Different while being similar: The dual institutional process and differential organizational status

Connecting the neoinstitutional theory with Bourdieu's field theory, we develop a framework on the dual institutional process of integration and differentiation in a field. While the neoinstitutional theory has focused on similar organizational structures, we shift the research focus to offer an institutional explanation of differential organizational status. Drawing insights from Bourdieu's theory and key concepts, we highlight that the very institutional mechanisms causing isomorphism-regulative forces, normative pressures, and cognitive processes-also generate systematic status differentiation among organizations via their different levels of capital, homologous structures, and various habitus in a field. Our extended framework has theoretical significance in advancing the neoinstitutional theory, the research of status in organizational and economic sociology, and the Bourdieusian perspective. By theorizing status differentiation among organizations, it also adds an important dimension to enrich our understanding of multilevel status and social hierarchies.

Towards micro-foundations of institutional change

Purpose

Given managerial choices and the sociocultural context in which they are made are at the heart of management history, then an understanding of both is critical. This paper argues that the “late” North (2005) provides such an understanding.

Design/methodology/approach

This study is a research review synthesizing much disparate but cognate literature across the new institutionalism in organizational sociology/studies and in economics.

Findings

“Late” North (2005) provides an important ontological frame for dealing with the so-called “paradox of embedded agency”, an approach that may afford management historians a more thorough account of how institutions are formed and change over time. North has always maintained that institutional change is the outcome of deliberate or intentional choices made by actors. However, and unlike his earlier work which ignores how humans come to make the said choices, North (2005) explicates the sociocognitive process by which intentionality emerges with expanded consciousness, as humans construct ideas and beliefs about reality, beliefs that shape decisions to alter the said reality via the process of institutional change.

Originality/value

It is rather curious that despite North’s status as a “historian”, management historians – or at least those publishing in this journal from its founding in 1995 – do not seem to be terribly interested in North’s work. Although North rates a mention in rival journals, other than Dagnino and Quattrone’s (2006) study, papers in this journal invoking institutional theory align with the new institutionalism in organizational sociology/studies (NIOS) rather than North’s new institutional economics (NIE). Even in the related sub-discipline of business history, those professing an interest in institutions are more interested in the NIE of non-historians Coase and Oliver Williamson than they are in North’s NIE. And, in recent work analysing the place and significance of institutional theory in historical research, the foundations are unmistakeably NIOS rather than North’s NIE.

Bringing Morality Back in

This article sets out to explore the extent to which the moral dimension is an essential component in organizational life. From a theoretical viewpoint, it argues that institutional theory lacks a positive account of the role of morality at the organizational level. We propose that this can be addressed by integrating the work of the moral philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre with institutional theory’s notions of logics, contradictions, and legitimacy. Empirically, we look to a group of Christian churches in the northeast of England to provide insights into practitioners’ concerns with the telos of their organizations and the core practices of their faith, and hence of an essential concern for the morality of organizational life. We conclude that any understanding of practice-based organizations that ignores or underplays the moral dimension will give, at best, a diminished account of organizational life, and hence that institutional theory needs to rethink its neglect of morality.