991. Unpacking institutional arguments. In
Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Jour- W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institu-
nal of Sociology, 83: 340-363. tionalism in organizational analysis: 164-182. Chicago:
Meyerson, D. E. 1994. Interpretations of stress in institutions: University of Chicago Press.
The cultural production of ambiguity and burnout. Ad- Scott, R. W. 1992. Organizations: Rational, natural, and open
ministrative Science Quarterly, 39: 628-653. systems (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Mizruchi, M. S., & Fein, L. C. 1999. The social construction of
Scott, R. W. 1995. Institutions and organizations. Thousand
organizational knowledge: A study of the uses of coer- Oaks, CA: Sage.
cive, mimetic, and normative isomorphism. Administra-
Scott, R. W., & Meyer, J. W. 1991. The organization of societal
tive Science Quarterly, 44: 653-683.
sectors: Propositions and early evidence. In W. W. Pow-
Morrill, C. In press. Institutional change through interstitial ell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in
emergence: The growth of alternative dispute resolution organizational analysis: 108-140. Chicago: University of
in American law, 1965-1995. In W. W. Powell & D. L. Jones Chicago Press.
(Eds.), How institutions change. Chicago: University of
Scully, M., & Meyerson, D. 1996. Before isomorphism: The
Chicago Press.
dynamics of legitimation in the early days of corporate
North, D. C. 1991. Towards a theory of institutional change. ethics programs. Working paper, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Quarterly Review of Economics and Business, 31(4): 3-11.
Sewell, W. H. 1992. A theory of structure: Duality, agency,
Oakes, L. S., Townley, B., & Cooper, D. J. 1998. Business and transformation. American Journal of Sociology,
planning as pedagogy: Language and control in a 98: 1-29.

171.248.114.193 on Tue, 07 May 2024 02:30:55 +00:00
Snow, D. A., &

tinuities and organizational Benfor
environments. Administra-
of protest. tive Science
In Quarterly,A.
31: 439-465. D. Mo
in social movement theory: 133-153. New Haven, CT:
Uzzi, B. 1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm
Yale University Press.
networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administra-
Snow, D. A., Rochford, E. B., Worden, S. K., & Benford, R. D. tive Science Quarterly, 42: 35-67.
1986. Frame alignment processes, micromobilization,
White, H. 1992. Identity and control: A structural theory of
and movement participation. American Sociological
Review, 51: 464-481. social interaction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Stone, K. 1973. The origins of job structures in the steel
industry. Radical America, 7(6): 19-64. Whittington, R. 1992. Putting Giddens into action: Social sys-
tems and managerial agency Journal of Management
Strang, D., & Meyer, J. W. 1993. Institutional conditions for Studies, 29: 493-712.
diffusion. Theory and Society, 22: 487-511.
Zucker, L. G. 1987. Institutional theory of organizations. An-
Swidler, A. 1986. Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. nual Review of Sociology, 13: 443-464.
American Sociological Review, 51: 273-286.
Zucker, L. G. 1991. The role of institutionalization in cultural
Thompson, P. 1989. The nature of work: An introduction to
persistence. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The
debates on the labour processes. London: Macmillan.
new institutionalism in organizational analysis: 83-107
Tushman, M. L., & Anderson, P. 1986. Technological discon- Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Myeong-Gu Seo is a doctoral candidate in organizational studies at Boston College.

His interests focus on organizational and institutional change, social cognition, emo-
tion, and motivation. Currently, he is writing his dissertation on the effects of human
emotion on cognitive evaluation, decision making, and behavioral patterns in organ-
izations.
Doug Creed is currently a visiting assistant professor at the MIT Sloan School. He
received his doctorate at the Haas School of Business at the University of California
(Berkeley). His current research explores how institutions shape the enactment of
social identity, agency, and participation in institutional change efforts.

171.248.114.193 on Tue, 07 May 2024 02:30:55 +00:00

Seo InstitutionalContradictionsPraxis 2002

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seo InstitutionalContradictionsPraxis 2002

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seo InstitutionalContradictionsPraxis 2002

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Institutional Contradictions, Praxis, and Institutional Change: A Dialectical Perspective

Author(s): Myeong-Gu Seo and W. E. Douglas Creed

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4134353

This content downloaded from

INSTITUTIONAL CONTRADICTIONS, PRAXIS,

We use a dialectical perspective to provide a unique framework for understanding

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

adopt insights fromand the

This content downloaded from

Conflicts and tension,

This content downloaded from

spective provides a useful SOURCES OF INSTITUTIONAL

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

certain sis on this source of contradictions: the funda-

This content downloaded from

struction process tonomous

This content downloaded from

Benson (1977) argues that praxis involves INSTITUTIONAL

This content downloaded from

tions may trigger, enable, and limit

Inefficiency Collective action

Interinstitutional Reflective shift

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

Inefficiency Collective action

Interinstitutional Reflective shift

Misaligned Potential change

rangements view. to For example, Edwards (1979) found that

This content downloaded from

contradictions concept of totality, sudden changes in pr govern-

Inefficiency Collective action

Interinstitutional, "-- Reflective shift

Misaligned Potential change

This content downloaded from

Thus, strong nonadaptability structures necessarily involve may

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

Misaligned Potential change

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

lectical perspective to resolve this theoreticalmined by existing social arrangements. Specif-

This content downloaded from

ifications multiple models that do

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

a-vis the field. An alternative question

This content downloaded from

Fligstein, N. 1997a. Social skill and institutional theory.

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

Snow, D. A., &

Myeong-Gu Seo is a doctoral candidate in organizational studies at Boston College.

This content downloaded from

You might also like