This article examines how organizational designs develop by proposing a novel theoretical framework that views organizational change as resulting from a dialectic process between interpretive agents. The key claim is that existing formal procedures (such as recruitment processes, our empirical focal point) are subject to involved actors’ interpretive efforts. This results in a bargaining situation based on the interpretations of the principal actors, which may induce a feedback loop whereby the original procedures are amended. The empirical relevance of the theoretical argument is illustrated via a case study of the hiring procedures in the European External Action Service.
Adler-NissenR. (2014). Symbolic power in European diplomacy: The struggle between national foreign services and the EU’s External Action Service. Review of International Studies, forthcoming.
2.
AllisonG. T. (1969). Conceptual models and the Cuban missile crisis. American Political Science Review, 63, 689–718.
3.
Anderfuhren-BigetS.HäfligerU.HugS. (2013). The values of staff in international organizations. In ReinaldaB (Ed.), Routledge handbook of international organization. New York: Routledge.
4.
Arellano-GaultD.DemortainD.RouillardC.ThoenigJ. C. (2013). Bringing public organization and organizing back in. Organization Studies, 34, 145–167.
5.
AshtonC. (2013). EEAS Review. Brussels: European External Action Service.
6.
AshworthJ.GeysB.HeyndelsB. (2006). Determinants of tax innovation: The case of environmental taxes in Flemish municipalities. European Journal of Political Economy, 22, 223–247.
7.
AveryG. (2012). Interview before Subcommittee C of the Select Committee on the European Union at the UK House of Lords, 1November2012.
8.
BailerS. (2010). What factors determine bargaining power and success in EU negotiations?Journal of European Public Policy, 17, 743–757.
9.
BalfourR.RaikK. (2013). The European External Action Service and national diplomacies: Introduction. EPC Issue Paper No. 73.
10.
BarnettM. N.FinnemoreM. (1999). The politics, power and pathologies of international organizations. International Organization, 53, 699–732.
11.
BarnettM. N.FinnemoreM. (2004). Rules for the world: International organizations in global politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
12.
BátoraJ. (2005). Does the European Union transform the institution of diplomacy?Journal of European Public Policy, 12(1), 44–66.
13.
BátoraJ. (2013). The mitrailleuse effect: The EEAS as an interstitial organization and the dynamics of innovation in diplomacy. Journal of Common Market Studies, 51, 598–613.
14.
BattilanaJ.LecaB.BoxenbaumE. (2009). Agency and institutions: A review of institutional entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Annals, 3, 65–107.
15.
BellS. (2011). Do we really need a new constructivist institutionalism to explain institutional change?British Journal of Political Science, 41, 883–906.
16.
BezesP.LodgeM. (2007). Historical legacies and dynamics of institutional change in civil service systems. In RaadscheldersJ. C. S.ToonenT. A. J.van der MeerF. M. (Eds.), The civil service in the 21st century: Comparative perspectives (pp. 121–136). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
17.
BicchiF. (2012). Written evidence provided to Subcommittee C of the Select Committee on the European Union at the UK House of Lords, 11January2012.
BuhrK. (2012). The inclusion of aviation in the EU emissions trading scheme: Temporal conditions for institutional entrepreneurship. Organization Studies, 33, 1565–1587.
20.
BurkeE. (2012). Deliberate spoiler or misunderstood pragmatist? Britain and the European External Action Service. EPIN Working Paper nr. 34.
21.
CallonM. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieu’s Bay. In LawJ. (Ed.), Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge? (pp. 67–83). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
22.
CCA Committee (2012). EEAS Consultative Committee on Appointments: Meeting of the Core Membership 12 January 2012 – Minutes. Brussels: EEAS Consultative Committee on Appointments.
23.
Central Staff Committee (2010). Opinion on the Commission Proposal for a Regulation amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Commission and Conditions for Employment of other Servants to those Communities (1 June 2010; CCP-CS/VDC-D(10)57). Brussels: Commission.
24.
CrozierM.FriedbergE. (1980). Actors and systems: The politics of collective action. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
25.
CzarniawskaB.SevonG. (1996). Translating organisational change. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
26.
DacinM. T.DacinP. E. (2008). Traditions as institutionalized practice: Implications for deinstitutionalization. In GreenwoodR.OliverC.SuddabyR.SahlinK. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organisational institutionalism (pp. 327–351). London: SAGE Publications.
27.
DavidM. (2007). Les stratégies d’influence des États membres sur le processus de recrutement des organisations internationales: L’exemple de la France. Études Internationales, 38, 547–557.
28.
DiezT.MannersI.WhitmanR. G. (2011). The changing nature of international institutions in Europe: The challenge of the European Union. Journal of European Integration, 33, 117–138.
29.
DukeS. (2002). Preparing for European diplomacy?Journal of Common Market Studies, 40, 849–871.
30.
DukeS.LangeS. (2013). Achieving geographical and gender balance in the European External Action Service. European Parliament Directorate-General for External Policies Policy Department Study (EP/EXPO/B/AET/2012/02). Brussels: European Union.
31.
DurbinB. (2007). Bureaucratic politics approach. In BevirM. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of governance (pp. 61–62). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
32.
EmirbayerM.MischeA. (1998). What is agency?American Journal of Sociology, 103, 962–1023.
33.
European Commission (2011). Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending the staff regulations of officials and the conditions of employment of other servants of the European Union. COM (2011) 890 final. Brussels: European Commission.
FranzeseR. J.HaysJ. C. (2008). Interdependence in comparative politics: Substance, theory, empirics, substance. Comparative Political Studies, 41, 742–780.
36.
GeysB. (2006). Looking across borders: A test of spatial policy interdependence using local government efficiency ratings. Journal of Urban Economics, 60, 443–462.
37.
GheciuA. (2005). Security institutions as agents of socialization? NATO and the ‘New Europe’. International Organization, 59, 973–1012.
38.
GoodingR. (1996). Institutions and their design. In GoodingR. (Ed.), The theory of institutional design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
HobolthM.MartinsenD. S. (2013). Transgovernmental networks in the European Union: Improving compliance effectively?Journal of European Public Policy, 20, 1406–1424.
41.
HockingB. (2002). Introduction: Gatekeepers and boundary spanners – Thinking about foreign ministries in the European Union. In HockingB.SpenceD. (Eds.), Foreign ministries in the European Union: Integrating diplomats (pp. 1–16). London: Palgrave.
42.
HockingB.MelissenJ.RiordanS.SharpP. (2012). Futures for diplomacy: Integrative diplomacy in the 21st century. Report for the Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael. The Hague.
43.
HockingB.SmithM. H. (2011). An emerging diplomatic system for the EU? Frameworks and Issues. Cuadernos Europeos de Deusto, 44, 19–42.
44.
House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee (2013). The UK staff presence in EU Institutions: Second Report of Session 2013–14 (HC219). London: House of Commons.
45.
JarcI. (2012). Interview before Subcommittee C of the Select Committee on the European Union at the UK House of Lords, 19December2012.
46.
JohnstonA. I. (2005). Conclusion and extensions: Towards mid-range theorizing and beyond Europe. International Organisation, 59, 1013–1044.
47.
KeukeleireS. (2004). The European Union as a diplomatic actor: Internal, traditional and structural diplomacy. Diplomacy and Statecraft, 14(3), 31–56.
48.
KeukeleireS.ThiersR.JustaertA. (2009). Reappraising diplomacy: Structural diplomacy and the case of the European Union. Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 4(2), 143–165.
49.
LatourB. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
50.
MaguireS.HardyC. (2006). The emergence of new global institutions: A discursive perspective. Organization Studies, 27, 7–29.
51.
MahoneyJ.ThelenK. (2010). A theory of gradual institutional change. In MahoneyJ.ThelenK. (Eds.), Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency and power (pp. 1–37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
52.
MannersI.WhitmanR. G. (2000). The foreign policies of European Union member states. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
53.
MarchJ. G.OlsenJ. P. (1998). The institutional dynamics of international political orders. International Organization, 52, 943–969.
54.
MartinsenD. S. (2005). The Europeanization of welfare: The domestic impact of intra-European social security. Journal of Common Market Studies, 43, 1027–1054.
55.
MeierK. J.CapersK. J. (2012). Representative bureaucracy: Four questions. In PetersB. G.PierreJ. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of public administration (pp. 420–431). London: SAGE Publications.
56.
MeierK. J.NigroL. G. (1976). Representative bureaucracy and policy preferences: A study in the attitudes of federal executives. Public Administration Review, 36(1), 458–468.
57.
MöllerA.RappoldJ. (2012). From co-founder to wait-and-see: Germany’s policy on the European External Action Service. EPIN Working Paper, nr. 34.
58.
MurdochZ. (2012). Negotiating the European External Action Service (EEAS): Analysing the external effects of internal (dis)agreement. Journal of Common Market Studies, 50, 1011–1027.
59.
MurdochZ.TrondalJ.GänzleS. (2014a). Building foreign affairs capacity in the EU: The recruitment of member state officials to the European External Action Service (EEAS). Public Administration, 92, 71–86.
60.
MurdochZ.TrondalJ.GeysB. (2014b). Representative bureaucracy in international organizations: Seconded national experts in the European Commission. Mimeo.
61.
OliverC. (1992). The antecedents of deinstitutionalization. Organization Studies, 13, 563–588.
62.
OlsenJ. P. (2003). Towards a European administrative space?Journal of European Public Policy, 10, 506–531.
63.
OlsenJ. P. (2006). Maybe it is time to rediscover bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 1–24.
64.
PerssonM. (2012). Interview before Subcommittee C of the Select Committee on the European Union at the UK House of Lords, 6December2012.
65.
PertusotV. (2012). France and the EEAS: A give-and-take relationship. EPIN Working Paper, nr. 34.
66.
PetersB. G.SchroterE.von MaravicP. (2013). Representative bureaucracy: Concept, driving forces, strategy. In von MaravicP.PetersB. G.SchroterE. (Eds.), Representative bureaucracy in action (pp. 1–18). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
67.
ReedM. (2004). Getting real about organizational discourse. In GrantD.HardyC.OswickC.PutnamL. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational discourse (pp. 413–421). London: SAGE Publications.
68.
ReinaldaB.VerbeekB. (2004). Decision making within international organisations. London: Routledge.
69.
RogersE. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
70.
RøvikK. A. (2012). Knowledge transfer as translation: A normative-instrumental theory. Mimeo.
71.
SahlinK.WedlinL. (2008). Circulating ideas: Imitation, translation and editing. In GreenwoodR.OliverC.SuddabyR.SahlinK. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organisational institutionalism (pp. 218–243). London: SAGE Publications.
72.
SauruggerS. (2013). Constructivism and public policy approaches in the EU: From ideas to power games. Journal of European Public Policy, 20, 888–906.
73.
SchmidtV. A. (2008). Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourses. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 303–326.
74.
ScottW. R. (2008). Institutions and organization: Ideas and interests (3rd edition). London: SAGE Publications.
75.
ShilsE. C. (1981). Traditions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
76.
TallbergJ. (2008). Bargaining power in the European Council. Journal of Common Market Studies, 46, 685–708.
TrondalJ. (2010). An emergent European executive order. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
79.
VimontP. (2012). Interview before a joint session of the ‘Commission de la Défense Nationale et des Forces Armées’ and the ‘Commission des Affaires Européennes’, Assemblee Nationale, France, 28November 2012.
80.
WeberM. (1978). Economy and society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
81.
WeissT. G. (1982). International bureaucracy: The myth and reality of the international civil service. International Affairs, 58, 287–306.
82.
WeissT. G.CarayannisT.JollyR. (2009). The ‘third’ United Nations. Global Governance, 15, 123–142.
83.
WendtA. (2001). Driving with the rearview mirror: On the rational science of institutional design. International Organization, 55, 1019–1049.
84.
WlachovskyM. (2012). Interview before Subcommittee C of the Select Committee on the European Union at the UK House of Lords, 19December2012.
