This essay responds to Alvesson, Hallett, and Spicer’s recent critique of the instiutional literature. While it affirms and extends some of their particular criticisms, I reject their bleak assessment of the larger field and find value in some of the very features that they find to be most objectionable. I also offer some alternative suggestions for reform and future development. These include an explicit embrace of theoretical pluralism, a renewed focus on values, and a return to institutionalism’s pragmatist roots.
AlvessonM.HallettT.SpicerA. (2019). Uninhibited institutionalisms. Journal of Management Inquiry, 28, 119–127.
2.
ArendtH. (1973). The origins of totalitarianism. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich.
3.
BesharovM.KhuranaR. (2015). Leading amidst competing technical and institutional demands: Revisiting Selznick’s conception of leadership. In KraatzM.S. (Ed.), Institutions and ideals: Philip Selznick’s legacy for organizational studies. Research in the Sociology of Organizations (Vol. 44, pp. 53–88). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.
4.
BesharovM.SmithW. (2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 39, 364–381.
5.
ClarkB. (1956. Organizational adaptation and precarious values: A case study. American Sociological Review, 21(3), 327–336.
6.
DeweyJ. (1980). The need for a recovery of philosophy. In Middle Works, 1916–1917. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published in 1917.)
7.
DiMaggioP.PowellW. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–60.
8.
FerraroF.PfefferJ.SuttonR. (2005). Economics language and assumptions: How theories can become self-fulfilling. Academy of Management Review, 30, 8–24.
9.
GreenwoodR.RaynardM.KodeihF.MicelottaE.LounsburyM. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5, 317–371.
10.
GhoshalS. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4, 75–91.
11.
HughesE. (1936). The ecological aspect of institutions. American Sociological Review, 1, 180–189.
12.
JamesW. (1987). A pluralistic universe. William James Writings: 1902–1910. Washington, DC: The Library of America.
13.
KraatzM. (2009). Leadership as institutional work: A bridge to the other side. In LawrenceT.B.SuddabyR.LecaB. (Eds.), Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organization (59–91). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
14.
KraatzM. (2015). Institutions and ideals: Philip Selznick’s legacy for organizational studies. In Research in the sociology of organizations (Vol. 44, pp. 21–52). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.
15.
KraatzM.BlockE. (2017). Institutional pluralism revisited. In GreenwoodR.OliverC.LawrenceT. B.MeyerR. E. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (2nd ed., pp. 532–557). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
16.
KraatzM.FloresR. (2015). Reinfusing values. In KraatzM. S. (Ed.), Institutions and ideals: Philip Selznick’s legacy for organizational studies. Research in the Sociology of Organizations (Vol. 44, 353–381). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.
17.
KraatzM.FloresR.ChandlerD. (Forthcoming). The value of values for institutional analysis. Academy of Management Annals.
18.
KraatzM.VentrescaM.DengL. (2010). Precarious values and mundane innovations: Enrollment management in American liberal arts colleges. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 1521–1545.
19.
KraatzM.ZajacE. (1996). Exploring the limits of the new institutionalism: The causes and consequences of illegitimate organizational change. American Sociological Review, 61, 812–836.
20.
KrygierM. (2012). Philip Selznick: Ideals in the world. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
21.
KrygierM. (2015). Selznick’s Hobbesian Idealism: Its nature and origins. In KraatzM.S. (Ed.), Institutions and ideals: Philip Selznick’s legacy for organizational studies. Research in the Sociology of Organizations (Vol. 44, 21–52). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.
22.
MeyerJ.RowanB. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.
23.
MeyerJ.ScottW. (1980). Institutional and technical sources of organizational structure: Explaining the structure of educational organizations. Stanford, CA: Institute for Research on Educational Finance and Governance.
24.
Ocasio and Gai, (2020). Institutions: Everywhere but not everything. Journal of Management Inquiry, 29(3), 262–27. doi: 10.1177/1056492619899331
25.
OliverC. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16. 145–179.
26.
ScottW.R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
27.
ScottW.R. (2001). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
28.
ScottW.R. (2008). Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
29.
ScottW.R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests and identities. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
30.
SelznickP. (1949). TVA and the grass roots. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
31.
SelznickP. (1952). The organizational weapon. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
32.
SelznickP. (1957). Leadership in Administration. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
33.
SelznickP. (1992). The moral commonwealth: Social theory and the promise of community. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
34.
SelznickP. (1996). Institutionalism “old” and “new.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 270–277.
35.
SelznickP. (2000). On sustaining research agendas: Their moral and scientific basis. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9, 277–282.
36.
SelznickP. (2008). A humanist science: Values and ideals in social inquiry. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
37.
ThorntonP. H.OcasioW.LounsburyM. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
