Although many contemporary organizations face institutional pressures to embrace open organizing principles, some defer or decline the call. We examine how existing bureaucratic practices shape organizations’ initial steps towards openness to explain variation in substantive openness in the practice of management. Scrutinizing the assumption that bureaucratic organizations operate behind closed doors, we study the turn to openness in a single metropolitan area with heterogeneous management practices and shared calls for greater transparency and inclusion. Econometric analyses paired with in-depth interviews reveal that more bureaucratic organizations first encountered such ideals of openness because they were quicker to use digital communication tools. How open organizations are managed results from the repurposing of existing practices in pursuit of openness. The turn to openness can be understood as a transformation of existing bureaucratic management instead of de-novo adoption of new practices. Our study illuminates how bureaucratic management counterintuitively enables some organizations to become more open, and offers support for repurposing as a mechanism of change in the transformation of an organizational field.
AlbuOana B.FlyverbomMikkel (2019). Organizational transparency: Conceptualizations, conditions, and consequences. Business & Society, 58, 268–297.
2.
AnsariShahzadReineckeJulianeSpaanAmy (2014). How are practices made to vary?Organization Studies, 35, 1313–1341.
3.
Arellano-GaultDavidLeporeWalter (2011). Transparency reforms in the public sector: Beyond the new economics of organization. Organization Studies, 32, 1029–1050.
4.
ArmbrüsterThomasGebertDiether (2002). Uncharted territories of organizational research: The case of Karl Popper’s open society and its enemies. Organization Studies, 23, 169–188.
5.
BakerTedNelsonReed E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 329–366.
6.
BeerHaley A.MicheliPietroBesharovMarya L. (2021). Meaning, mission, and measurement: How organizational performance measurement shapes perceptions of work as worthy. Academy of Management Journal, 65, 1923–1953.
7.
BehfarKristinOkhuysenGerardo A. (2018). Discovery within validation logic: Deliberately surfacing, complementing, and substituting abductive reasoning in hypothetico-deductive inquiry. Organization Science, 29, 323–340.
8.
BelmondoCécileSargis-RousselCaroline (2023).The political dynamics of opening participation in strategy: The role of strategy specialists’ legitimacy and disposition to openness. Organization Studies, 44, 613–635.
9.
BenklerYochai (2006). The wealth of networks. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
10.
BernsteinEthan S. (2016). Making transparency transparent: The evolution of observation in management theory. Academy of Management Annals, 11, 217–266.
11.
BodrožićZlatkoAdlerPaul S. (2018). The evolution of management models: A neo-Schumpeterian theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63, 85–129.
12.
BoxenbaumEvaRouleauLinda (2011). New knowledge products as bricolage: Metaphors and scripts in organizational theory. Academy of Management Review, 36, 272–296.
13.
BrandtnerChristof (2017). Putting the world in orders: Plurality in organizational evaluation. Sociological Theory, 35, 200–227.
14.
BrandtnerChristof (2021). Decoupling under scrutiny: Consistency of managerial talk and action in the age of nonprofit accountability. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 50, 1053–1078.
15.
BrandtnerChristofBromleyPatricia (2021). Neoliberal governance, evaluations, and the rise of win–win ideology in corporate responsibility discourse. Socio-Economic Review, 20, 1933–1960.
16.
BrandtnerChristofDunningClaire (2020). Nonprofits as urban infrastructure. In PowellWalter W.BromleyPatricia (Eds.), The nonprofit sector (pp. 271–291). Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.
17.
BromleyPatriciaHwangHokyuPowellWalter W. (2012). Decoupling revisited: Common pressures, divergent strategies in the US nonprofit sector. M@n@gement, 15, 468–501.
18.
BromleyPatriciaPowellWalter W. (2012). From smoke and mirrors to walking the talk: Decoupling in the contemporary world. Academy of Management Annals, 6, 483–530.
19.
BurnsTomStalkerG. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.
20.
BuschChristianBarkemaHarry (2021). From necessity to opportunity: Scaling bricolage across resource-constrained environments. Strategic Management Journal, 42, 741–773.
21.
ClemensElisabeth S. (1993). Organizational repertoires and institutional change. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 755–798.
22.
CloutierCharlotteRavasiDavide (2020). Identity trajectories: Explaining long-term patterns of continuity and change in organizational identities. Academy of Management Journal, 63, 1196–1235.
23.
CohenMichael D. (2007). Reading Dewey: Reflections on the study of routine. Organization Studies, 28, 773–786.
24.
ColyvasJeanette A.PowellWalter W. (2006). Roads to institutionalization: The remaking of boundaries between public and private science. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 305–353.
25.
CostasJanaGreyChristopher (2014). Bringing secrecy into the open: Towards a theorization of the social processes of organizational secrecy. Organization Studies, 35, 1423–1447.
26.
CuccinielloMariaPorumbescuGregory A.GrimmelikhuijsenStephan (2017). 25 years of transparency research: Evidence and future directions. Public Administration Review, 77, 32–44.
27.
CzarniawskaBarbaraSevónGuje (Eds.) (1996). Translating organizational change. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
28.
D’AdderioLuciana (2014). The replication dilemma unraveled: How organizations enact multiple goals in routine transfer. Organization Science, 25, 1325–1350.
29.
DiMaggioPaul J.PowellWalter W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.
30.
DirikerDamlaPorterAmanda J.TuertscherPhilipp (2023). Orchestrating open innovation through punctuated openness: A process model of open organizing for tackling wicked multi-stakeholder problems. Organization Studies, 44, 135–157.
31.
DobbinFrankKimSoohanKalevAlessandra (2011). You can’t always get what you need: Organizational determinants of diversity programs. American Sociological Review, 76, 386–411.
32.
DobuschLauraDobuschLeonhardMüller-SeitzGordon (2019). Closing for the benefit of openness? The case of Wikimedia’s open strategy process. Organization Studies, 40, 343–370.
33.
DuymedjianRaffiRülingCharles-Clemens (2010). Towards a foundation of bricolage in organization and management theory. Organization Studies, 31, 133–151.
34.
EspositoElenaStarkDavid (2019). What’s observed in a rating? Rankings as orientation in the face of uncertainty. Theory, Culture & Society, 36, 3–26.
35.
FeldmanMartha S.PentlandBrian T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 94–118.
36.
FreelandRobert F.Zuckerman SivanEzra (2018). The problems and promise of hierarchy: Voice rights and the firm. Sociological Science, 5, 143–181.
37.
GegenhuberThomasDobuschLeonhard (2017). Making an impression through openness. Long Range Planning, 50, 337–354.
38.
GlynnAdam N.IchinoNahomi (2016). Increasing inferential leverage in the comparative method: Placebo tests in small-n research. Sociological Methods & Research, 45, 598–629.
39.
GuillénMauro F.CapronLaurence (2016). State capacity, minority shareholder protections, and stock market development. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61, 125–160.
40.
HallettTimothy (2010). The myth incarnate: Recoupling processes, turmoil, and inhabited institutions in an urban elementary school. American Sociological Review, 75, 52–74.
HeimstädtMaximilian (2017). Openwashing: A decoupling perspective on organizational transparency. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 125, 77–86.
43.
HeimstädtMaximilianDobuschLeonhard (2020). Transparency and accountability: Causal, critical and constructive perspectives. Organization Theory, 1, 2631787720964216.
44.
HolsteinJeannieRantakariAnniina (2023). Space and the dynamic between openness and closure: Open strategizing in the TV seriesBorgen. Organization Studies, 44, 53–75.
45.
HorvathAaron (2023). Organizational supererogation and the transformation of nonprofit accountability. American Journal of Sociology, 128, 1031–1076.
46.
HwangHokyuPowellWalter W. (2009). The rationalization of charity: The influences of professionalism in the nonprofit sector. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 268–298.
47.
ImaiKosukeKeeleLukeYamamotoTeppei (2010). Identification, inference and sensitivity analysis for causal mediation effects. Statistical Science, 25, 51–71.
48.
KaplanSarah (2015). Mixing quantitative and qualitative research. In ElsbachKimberley D.RoderickM. Kramer (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative organizational research (pp. 423–433). New York, NY: Routledge.
49.
KeeleLukeKellyNathan J. (2006). Dynamic models for dynamic theories: The ins and outs of lagged dependent variables. Political Analysis, 14, 186–205.
50.
KelloggKatherine C. (2014). Brokerage professions and implementing reform in an age of experts. American Sociological Review, 79, 912–941.
51.
KelloggKatherine C.OrlikowskiWanda J.YatesJoanne (2006). Life in the trading zone: Structuring coordination across boundaries in postbureaucratic organizations. Organization Science, 17, 22–44.
52.
KornbergerMartinMeyerRenate E.BrandtnerChristofHöllererMarkus A. (2017). When bureaucracy meets the crowd: Studying ‘open government’ in the Vienna City Administration. Organization Studies, 38, 179–200.
53.
KosackStephenFungArchon (2014). Does transparency improve governance?Annual Review of Political Science, 17, 65–87.
54.
LaryeaKrystalZhaoYiPowellWalter W. (2022). A left coast metropolis grapples with technocracy and inequality. Global Perspectives, 3, 36212.
55.
LeonardiPaul M.BaileyDiane E.PierceCasey S. (2019). The coevolution of objects and boundaries over time. Information Systems Research, 30, 665–686.
56.
LeonardiPaul M.VaastEmmanuelle (2017). Social media and their affordances for organizing: A review and agenda for research. Academy of Management Annals, 11, 150–188.
57.
LevinthalDanielRerupClaus (2006). Crossing an apparent chasm: Bridging mindful and less-mindful perspectives on organizational learning. Organization Science, 17, 502–513.
58.
Lifshitz-AssafHila (2018). Dismantling knowledge boundaries at NASA: The critical role of professional identity in open innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63, 746–782.
59.
LingoElizabeth L. (2023). Digital curation and creative brokering: Managing information overload in open organizing. Organization Studies, 44, 105–133.
60.
LuedickeMarius K.HusemannKatharina C.FurnariSantiLadstaetterFlorian (2017). Radically open strategizing: How the premium cola collective takes open strategy to the extreme. Long Range Planning, 50, 371–384.
61.
MacIndoeHeatherBarmanEmily (2013). How organizational stakeholders shape performance measurement in nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42, 716–738.
62.
MackDaniel Z.SzulanskiGabriel (2017). Opening up: How centralization affects participation and inclusion in strategy making. Long Range Planning, 50, 385–396.
63.
MahoneyJames (2012). The logic of process tracing tests in the social sciences. Sociological Methods & Research, 41, 570–597.
64.
MaierFlorentineMeyerMichaelSteinbereithnerMartin (2016). Nonprofit organizations becoming business-like: A systematic review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45, 64–86.
65.
MartelaFrank (2015). Fallible inquiry with ethical ends-in-view: A pragmatist philosophy of science for organizational research. Organization Studies, 36, 537–563.
66.
MazmanianMelissaBeckmanChristine M. (2018). ‘Making’ your numbers: Engendering organizational control through a ritual of quantification. Organization Science, 29, 357–379.
67.
MeyerJohn W.RowanBrian (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.
68.
MeyerRenate E.HöllererMarkus A. (2016). Laying a smoke screen: Ambiguity and neutralization as strategic responses to intra-institutional complexity. Strategic Organization, 14, 373–406.
69.
MonteiroPedroAdlerPaul S. (2021). Bureaucracy for the 21st century: Clarifying and expanding our view of bureaucratic organization. Academy of Management Annals, 16, 427–475.
OrlikowskiWanda J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3, 398–427.
72.
OrlikowskiWanda J.ScottSusan V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. Academy of Management Annals, 2, 433–474.
73.
PadgettJohn F.PowellWalter W. (2012). The emergence of organizations and markets. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
74.
PallasJosefFredrikssonMagnusWedlinLinda (2016). Translating institutional logics: When the media logic meets professions. Organization Studies, 37, 1661–1684.
PanseraMarioMarshAlexOwenRichardFlores LópezJesús ArturoDe Alba UlloaJessica Lillian (2023). Exploring citizen participation in smart city development in Mexico City: An institutional logics approach. Organization Studies, 44, 1679–1701.
77.
PentlandBrian T.RueterHenry H. (1994). Organizational routines as grammars of action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 484–510.
78.
PowellWalter W.HorvathAaronBrandtnerChristof (2016). Click and mortar: Organizations on the web. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, 101–120.
79.
PowellWalter W.ObergAchimKorffValeskaOelbergerCarrieKloosKarina (2016). Institutional analysis in a digital era. In KrückenGeorgMazzaCarmeloMeyerRenate E.WalgenbachPeter (Eds.), New themes in institutional analysis (pp. 305–344). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
80.
PowellWalter W.RerupClaus (2017). Opening the black box: The microfoundations of institutions. In GreenwoodRoystonOliverChristineLawrenceThomas B.MeyerRenate E. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (2nd edition, pp. 311–337). London: Sage.
81.
PowellWalter W.SandholtzKurt W. (2012). Amphibious entrepreneurs and the emergence of organizational forms. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 6, 94–115.
82.
PowerMichael (1997). The audit society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
83.
PowerMichael (2021). Modelling the microfoundations of the audit society: Organizations and the logic of the audit trail. Academy of Management Review, 46, 6–32.
84.
PutnamRobert D. (2007). E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30, 137–174.
85.
RauchMadeleineAnsariShahzad (2022). From ‘publish or perish’ to societal impact: Organizational repurposing towards responsible innovation through creating a medical platform. Journal of Management Studies, 59, 61–91.
86.
ReischauerGeorgRingelLeopold (2023). Unmanaged transparency in a digital society: Swiss army knife or double-edged sword?Organization Studies, 44, 77–104.
87.
ReynoldsCelene (2022). Repurposing title IX: How sexual harassment became sex discrimination in American higher education. American Journal of Sociology, 128, 462–514.
88.
RindovaViolina P.MartinsLuis L.SrinivasSantosh B.ChandlerDavid (2018). The good, the bad, and the ugly of organizational rankings: A multidisciplinary review of the literature and directions for future research. Journal of Management, 44, 2175–2208.
89.
RingelLeopold (2019). Unpacking the transparency–secrecy nexus: Frontstage and backstage behaviour in a political party. Organization Studies, 40, 705–723.
90.
RingelLeopoldHillerPetraZietsmaCharlene (2018). Toward permeable boundaries of organizations? In RingelLeopoldHillerPetraZietsmaCharlene (Eds.), Toward permeable boundaries of organizations? (Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 57, pp. 3–28). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.
91.
Sahlin-AnderssonKerstinEngwallLars (2002). The expansion of management knowledge: Carriers, flows, and sources. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.
92.
SalvatoCarloRerupClaus (2011). Beyond collective entities: Multilevel research on organizational routines and capabilities. Journal of Management, 37, 468–490.
93.
SchnackenbergAndrew K.TomlinsonEdward C. (2016). Organizational transparency: A new perspective on managing trust in organization–stakeholder relationships. Journal of Management, 42, 1784–1810.
94.
ScottW. Richard (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
95.
SeidlDavidvon KroghGeorgWhittingtonRichard (2019). The Cambridge handbook of open strategy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
96.
ShipilovAndrew V.GreveHenrich R.RowleyTimothy J. (2010). When do interlocks matter? Institutional logics and the diffusion of multiple corporate governance practices. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 846–864.
97.
SmallMario L. (2011). How to conduct a mixed methods study: Recent trends in a rapidly growing literature. Annual Review of Sociology, 37, 57–86.
98.
SmetsMichaelMorrisTimGreenwoodRoyston (2012). From practice to field: A multilevel model of practice-driven institutional change. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 877–904.
99.
SouleSarah A. (2012). Social movements and markets, industries, and firms. Organization Studies, 33, 1715–1733.
100.
SplitterViolettaDobuschLeonhardvon KroghGeorgWhittingtonRichardWalgenbachPeter (2023). Openness as organizing principle: Introduction to the special issue. Organization Studies, 44, 7–27.
101.
StrangDavidSouleSarah A. (1998). Diffusion in organizations and social movements: From hybrid corn to poison pills. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 265–290.
102.
ThompsonJames D. (1967). Organizations in action. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
103.
Trittin-UlbrichHannahSchererAndreas GeorgMunroIainWhelanGlen (2021). Exploring the dark and unexpected sides of digitalization. Organization, 28, 8–25.
104.
TurcoCatherine (2016). The conversational firm. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
105.
TurnerScott F.RindovaViolina (2012). A balancing act: How organizations pursue consistency in routine functioning in the face of ongoing change. Organization Science, 23, 24–46.
106.
VaastEmmanuelle (2023). Strangers in the dark: Navigating opacity and transparency in open online career-related knowledge sharing. Organization Studies, 44, 29–52.
107.
WaldorffSusanne BochMadsenMarie Henriette (2023). Translating to maintain existing practices: Micro-tactics in the implementation of a new management concept. Organization Studies, 44, 427–450.
108.
WeberKlausDavisGerald F.LounsburyMichael (2009). Policy as myth and ceremony? The global spread of stock exchanges, 1980–2005. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 1319–1347.
109.
WeberMax (1978). Economy and society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
110.
WedlinLindaSahlinKerstin (2017). The imitation and translation of management ideas. In GreenwoodRoystonOliverChristineLawrenceThomas B.MeyerRenate E. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (2nd edition, pp. 102–127). London: Sage.
111.
WeickKarl E.SutcliffeKathleen M. (2006). Mindfulness and the quality of organizational attention. Organization Science, 17, 514–524.
112.
WhittingtonRichardYakis-DouglasBasak (2020). The grand challenge of corporate control: Opening strategy to the normative pressures of networked professionals. Organization Theory, 1, 263178772096969.
113.
WootenMelissaHoffmanAndrew J. (2017). Organizational fields: Past, present and future. In GreenwoodRoystonOliverChristineLawrenceThomas B.MeyerRenate E. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (2nd edition, pp. 55–74). London: Sage.
114.
ZammutoRaymond F.GriffithTerri L.MajchrzakAnnDoughertyDeborah J.FarajSamer (2007). Information technology and the changing fabric of organization. Organization Science, 18, 749–762.
115.
ZuboffShoshana (2018). The age of surveillance capitalism. London: Profile Books.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
