08-096

Copyright © 2008 by Bernard Leca, Julie Battilana, and Eva Boxenbaum.

Working papers are in draft form. This working paper is distributed for purposes of comment and discussion only. It may not be reproduced without permission of the copyright holder. Copies of working papers are available from the author.

Agency and Institutions: A Review of Institutional Entrepreneurship Bernard Leca Julie Battilana Eva Boxenbaum

1

AGENCY AND INSTITUTIONS: A REVIEW OF INSTITUTIONAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

Bernard Leca Groupe ESC Rouen 1, rue du Maréchal Juin - BP 215 76825 Mont Saint Aignan Cedex, France Tel : +33 (0)2 32 82 57 00 E-mail : bernard.leca@groupe-esc-rouen.fr Julie Battilana Harvard Business School Morgan Hall 327 Boston, MA 02163 USA Tel. 617 495 6113 Email: jbattilana@hbs.edu Eva Boxenbaum Copenhagen Business School Kilevej 14A 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark Tel: +45 3815 2815 Email: eb.ioa@cbs.dk

2

AGENCY AND INSTITUTIONS: A REVIEW OF INSTITUTIONAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

Abstract

This paper analyzes the literature that has been published on institutional entrepreneurship

since Paul DiMaggio introduced the notion in 1988. Based on a systematic selection and

analysis of articles, the paper outlines an emerging consensus on the definition and process of

institutional entrepreneurship. It also presents the previously identified enabling conditions

for, and reviews the research methods that have been applied to the study of, institutional

entrepreneurship. Finally, the paper highlights future directions for research on this topic.

Researchers are encouraged to use this paper to build sophisticated, targeted research

designs that will add value to the growing body of literature on institutional entrepreneurship.

Keywords: Institutional Entrepreneur – Institutional Change - Paradox of Embedded Agency

3

INTRODUCTION

Over the past couple of decades, institutional theory has become one of the most

prominent theories in organizational analysis (Walsh, Meyer, and Schoonhoven, 2006).

Focused in the 1980s on the mimetic process whereby organizations eventually adopt the

same kind of behavior within a field of activity, its emphasis has shifted over the past decade

to issues of institutional change and agency (e.g., Dacin, Goodstein, and Scott, 2002). Central

to this line of research is the notion of institutional entrepreneurship initially introduced by

DiMaggio (1988) as a way to reintroduce actors’ agency to institutional analysis. Whereas

early institutional studies (Selznick, 1949; 1957) did account for actors’ agency, subsequent

institutional studies tended to overlook the role of actors in institutional change. According to

these latter studies, institutional change was caused by exogenous shocks that challenged

existing institutions in a field of activity. The notion of institutional entrepreneurship emerged

as a possible new research avenue to provide endogenous explanations for institutional

change.

Eisenstadt (1980) was the first to use the notion of institutional entrepreneurship to

characterize actors who serve as catalysts for structural change and take the lead in being the

impetus for, and giving direction to, change (Colomy and Rhoades, 1994: 554). DiMaggio,

building on Eisenstadt, introduced the notion of institutional entrepreneurship in institutional

analysis to characterize organized actors with sufficient resources to contribute to the genesis

of new institutions in which they see “an opportunity to realize interest that they value highly”

(1980: 14). He aimed to explain thereby how actors can shape institutions despite pressures

towards stasis (Holm, 1995; Seo and Creed, 2002).

Whereas early institutional studies considered mainly the constraints under which actors

operate, works on institutional entrepreneurship aimed to build a theory of action based on the

tenets of institutional theory (Fligstein, 1997: 397). In the introduction to their widely known

book, The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, DiMaggio and Powell (1991)

explicitly called for the development of a coherent theory of action, the lack of which was

institutional theory’s core weakness when it came to explaining change, as the role of actors

and action in the creation, diffusion, and stabilization of institutions was not made clear

(Christensen et al., 1997).

4

Since publication of DiMaggio’s (1988) book chapter, the literature on institutional

entrepreneurship has grown exponentially. Over the past decade, more than 60 papers have

been published in peer-reviewed journals in North America and Europe. With the first

mapping of the field of institutional entrepreneurship, proposed by Hardy and Maguire

(forthcoming 2008,), the literature on institutional entrepreneurship became recognized as an

identifiable stream of research.

Although it seems to be a powerful way to account for the role of actors in institutional

change, the notion of institutional entrepreneurship is problematic because it alludes to the

classical debate on structure versus agency, which implies that actors are somehow able to

disengage from their social context and act to change it. This relates to the “paradox of

embedded agency” (Holm, 1995; Seo and Creed, 2002), which alludes to the tension between

institutional determinism and agency: How can organizations or individuals innovate if their

beliefs and actions are determined by the institutional environment they wish to change?

Resolving this paradox is a key challenge to the formulation of theoretical foundations for the

study of institutional entrepreneurship.

Recent critics of the literature have emphasized that studies of institutional

entrepreneurship have not been able to resolve the paradox of embedded agency. In particular,

such studies have been criticized for relying on a disembedded view of agency that ignores

the influence of institutional pressure on actors’ behaviors (Cooper, Ezzamel, and Willmott,

forthcoming 2008). Following this line of reasoning, the notion of institutional

entrepreneurship has been presented as a “Deus Ex Machina” (Delmestri, 2006: 1536-1537)

that unskillfully reintroduces actors to institutional change. Much in the same vein, Meyer

(2006: 732) suggested that the notion of institutional entrepreneurship was not a viable

endogenous explanation of institutional change within the tenets of institutional theory.

To assess the relevance of these critics, and thereby the viability of research on

institutional entrepreneurship, we undertake a systematic review of the relevant literature that

examines whether and how it accounts for the interactions between actors and their

institutional environments. This analysis enables us not only to assess whether and how

studies of institutional entrepreneurship address the paradox of embedded agency, but also to

highlight directions for future research.

5

The remainder of the paper presents the method we used to review the literature on

institutional entrepreneurship and we report the results of our analysis. In particular we

examine the enabling conditions for institutional entrepreneurship and the process by which

institutional entrepreneurship unfolds. This review provides several insights. First, while

critical appraisals (e.g., Cooper, Ezzamel and Willmott, forthcoming 2008; Delmestri, 2006;

Meyer, 2006) of the literature on institutional entrepreneurship suggested that institutional

entrepreneurs were viewed as heroes who were disembbeded from their institutional

environment, this review suggests that recent research on institutional entrepreneurship

accounts for actors’ institutional embeddedness and acknowledges the institutions’ role as

both enablers of and constraints on action. Our review also shows that recent research uses a

rich blend of methods among which discourse analysis, a relevant and widely used method for

studying institutional entrepreneurship, appears to be but one among several dimensions

including analysis of practices (e.g., Lounsbury and Crumley, 2007). Finally, our review of

the literature surfaced new emerging avenues of research on institutional entrepreneurship that

we present here.

DATA AND METHOD

We examined research on institutional entrepreneurship from 1988, the year

DiMaggio’s book chapter brought the notion of institutional entrepreneurship into

organizational analysis, onward. We searched the EBSCHOT Business Source Premier and

JSTOR databases for entries in peer-reviewed journals that contained at least one of the

following keyword phrases in the title, abstract, keywords, or full text: institutional

entrepreneur, or institutional entrepreneurship. This procedure generated more than 100

articles. We excluded from this pool book reviews, editorials, and calls for papers as well as

all articles that made reference to the terms only in passing, or that referred to other meanings

or theories (e.g., economic approaches such as transaction cost analysis). This left us with 61

articles published in refereed publications. Publication frequency has increased significantly

over time. Figure 1 shows a remarkable relative increase in the number of new articles

published each year since 1988, indicating growing attention to the subject of institutional

entrepreneurship. We added to this list book chapters devoted to the topic (Battilana and Leca,

2008; DiMaggio, 1988, 1991; Hardy and Maguire, 2008; Hwang and Powell, 2005).

Examining the reference lists of the selected articles to identify recurrent and apparently

6

important references published in journals not included in the database yielded the following:

Fligstein (1997), Rao et al. (2000). The final list of 67 articles is presented as Appendix 1.

Although first published mainly in American outlets (e.g., Academy of Management

Journal (7), Academy of Management Review (6), and Administrative Science Quarterly (5)),

articles dealing with institutional entrepreneurship gained significant visibility as well in

European outlets over the past 10 years. Organization Studies, for example, published a

Special Issue on the topic in 2007. Beyond the internationalization of the topic, there is also

growing cross-disciplinary interest in institutional entrepreneurship. Although many papers

have been published in management journals, a number of sociological outlets have also

published papers that address the issue of institutional entrepreneurship (e.g., American

Journal of Sociology (3), Sociological Perspectives (2), Annual Review of Sociology (1), and

Sociological Theory (1)).

FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE

We identified from our reading of the papers two broad questions that appear to be

central in the ongoing research on institutional entrepreneurship: (1) Under what conditions is

an actor likely to become an institutional entrepreneur? (2) How does the process of

institutional entrepreneurship unfold? The text passages that pertained to each question were

coded, as were the research methods that were used. We then coded the content of this

manageable text database separately for each of the three areas of interest: conditions that

enable institutional entrepreneurship; process by which institutional entrepreneurship unfolds;

and research methods used to investigate institutional entrepreneurship. Inspired by Locke

and Golden-Biddle (1997) and Strauss and Corbin (1990), we developed open codes through

iteration, that is, by moving back and forth between the data in the table and our pre-existing

knowledge of the literature. The results of the coding are reported in a table in Appendix 1.

ENABLING CONDITIONS FOR INSTITUTIONAL

ENTREPRENEURSHIP

7

A number of studies that attempt to explain how actors can become institutional

entrepreneurs despite institutional pressures, and thereby resolve the paradox of embedded

agency, suggest that institutional entrepreneurs are often ushered onto the stage by enabling

conditions (Strang and Sine, 2002). Two categories of enabling conditions that have so far

received a great deal of attention are field-level conditions and actors’ position in the

organizational field.

The enabling role of field-level conditions

The different types of field-level conditions that have been identified, far from being

mutually exclusive, are often interrelated. Precipitating jolts or crises are identified by Child,

Lua and Sai (2007), Greenwood et al. (2002), Fligstein (1997, 2001), and Holm (1995) as

field-level enabling conditions for institutional entrepreneurship. Drawing on the literature on

institutional change, Greenwood et al. (2002) propose that jolts in the form of social upheaval,

technological disruption, competitive discontinuities, or regulatory changes might enable

institutional entrepreneurship by disturbing the socially constructed field-level consensus and

contributing to the introduction of new ideas. Fligstein and Mara-Drita’s (1996) study of the

creation of the single market in the European Union, for example, found the economic and

political crisis that characterized the European Union in the early 1980s to have facilitated the

European Commission’s pivotal role as a collective institutional entrepreneur in the creation

of the Single Market.

Phillips et al. (2000), Fligstein and Mara-Drita (1996), and Wade-Benzoni et al.

(2002) identified as a second type of field-level enabling condition the presence of acute,

field-level problems that might precipitate crises. Phillips et al. (2000) suggest that complex,

multi-faceted problems such as environmental issues enable participants in an inter-

organizational collaboration to act as institutional entrepreneurs, and Durand and McGuire

(2005) show that problems related to the scarcity of resources can lead actors to migrate and

operate as institutional entrepreneurs in other fields.

Organizational field characteristics are a third type of field-level enabling condition.

Among other organizational field characteristics, scholars have emphasized particularly the

enabling role of an organizational field’s degrees of heterogeneity and institutionalization.

Sewell (1992) and Clemens and Cook (1999) state that the presence of multiple institutional

orders or alternatives constitutes an opportunity for agency, and thereby for institutional

8

entrepreneurship. They also emphasize that the less mandatory and more optional an

institution, the easier it is to deinstitutionalize. The heterogeneity of institutional

arrangements, that is, the variance in the characteristics of different institutional

arrangements, might facilitate the occurrence of institutional entrepreneurship. Heterogeneous

institutional arrangements in an organizational field are likely to give rise to institutional

incompatibilities, which become a source of internal contradiction. A contradiction can be

defined as a pair of features that together produce an unstable tension in a given system

(Blackburn, 1994). Seo and Creed (2002), like other scholars (Clemens and Cook, 1999;

Dorado, 2005; Levy and Egan, 2003; Rao, Morrill and Zald, 2000; Rao 1998; Haveman and

Rao, 1997; Leblebici et al., 1991), highlight the enabling role of institutional contradictions in

institutional entrepreneurship, but go a step further by trying to explain the mechanism by

which these contradictions lead embedded agents to act as institutional entrepreneurs.

Specifically, they suggest that the ongoing experience of contradictory institutional

arrangements enables a shift in collective consciousness that can transform actors from

passive participants in the reproduction of existing institutional arrangements into institutional

entrepreneurs.

The degree of institutionalization of organizational fields has also been shown to

affect actors’ agency (Tolbert and Zucker, 1996) and thereby institutional entrepreneurship.

But there seems to be debate regarding the impact of degree of institutionalization of

organizational fields on institutional entrepreneurship. Beckert (1999) suggests that strategic

action is more likely to occur in relatively highly institutionalized organizational fields. Citing

Oliver’s (1992) argument, he proposes that, because in relatively highly institutionalized

organizational fields uncertainty is lower and the need for the persistence of secure, stable,

predictable institutionalized rules and norms thus reduced, actors are more likely to engage in

strategic action. Building on Beckert’s (1999) work, Dorado (2005) proposes that substantial

institutionalization, as opposed to minimal and extreme institutionalization, creates room for

strategic agency and thereby for institutional entrepreneurship. Researchers such as DiMaggio

(1988) and Fligstein (1997), on the other hand, suggest that uncertainty in the institutional

order might provide opportunity for strategic action. Fligstein (1997: 401) proposes that “the

possibilities for strategic action are the greatest” when the organizational field has no

structure, that is, when its degree of institutionalization is quite low. Phillips et al. (2000) also

suggest that unstructured or under-organized contexts provide opportunities for institutional

entrepreneurship. It is noteworthy that, thus far, the majority of empirical studies of

9

institutional entrepreneurship have been conducted in emerging fields that are less structured

and consequently characterized by higher levels of uncertainty (Maguire et al., 2004;

Lawrence and Phillips, 2004; Déjean et al., 2004; Garud, Jain, and Kumaraswamy, 2002;

Lawrence, 1999; Rao and Sivakumar, 1999; Rao, 1994, 1998).

Dorado (2005) developed a typology that takes into account both degree of

heterogeneity and degree of institutionalization in attempting to determine the extent to which

fields are likely to offer opportunities for action, that is, for institutional entrepreneurship. She

suggests that organizational fields can adopt one of three dominant forms. Fields highly

institutionalized and/or isolated from the potential influence of other fields and, consequently,

of new ideas, are “opportunity opaque,” meaning that their characteristics do not provide any

opportunity for action. “Opportunity transparent” fields that offer a lot of opportunity for

action are characterized by the co-existence of heterogeneous institutional arrangements and a

substantial level of institutionalization. “Opportunity hazy” fields, characterized by minimal

institutionalization and many heterogeneous models of practices, offer opportunities for

action that are difficult to grasp because agents must deal with a highly unpredictable

environment.

The enabling role of actors’ social position

Studies of institutional entrepreneurship have highlighted as well as field-level

enabling conditions the enabling role of actors’ social position (DiMaggio, 1988; Dorado,

2005; Leblebici et al., 1991; Haveman and Rao, 1997; Garud et al., 2002; Rao et al., 2000;

Levy and Egan, 2003; Battilana, 2006). Actors’ social position is a key factor in that it might

have an impact both on actors’ perception of the field (Dorado, 2005) and on their access to

the resources needed to engage in institutional entrepreneurship (Lawrence, 1999). It has been

shown that actors at the margins of an organizational field (Leblebici et al., 1991; Haveman

and Rao, 1997; Garud et al., 2002) or the interstices of different organizational fields

(Boxenbaum & Battilana, 2005; Phillips et al., 2000; Rao et al., 2000) are more likely to act

as institutional entrepreneurs. Yet, dissenting opinions can be found; institutional

entrepreneurs might be found, according to some research, not only be at the periphery but

also at the center of fields (Sherer and Lee, 2002; Greenwood and Suddaby, 2006; Zilber,

2002).

Whereas most studies that have taken into account the enabling role of actors’ social

10

position have used organizations as the unit of analysis, some studies (Dorado, 2005; Maguire

et al., 2004) have begun to analyze the enabling role of individuals’ social position. Dorado

(2005: 397) proposes that actors’ “social position,” that is, “their position in the structure of

social networks,” which corresponds to the set of persons with whom they are directly linked

(Aldrich 1999), affects their perception of their organizational field and, thereby, the

likelihood that they will act as institutional entrepreneurs. Studying institutional

entrepreneurship in the field of HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada, Maguire et al.

(2004) suggest that institutional entrepreneurs in emerging organizational fields tend to be

actors whose “subject positions” (Bourdieu, 1990; Foucault, 1972) provide them with both

legitimacy in the eyes of diverse stakeholders and the ability to bridge those stakeholders,

enabling them to access dispersed sets of resources. In their study, the notion of “subject

position” refers to formal position as well as all socially constructed and legitimated identities

available in a field.

The enabling role of actors’ specific characteristics

Although social position is the individual-level enabling condition for institutional

entrepreneurship that has received the most attention thus far, a few studies (e.g., Dorado,

2005; Fligstein, 1997, 2001; Maguire et al., 2004; Seo and Creed, 2002) have noted the

impact of other individual-level enabling conditions. Mutch (2007) suggest that institutional

entrepreneurs are able to abstract from the concerns of others and to take an autonomous

reflexive stance. Fligstein (1997, 2001) considers institutional entrepreneurs to be socially

skilled actors. Whereas “skilled social action revolves around finding and maintaining a

collective identity of a set of social groups and the effort to shape and meet the interests of

those groups” (Fligstein, 1997: 398), social skills revolve around empathy. Institutional

entrepreneurs are able to relate to the situations of other actors and, in doing so, to provide

them with reasons to cooperate. Fligstein (1997, 2001) considers these social skills to

distinguish institutional entrepreneurs. Combining those characteristics, institutional

entrepreneurs are able to develop institutional projects that are more or less ambitious in

scope (Colomy, 1998; Colomy and Rhoades, 1994; Perkmann and Spicer, 2007).

Other authors suggest that institutional entrepreneurs link their projects to their

characteristics. Wade-Benzoni et al. (2002) cite the example of members of activist groups

who connect the values of their cause to their personal identities, creating a value congruence

that is a potent force for social change when they act as institutional entrepreneurs. Maguire et

11

al. (2004), in the case of HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada, found HIV positive, gay

volunteers with a history within the movement to have considerable legitimacy.

THE PROCESS OF INSTITUTIONAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

The first challenge institutional entrepreneurs face is to impose the institutional change

they promote, as existing institutional arrangements that favor the maintenance of established

privileges are likely to be defended by those who benefit from the current situation (e.g.,

DiMaggio, 1988; Levy and Scully, 2007). Institutional entrepreneurs can sometimes impose

institutional change on dissenting actors without having to win them over (Battilana and Leca,

forthcoming 2008; Dorado, 2005: 389). Dorado (2005: 389) takes the example of Rockfeller

as developed by Chernov (1998) to illustrate this point. As he controlled most of the oil

refineries in the USA, John D. Rockfeller could change the way the oil market worked by

controlling prices while other actors could not oppose this change. But such situations are rare

as dominant players who benefit from an existing institution are usually keener to support its

maintenance than to promote changes to it (DiMaggio, 1988).

Because they can seldom change institutions alone, institutional entrepreneurs must

typically mobilize allies (e.g. Boxenbaum and Battilana, 2005; Fligstein, 1997; Greenwood,

Suddaby and Hinings, 2002), develop alliances and cooperation (Fligstein, 2001; Lawrence,

Hardy and Phillips, 2002; Rao, 1998). In particular they must mobilize key constituents such

as highly embedded agents (Lawrence, Hardy, and Phillips, 2002), professionals and experts

(Hwang and Powell, 2005). Hence, institutional entrepreneurship is a complex political and

cultural process (DiMaggio, 1988; Fligstein, 1997; Rao, 1998) where institutional

entrepreneurs must mobilize diverse social skills depending on the kind of institutional project

they intend to impose (Perkmann and spicer, 2007). Researchers have investigated how

institutional entrepreneurs develop discursive strategies and use resources to develop those

strategies. More recently, they have begun to investigate how institutional entrepreneurs

design specific institutional arrangements to support their projects and stabilize their

implementation.

Using discursive strategies

12

The discursive dimension is crucial in the literature on the institutional

entrepreneurship process (e.g., Creed, Scully and Austin, 2002; de Holan and Phillips, 2002;

Dorado, 2005; Fligstein, 1997, 2001; Maguire et al., 2004; Rao, 1998; Rao et al., 2000; Seo

and Creed, 2002). Some researchers even state that institutional entrepreneurship is mainly a

discursive strategy whereby institutional entrepreneurs generate discourse and texts aimed at

affecting the processes of social constructions that underlie institutions (e.g., Suddaby and

Greenwood, 2005; Munir and Phillips, 2005; Phillips, Lawrence and Hardy, 2004).

According to Rao et al. (2000: 244): “Institutional entrepreneurs can mobilize

legitimacy, finances, and personnel only when they are able to frame the grievances and

interests of aggrieved constituencies, diagnose causes, assign blames, provide solutions, and

enable collective attribution processes to operate (Snow and Benford, 1992: 150).” This

implies to theorize the institutional project in such a way that it will resonate with the interests

and values, and problems of potential allies (Boxenbaum and Battilana, 2005; Fligstein, 2001;

Suddaby and Greenwood, 2005).

Such discursive frames include two major dimensions (Dacin et al., 2002; Greenwood

et al., 2002; Maguire et al., 2004; Tolbert and Zucker, 1996). The first, specification through

framing of the existing organizational failing, includes diagnosis of the failure and assignment

of blame for it. This includes the creation of institutional vocabularies –i.e., the use of

identifying words and referential texts to expose contradictory institutional logics embedded

in existing institutional arrangements (Suddaby and Greenwood, 2005). The second,

justification of the promoted project as superior to the previous arrangement, involves the

institutional entrepreneur de-legitimating existing institutional arrangements and those

supported by opponents (e.g., Suddaby and Greenwood, 2005; Creed et al., 2002) and

legitimating the project at hand to stakeholders and other potential allies (e.g., Déjean et al.,

2004; Demil and Bensédrine, 2005).

Institutional entrepreneurs thus select frames according to their mobilization potential,

which is a function of the degree to which they (1) are endowed with some level of legitimacy

in the same social system and have some resonance with the target audience, and (2) are able

to generate tension around the legitimacy of a particular institutional arrangement (Creed et

al., 2002; Seo and Creed, 2002). The aim is to emphasize the failings of the existing

institutionalized practices and norms and demonstrate that the institutionalization project will

assure superior results in order to coalesce allies and reduce inherent contradictions in the

13

coalition while exacerbating contradictions among opponents (e.g., Boxenbaum and Battilana,

2005; Fligstein, 1997; Haveman and Rao, 1997; Holm, 1995; Rao, 1998; Seo and Creed,

2002; Suddaby and Greenwood, 2005). Legitimating accounts can transform listeners'

identities by successfully framing what it means when a person supports or opposes a cause

(Creed et al., 2002). Rao et al. (2000) suggest that defining and redefining identity is central

to building a sustainable coalition. Presenting a sponsored norm or pattern of behavior as

altruistic (Fligstein, 1997) or nesting it in impersonal institution-based trust through standard

structures and stable rules (Haveman and Rao, 1997) also favor diffusion.

But even as they must develop projects that are sufficiently incompatible to generate a

fundamental departure from existing institutional arrangements, institutional entrepreneurs

must avoid presenting their projects as too radical to avoid reactions of fear that might

discourage some potential allies. Institutional entrepreneurs must thus present their projects as

sufficiently redundant with the most resonant frames available, those with the highest

mobilizing potential at the time, in order to attract support and new members, mobilize

adherents, and acquire resources (Maguire and Hardy, 2006; Seo and Creed, 2002).

To frame skillfully implies a high level of empathy with potential allies. Institutional

entrepreneurs must be able to imaginatively identify with the states, and relate to the interests,

of others (Fligstein, 1997). They must possess sufficient social skills, including the ability to

analyze and secure cooperation, to assess the configuration of the field and act according to

their position and the positions of other agents in this field (Fligstein, 1999). Socially skilled

institutional entrepreneurs who use empathy to convince allies that their project will be

mutually beneficial act as brokers, introducing themselves as neutral and acting on behalf of

the common good (Fligstein, 1997).

Institutional entrepreneurs elaborate from pre-existing frames that are either specific to

an organizational field (Déjean et al., 2004) or part of wider societal frames (de Holan and

Phillips, 2002; Hardy and Phillips, 1999; King and Soule, 2007; Lawrence and Phillips,

2004). Each existing frame is a source of constraints on and resources for actors’ strategies

(Hardy and Phillips, 1999). Thus, institutional entrepreneurs combine multiple frames and use

rhetorical strategies to alter those frames, justify the project, and maximize its resonance

(Creed et al., 2002; Suddaby and Greenwood, 2005).

14

Context has a significant impact on the discursive strategies developed and framed by

institutional entrepreneurs. Studies suggest that institutional entrepreneurs operating in mature

fields frame discourses so that they resonate with the interests and values of the dominant

coalition’s members (Greenwood, Suddaby and Hinings, 2002; Suddaby and Greenwood,

2005). This is relevant when the coalition is unified. But when the field is populated not by

one coalition but by fragmented groups of diverse dominant field members, the institutional

entrepreneur needs to find a common ground and elaborate an encompassing discourse that

resonates with the interests and values of those different actors (e.g. Fligstein, 1997; Hsu,

2006). Fligstein and Mara-Drita (1996) and Fligstein (1997) offer a remarkable example of

this. They document how Delors managed to impose the notion of a common market on the

governments of the European Union at a time where those governments could not agree on a

common purpose. In 1983, national leaders were caught in a bargaining trap; there being no

program on which all could agree, any initiative would be blocked. Delors developed an

institutionalization project around the vague idea of the completion of the single market. The

content of the project “was left unspecified and actors could read anything into it,” which

favored the aggregation of multiple actors with interests likely eventually to diverge (Fligstein

and Mara-Drita 1996: 12).

The foregoing example differs from situations in which institutional entrepreneurs

intend to develop emerging fields, in which case they formulate a specific discourse aimed at

establishing a common identity specific to the actors who will be part of the new field

(Markowitz, 2007: Rao et al., 2000). The two strategies are combined when institutional

entrepreneurs intend to promote new emerging organizational fields, in which case they need

to both legitimize the field to the major stakeholders on whom the field’s members are likely

to depend, and build an identity specific to the field members (Déjean et al., 2004; DiMaggio,

1991; Koene, 2006). Zimmerman and Zeitz (2002) suggest that emerging fields favor the use

of rhetorical strategies by institutional entrepreneurs, exploiting the fascination with novel

practices and styles present in any social group to become “fashion setters” in creating

institutions that can interest and attract decision makers.

Mobilizing resources

The success of institutional entrepreneurs depends to a significant extent on their

access to, and skills in leveraging, scarce and critical resources (Fligstein, 1997; Lawrence,

Mauws, Dyck, and Kleysen, 2005) needed to mount political action (Seo and Creed, 2002).

15

We review below the different types of resources that have been examined in the institutional

entrepreneurship literature.

Tangible resources

Tangible resources such as financial assets can be used during early stages of the

process to bypass the sanctions likely to be imposed on the institutional entrepreneur who

questions the existing institution by opponents of the proposed change (Greenwood et al.,

2002) as well as to ride out the negative costs of the transitional period during which the new

ideas are likely to be unpopular (Greenwood and Suddaby, 2006). They can also be used to

build a coalition with other players. Garud et al. (2002) show how Sun was able to convince

systems assemblers, software firms, and computer manufacturers to contribute to the network-

centric approach to computing that it proposed to oppose Microsoft’s Windows. Sun provided

free access to Java instead of charging for that resource to encourage support for its project

among systems assemblers, software firms and computer manufacturers.

Institutional entrepreneurs can also use financial resources to pressure important

stakeholders to favor a project (Demil and Bensédrine, 2005), which might suggest that larger

players are more likely to be successful institutional entrepreneurs (Greenwood, Suddaby, and

Hinings, 2002).

Intangible resources

Institutional theory insists on the importance of cultural and symbolic dimensions

(e.g., Meyer and Rowan, 1977; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983), and research on institutional

entrepreneurship on the ways actors can use intangible resources to impose their institutional

projects. Existing research distinguishes three such resources—social capital, legitimacy, and

formal authority—that can enable institutional entrepreneurs to be taken seriously by

stakeholders and thereby influence relations between themselves and other actors.

Fligstein (1997: 398) suggests that successful institutional entrepreneurs are likely to

be actors with high levels of social capital. Citing Coleman (1988), he defines social capital

as one’s position in a web of social relations that provide information and political support,

and considers the concurrent ability to draw on that standing to influence others’ actions.

Institutional entrepreneurs can use position to sever the links between some groups—which

they can then enlist as allies—and the rest of the field. Institutional entrepreneurs central to a

16

field can establish alliances with more isolated agents who are unable to act on their own but

can support a project (Fligstein, 1997). Phillips et al. (2004) suggest that being central to a

field helps to ensure that the texts created by the institutional entrepreneur will be

acknowledged and consumed. Institutional entrepreneurs must thus strive to attain positions

that enable them to bring together diverse stakeholders among whom they can champion and

orchestrate collective action (Maguire et al., 2004), or to be sufficiently powerful to impose

institutional change by controlling access to resources (Dorado, 2005).

Authors also consider previously earned legitimacy—the extent to which an

entrepreneur’s actions and values are viewed as consistently congruent with the values and

expectations of the larger environment—to be a central asset. To benefit from it, institutional

entrepreneurs must build on the established legitimacy and identity (Durand and McGuire,

2005; Rao, Monin and Durand, 2003, 2005) that enable them to be taken seriously by the

stakeholders to whom a project must be articulated. Maguire et al. (2004) maintain that

institutional entrepreneurs in emerging fields, because support will need to be gathered from

various constituencies rather than a few, yet to be identified prominent field members, need to

possess legitimacy with a broad, diverse constituency rather than a narrow group. Wade-

Benzoni et al. (2002), as noted earlier, suggest that members of activist groups connect the

values of their cause to their personal identities to build on their legitimacy and thereby

cultivate the value congruence that makes them a potent force for social change. In more

mature fields, what matters is to achieve legitimacy with the dominant coalition members

(Greenwood et al., 2002) with whose support a project is likely to diffuse.

Although less studied, formal authority is also considered a useful resource for

institutional entrepreneurs. Fligstein (1997, 2001) and Phillips et al. (2000, 2004) investigate

the influence of this resource on the construction and diffusion of entrepreneurs’ discourses.

Formal authority refers to an actor’s legitimately recognized right to make decisions (Phillips

et al., 2000: 33). The authority of the state (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983) and authority

conferred by official positions are formal authorities. Such authority can help in framing

stories (Fligstein, 2001) and be used by institutional entrepreneurs to promote

acknowledgment and “consumption” of their discourse by other actors (Phillips et al., 2004).

Maguire et al. (2004) relate formal authority to subject position, considering such authority to

be a feature of an entrepreneur’s position in the field.

17

Which kinds of intangible resources are more useful seems to depend on context. For

example, Maguire et al. (2004) suggest that in emerging fields legitimacy with multiple

stakeholders contributes to institutional entrepreneurs’ success. For institutional entrepreneurs

who have well-established positions or reputations, this can be both enabling and

constraining. We’ve already acknowledged Wade-Benzoni et al.’s (2002) observation that

members of activist groups connect the values of their cause to their personal identities and

achieve, by building on their enhanced legitimacy, value congruence that makes them a more

potent force for social change, and Durand and McGuire (2005) show that in entering the new

field of Europe as an institutional entrepreneur, AACSB had to build on, in order to benefit

from, its established legitimacy and identity (see also Svejenova, Mazza and Plkanellas,

2007).

Designing institutional arrangements

The role of discursive strategies and resources in political and cultural struggles that

are likely to develop around institutional change has attracted much attention. But these

political and cultural struggles always account for institution building in flux, that is,

institutions are constantly designed and redesigned and changed due to the interactions of the

different actors involved in the process.

A less studied dimension is how institutional entrepreneurs design possible alternative

institutional arrangements to support their projects (Hwang and Powell, 2005; Jain and

George, 2007; Wijen and Ansari, 2007). According to Zilber (2002), that all actors might be

or become active participants in the process of interpreting institutions—refining, sustaining,

or rejecting institutional meaning—makes the institutionalization process highly uncertain.

Hence, more recently, researchers have begun to consider how institutional entrepreneurs can

stabilize interactions to ensure that institutions, once diffused, will be maintained. To this end,

institutional entrepreneurs develop institutional arrangements. Such arrangements can be set

during the institutionalization process in order to favor collaboration (Wijen and Ansari,

2007). They can also be set to ensure the sustainability of the promoted institutions, once they

are diffused. In so doing, institutional entrepreneurs shape the carriers of institutionalization,

which include regulative and normative elements.

Regulative carriers relate to legal provisions that establish and render mandatory new

practices. Maguire and Hardy (2006) show how institutional entrepreneurs contributed to the

18

passage of a global environmental regulation, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent

Organic Pollutants, and engaged in a struggle that eventually led to the passage of mandatory

propositions.

Normative carriers, which contribute to the structuring and professionalization of a

field, include the development of specific measures (Déjean et al., 2004), professionalization

(DiMaggio, 1991), and the definition of a professional identity (Hughes, 2003), membership

strategies (Lawrence, 1999), certification contests (Rao 1994), tournament rituals (Anand and

Watson, 2004) and the establishment of standards (Garud et al. 2002). They are prominent in

emerging fields in which boundaries need to be set and a common identity is yet to emerge.

These carriers are necessary and less likely to encounter resistance in such environments than

in more structured settings. In mature fields, researchers have found institutional

entrepreneurs to use primarily existing arrangements such as established professional

associations to implement the institutional change they support (Greenwood et al., 2002).

DISCUSSION AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Our review reveals the existing literature on institutional entrepreneurship to be a vivid

area of work in constant evolution. It is interesting to contrast it with recent critical appraisals

of research on institutional entrepreneurship (e.g., Cooper, Willmott, and Ezzamel,

forthcoming, 2008; Garud, Hardy, and Maguire, 2007; Hardy and Maguire, forthcoming

2008). Although the concerns raised by those authors growing out of the groundswell of

interest in institutional entrepreneurship—notably, promulgation of the view of institutional

entrepreneurs as “heroes” and overemphasis on agency at the expense of accounting for the

constraining effect of institutions—is warranted, our review shows recent studies on

institutional entrepreneurship to be progressively moving away from such views in favor of

construing institutional entrepreneurs to be individual or collective actors embedded in and

trying to navigate specific social contexts, activists who can’t succeed alone (e.g. Dorado,

2005, Levy and Egan, 2003), and even anti-heroes whose actions eventually occasion

unintended consequences (Khan, Munir and Willmott, 2007). The present review also

suggests that most of the empirical work on institutional entrepreneurs accounts for the

importance of context as both an enabler of and constraint on actors. Finally, drawing on the

19

emerging research, our review of the literature on institutional entrepreneurship enabled us to

identify promising new avenues for research.

Accounting for embeddedness

Research on institutional entrepreneurs has been instrumental in bringing agency back

into institutional theory and imparting some theoretical and empirical understanding of how

embedded actors can shape institutions. Embeddedness is thus central, and all the reviewed

research insists that institutional entrepreneurs always act “in context.” Position within the

social environment is crucial (Battilana, 2006), as is awareness of other fields (Greenwood

and Suddaby, 2006) and diverse institutional logics (Leca and Naccache, 2006). All of which

implies that to move beyond monographs and engage in more systematic research, clear

typologies of variables and contexts are needed.

Variables related to enabling conditions and institutionalization processes have been

identified and are accounted for here. Although other variables are likely to be identified,

these provide a basis for comparison. Our review of the literature also identified two

frequently-referenced types of context, emerging and mature fields that might constitute a

first step towards a typology. This sole distinction might not be entirely satisfactory,

however, as authors insist on the importance of fragmentation, which institutional

entrepreneurs can also use to promote their projects (e.g., Fligstein and Mara-Drita, 1996;

Levy and Egan, 2003; Levy and Scully, 2007). A consistent typology of organizational fields

thus remains to be developed and would be an important contribution to more systematic

research on institutional entrepreneurship.

Accounting for agency

Our review also revealed that certain directions are currently being sketched out and

can be productively developed to obtain a broader, more realistic picture of institutional

entrepreneurship. Although research has already moved away from a view of the institutional

entrepreneur as hero, it might nevertheless be interesting to question further the issue of

agency on several dimensions including the issue of institutional entrepreneurs’ intentionality.

Institutional entrepreneurs have traditionally been viewed as developing institutional projects

(Colomy, 1998; Colomy and Rhoades, 1994) and purposively developing strategies to

implement them. This is increasingly being discussed, with Fligstein and his colleagues

(Fligstein, 1997; Fligstein and Mara-Drita, 1996) insisting that institutional entrepreneurs

20

must be able to review their expectations and intentions dependent on the evolution of the

political struggle, and Child et al. (2007) suggesting that institutional entrepreneurs’

intentions can evolve at different steps of the change process. Lounsbury and Crumley (2007)

suggest that institutional entrepreneurs might simply be agents, without any grand plan for

altering their institutions, whose practices bring about change incrementally (also on this

issue, see Holm, 1995), and Khan et al. (2007) posit that the change promoted by institutional

entrepreneurs might lead to unintended consequences that contradict the entrepreneurs’ initial

intentions.

Thus, future research might usefully be directed at exploring the intentionality and

agency of institutional entrepreneurs, the extent to which it affects the institutional change

that is eventually achieved, and how this plays out over time. Although institutional change

might be occasioned by unintended actions of ordinary actors who break with institutionalized

practices without being aware of doing so, because the institutionalization process most often

remains a political one, certain practices might not become institutionalized absent the

intervention of actors acting strategically (DiMaggio, 1988; DiMaggio and Powell, 1991;

Friedland and Alford, 1991; Brint and Karabel, 1991; Zilber, 2002; Hargrave and Van de

Ven, 2006). In fact, different phases of the institutionalization process might require different

degrees of agency.

There is also the issue of collective institutional entrepreneurs (Dorado, 2005),

distributed agency, and how to account for the coalescence of multiple agents as institutional

entrepreneurs. If social movements can act as institutional entrepreneurs (e.g., Rao et al.,

2000), an in-depth analysis of the diverse motivations, values, and interests of those who

coalesce around an institutional project needs to be made. Also associated with distributed

agency are Lounsbury and Crumley’s (2007: 993) suggestion that “spatially dispersed,

heterogeneous activity by actors with various kinds and levels of resources” will eventually

change institutions, and with the need to account for “institutional work” (Lawrence and

Suddaby, 2006), being purposive actions taken not only to create, but also to maintain and

disrupt, institutions. Empirical research on institutional entrepreneurs clearly must encompass

a larger number of actors and actions to account for the strategic actions not only of

institutional entrepreneurs, but also of the actors who support or oppose them.

Future avenues for research

21

Enlarging the analysis of institutional entrepreneurs’ strategies

Current research tends to overemphasize a discursive approach to institutional

entrepreneurship that has yielded valuable insights at the expense of neglecting to analyze

other dimensions. Recent studies much in line with the traditional institutional approach (e.g.,

Powell and DiMaggio, 1983; Tolbert and Zucker, 1983) suggest that the institutionalization

process might not be only discursive but include other dimensions as well. For example,

Lounsbury and Crumley (2007) call for closer attention to practices beyond discourses. How

institutional entrepreneurs use material and immaterial resources is another dimension that

warrants further analysis (Battilana and Leca, forthcoming 2008; Wijen and Ansari, 2007).

The present review also suggests an emerging interest in the way institutional entrepreneurs

use stable social structures and “institutional pillars” to shape institutional arrangements so as

to maintain institutional change (Scott, 2001).

Expanding the levels of analysis

Although most research has essentially been concentrated at the organizational field

and inter-organizational levels, this cannot be considered a requirement of institutional theory.

Some researchers have begun to account for institutional entrepreneurship at the intra

organizational level (e.g., Battilana, 2006; Rothenberg, 2007; Zilber, 2002), but research at

this level of analysis remains limited. Further, more systematic efforts might discover new

variables and investigate whether they are specific to the individual, or can be transposed to

the organizational level.

Because institutional entrepreneurship is a complex process involving different types

of actors (e.g., individuals, groups of inidviduals, and organizations), more multi-level studies

are needed to account for the field and organization as well as individual level of analysis.

Such multi-level research has been suggested as a promising avenue of research within the

framework of neo-institutional theory (Friedland and Alford, 1991; Ocasio, 2002; Palmer and

Biggart, 2002; Strang and Sine, 2002; Reay, Golden-Biddle and GermAnn, 2006).

Finally, there is a need for more studies that account for actors’ (whether organizations

or individuals) embeddedness in multiple fields. Currently, analysis of embeddedness is often

limited to the boundaries of the field, few studies addressing multi field embeddedness (e.g.

Durand and McGuire, 2005; Greenwood and Suddaby, 2006).

22

Expanding the methods

Overall, there is a need to expand the methods used to study institutional

entrepreneurship. Current research privileges discourse analysis in its various forms including

critical discourse analysis (Munir and Phillips, 2005), narrative analysis (Zilber, 2007),

framing analysis (Creed et al., 2002; Rothenberg, 2007), and rhetoric (Suddaby and

Greenwood, 2006). To consider other dimensions such as practices (Lounsbury and Crumley,

2007), social status (Battilana, 2006), and material resources (Wijen and Ansari, 2007) will

call for new methods, complementary to those that consider actors’ discourse, that focus on

actors’ actions and, potentially, cognition.

Another important methodological issue is the need for comparison. Empirical

research done thus far has been largely through monographs of successful institutional

entrepreneurs in organizational fields. Most are process analyses of institutional

entrepreneurship based on single, in-depth, longitudinal case-studies (e.g., de Holan and

Phillips, 2002; Garud et al., 2002; Munir and Phillips, 2005). This has yielded valuable

insights, within limits. To assess these insights and develop others, we need to move beyond

idiosyncratic research. Yet, multi-case, comparative research remains rare (for exceptions, see

Lawrence et al., 2002; Rothenberg, 2007). Although much could be learned by comparing

successful institutional entrepreneurs with failed ones, research thus far has focused almost

exclusively on the former, which introduces a strong bias. A method such as qualitative

comparative analysis (Fiss, 2007; Ragin, 2000) seems well suited to examining which

combinations of variables lead to specific outcomes in the emergence of institutional

entrepreneurs or in the diffusion process to which they contribute.

Finally, it seems important to develop a more fine grained analysis that will account

for the actions and values of all the agents involved in the process of shaping institutions. To

the extent that this is a complex political process, it is necessary to document the actions of

those who oppose them as well as of the institutional entrepreneurs (DiMaggio, 1988;

Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006).

Potential contributions

It became clear as research on institutional entrepreneurship was developing that

contributions could be expected in several domains, the most obvious being institutional

23

theory, which has become a prominent stream of research in organizational theory. Research

on institutional entrepreneurs has been instrumental in restoring agency as a central issue in,

and to some extent shaping the evolutionary path of, institutional theory. This is consistent

with DiMaggio’s (1988) insistence, in his seminal article on the subject, on the importance of

interest and agency in institutional theory. Research on institutional entrepreneurship

contributed to the further discussion of and development of diverse options for analyzing the

somehow paradoxical circumstance of “embedded agency” whereby institutionally embedded

agents contribute to the shaping of their institutional environments (e.g., Barley and Tolbert,

1998; Battilana, 2006; Leca and Naccache, 2006; Seo and Creed, 2002).

Research on institutional entrepreneurship has been instrumental in nurturing

emerging streams of research in institutional theory such as Lawrence and Suddaby’s (2006)

“institutional work,” which attempts to account for actors’ purposive actions intended to

create, maintain, and disrupt institutions, or the “practical turn” in the social sciences

(Lounsbury and Crumley, 2007). The reviewed research suggests that institutional

entrepreneurship remains central to accounting for the interactions between actors and their

institutional environments, unintended consequences of their actions, the way institutions are

stabilized, and many other dimensions of institutional entrepreneurship that remain to be

explored and might make important contributions to institutional theory.

A second, less discussed dimension is the articulation between institutional

entrepreneurship and research on entrepreneurship. Phillips and Tracey (2007) recently

argued that more dialogue is needed between these two traditions, and prominent researchers

in entrepreneurship view this approach as a promising stream in the domain (Ireland, Reutzel,

and Webb, 2005). With interest in how existing institutional arrangements shape

entrepreneurship growing, research into how entrepreneurs can shape those arrangements

seems quite promising. More research is thus needed at the intersection of these two streams.

Finally, practical relevance appears to be an increasing concern. Research on

institutional entrepreneurship is contributing to the practical relevance of institutional theory

by showing how, under certain conditions, embedded actors can strategically mobilize

legitimacy (Suchman, 1995) or shape their markets (e.g., Anand and Watson, 2004; Rao,

1994). Research on institutional entrepreneurship can also help to address concerns of

organizational research related to improving social welfare and contributing to the training of

24

actors for positive change. Authors have already documented cases of institutional

entrepreneurs operating to improve social welfare (Rao, 1998) and advocating for HIV/AIDS

treatment (Maguire et al., 2004). More recently, Mair and Marti (2006) have used institutional

theory to analyze the actions of social entrepreneurs in Bangladesh suggesting that social

entrepreneurs should be regarded as institutional entrepreneurs.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis of the literature on institutional entrepreneurship suggests that it

constitutes a fairly coherent body of work, and shows that our understanding of institutional

entrepreneurship has increased considerably since publication of DiMaggio’s seminal paper in

1988. In particular, researchers have managed to establish foundations for a theory of

institutional entrepreneurship by identifying a number of enabling conditions and thereby

overcoming the paradox of embedded agency. They have also largely captured the process of

institutional entrepreneurship.

This paper not only analyzes existing work, but also proposes an ambitious research

agenda that calls for a more systematic investigation of institutional entrepreneurship. Many

directions for future work remain open. Whereas certain phenomena associated with

institutional entrepreneurship have been studied extensively, others have received scant

attention. In particular, more comparative studies, studies in mature or stable fields, studies of

failing or failed institutional entrepreneurs, and studies of individuals acting as institutional

entrepreneurs are needed. These are all promising research directions that would complement

the existing body of research on institutional entrepreneurship.

Institutional entrepreneurship has already contributed to the introduction and

development of agency within institutional theory. Further insight into institutional

entrepreneurship could help to articulate a more complex and extended view of the new

institutionalism (Hoffman and Ventresca, 2002), which views actors as both embedded in

institutional arrangements and developing creative activities. This intersection between

agency and structure remains one of the major challenges to contemporary research in

institutional theory.

25

26

REFERENCES

Aldrich, H. E. 1999. Organizations evolving. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Anand, N, & Watson, M.R. 2004. Tournament rituals in the evolution of fields: The case of the Grammy Awards. Academy of Management Journal 47(1): 59-80.

Barley, S.R. & Tolbert, P.S., 1997. Institutionalization and Structuration: Studying the links between action and institution. Organizational Studies 18(1): 93-117

Battilana, J. 2006. Agency and institutions: the enabling role of individuals’ social position.

Organization, 13(5) 653-676. Battilana, J. & Leca, B. (Forthcoming, 2008) The role of resources in institutional

entrepreneurship: Insights for an approach to strategic management combining agency and institutions. In L.A. Costanzo & R.B. MacKay, Handbook of Research on Strategy and Foresight, Norwell, MA: Kluwer.

Beckert, J. 1999. Agency, entrepreneurs, and institutional change: The role of strategic choice and institutionalized practices in organizations. Organization Studies, 20(5): 777-799.

Blackburn, S. 1994. The Oxford dictionary of philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bourdieu, P. 1990. The logic of practice. Cambridge: Polity.

Boxenbaum, E. & Battilana, J. 2005. Importation as innovation: Transposing managerial practices across fields. Strategic Organization 3(4): 1-29.

Brint, S. & Karabel, J. 1991. Institutional Origins and Transformation: The case of American Community Colleges. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. 337-360. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Child, J, Lua, Y. & Terence, T. 2007. Institutional Entrepreneurship in Building an

Environmental Protection System for the People’s Republic of China. Organization Studies, 28(7): 1013-1034.

Christensen, S., Karnoe, P., Pedersen, J.S. & Dobbin, F. (Eds.) 1997. Action in institutions.

American Behavioral Scientist 40(4): 389-538. Clemens, Elisabeth S. & Cook, J.M. 1999. Politics and institutionalism: Explaining durability

and change. Annual Review of Sociology, 25(1): 441-466. Coleman, J.S. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of

Sociology, 94: 95-120. Colomy, P. 1998. Neofunctionalism and neoinstitutionalism: Human agency and interest in

institutional change. Sociological Forum, 13(2): 265-300.

27

Colomy, P. & Rhoades, G. 1994. Toward a Micro Corrective of Structural Differentiation Theory. Sociological Perspectives, 37(4): 547-583.

Cooper, D.J., Ezzamel, M. & Willmott, H. (Forthcoming, 2008). Taking Social Construction

Seriously: Extending the discursive approach in institutional theory. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Shalin-Anderson.(Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creed, W. E.D., Scully, M.A., & Austin, J.R. 2002. Clothes make the person? The tailoring

of legitimating accounts and the social construction of identity. Organization Science, 13(5): 475-496.

Dacin, T.M., Goodstein, J. & Scott, W.R. 2002. Institutional theory and institutional change:

Introduction to the special research forum. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 45-56.

Déjean, F., Gond, J.P. & Leca, B. 2004. Measuring the unmeasured: An institutional

entrepreneur’s strategy in an emerging industry. Human Relations, 57(6): 741-764. de Holan, P.M. & Phillips, N. 2002. Managing in transition: A case study of institutional

management and organizational change. Journal of Management Inquiry, 11(1): 68-83.

Delmestri, G. 2006. Streams of inconsistent institutional influences: Middle managers as

carriers of multiple identities. Human Relations, 59(11): 1515-1541. Demil, B. & Bensédrine, J. 2005. Process of legitimation and pressure toward regulation.

International Studies of Management and Organization, 35(2): 58-79.

DiMaggio, P.J. 1988. Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations. 3-22. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

DiMaggio, P.J. 1991. Constructing an organizational field as a professional project: U.S. Art Museums, 1920-194. In W.W. Powell, & P.J. DiMaggio(Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. 267-292. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

DiMaggio, P.J. & Powell, W.W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48: 1750-1762

DiMaggio, P.J. & Powell, W.W. 1991. Introduction. In W.W. Powell & P.J. DiMaggio,(Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis, 1-38. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Dorado, S. 2005. Institutional entrepreneurship, partaking, and convening. Organization Studies 26(3): 383-413.

Durand, R. & McGuire, J. 2005. Legitimating agencies in the face of selection: The case of AACSB. Organization Studies, 26(2): 165-196.

28

Eisenstadt, S.N. 1980. Cultural orientations, institutional entrepreneurs and social change: Comparative analyses of traditional civilizations. American Journal of Sociology, 85: 840-869

Fiss, P.C. 2007. A Set-theoretic Approach to Organizational Configurations. Academy of Management Review, 32: 1180-1198

Fligstein, N. 1997. Social skill and institutional theory. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(4): 397-405.

Fligstein, N. 2001. Social skills and the theory of fields. Sociological Theory, 19(2): 105-125.

Fligstein, N. & Mara-Drita, I. 1996. How to make a market: Reflections on the attempt to create a single market in the European Union. American Journal of Sociology, 102(1): 1-33.

Foucault, M. 1972. The archeology of knowledge. London: Routledge.

Friedland, R, & Alford, R.R. 1991. Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In W.W. Powell & P.J. DiMaggio(Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis, 232-263. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Garud, R. & Jain, S. & Kumaraswamy, A. 2002. Institutional entrepreneurship in the sponsorship of common technological standards: The case of Sun Microsystems and Java. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 196-214.

Garud, R, Hardy, C. & Maguire, S. 2007. Institutional Entrepreneurship as Embedded Agency: An Introduction to the Special Issue, Organization Studies, 28(7): 957-969.

Greenwood, R, Suddaby, R. & Hinings, C.R. 2002. Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 58-80.

Greenwood, R, & Suddaby, R, 2006. Institutional Entrepreneurship in Mature fields; The Big Five Accounting Firms, Academy of Management Journal, 49(1): 27-48.

Hardy, C. & Phillips, N. 1999. No joking matter: Discursive struggle in the Canadian refugee system. Organization Studies, 20(1): 1-24.

Hardy, C. & Maguire, S. (Forthcoming, 2008). Institutional Entrepreneurship. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby & K. Shalin-Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hargrave, T.J. & Van de Ven, A.H. 2006. A collective action model of institutional change.

Academy of Management Review, 31(4): 864-888.

Haveman, H.A. & Rao, H. 1997. Structuring a theory of moral sentiments: Institutional and

organizational coevolution in the early thrift industry. American Journal of Sociology, 102(6): 1606-1651.

29

Hoffman, A.J. & Ventresca, M. 2002. Introduction. In A.J Hoffman & M. Ventresca (Eds.), Organizations, policy and the natural environment: Institutional and strategic perspectives, 1-27. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Holm, P. 1995. The dynamics of institutionalization: Transformation processes in Norwegian fisheries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3): 398-422.

Hsu, C.L. 2006. Market Ventures Moral Logics, and Ambiguity: Crafting a New Organizational Form in Post-Socialist China, The Sociological Quarterly, 47: 69-92.

Hwang, H. & Powell, W.W. 2005. Institutions and Entrepreneurship. In S.A. Alvarez, R.

Agarwal & O. Sorenson (Eds.), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research, 179-210. Kluwer Publishers.

Ireland, R.D., Reutzel, C.R. & Webb, J.W. 2005. Entrepreneurship research in AMJ: What

has been published, and what might the future hold? Academy of Management Journal, 48(4): 556-564.

Jain, S. & George, G. 2007. Technology transfer offices as institutional entrepreneurs: The case of Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation and human embryonic stem cells, Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4): 535-567.

Khan, F., Munir, K. & Willmott, H. 2007. A Dark Side of Institutional Entrepreneurship:

Soccer Balls, Child Labor and Postcolonial Impoverishment. Organization Studies, 28(7): 1055-1077.

King, B. & Soule, S. 2007. Social Movements as Extra-Institutional Entrepreneurs: The

Effects of Protest on Stock Price Returns, Administrative Science Quarterly, 52: 413-442.

Koene, B. A. S. 2006. Situated human agency, institutional entrepreneurship and institutional

change. Journal of Organizational Change, 19(3): 365-382.

Lawrence, T.B. 1999. Institutional strategy. Journal of Management, 25(2): 161-188.

Lawrence, T.B. Hardy, C. & Phillips, N. 2002. Institutional effects of interorganizational collaboration: The emergence of proto-institutions. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 281-290.

Lawrence, T.B. & Phillips, N. 2004. From Moby Dick to Free Willy: Macro-cultural discourse and institutional entrepreneurship in emerging institutional fields. Organization, 11(5): 689-711.

Lawrence, T.B., Mauws M.K., Dyck, Bruno & Kleysen, R.F. 2005. The Politics of Organizatonal Learning: Integrating Power into the 4I Framework, Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 180-191.

Lawrence, T.B. & Suddaby, R. 2006. Institutions and institutional work. In S. R. Clegg, C.

Hardy, T. B. Lawrence & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies. 2nd edition, 215-254. London: Sage.

30

Leblebici, H, Salancik, G.R. Copay, A. & King, T. 1991. Institutional change and the transformation of interorganizational fields: An organizational history of the U.S. radio broadcasting industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3): 333-363.

Leca, B. & Naccache, P. 2006. A Critical Realist Approach to Institutional Entrepreneurship. Organization, 13(5): 627-651.

Levy, D.L. & Egan, D. 2003. A neo-Gramscian approach to corporate political strategy: Conflict and accommodation in the climate change negotiations. Journal of Management Studies, 40(4): 803-829.

Levy, D.L. & Scully, M. 2007. The Institutional Entrepreneur as Modern Prince: The Strategic Face of Power in Contested Fields, Organization Studies, 28(7): 971-991.

Locke, K. & Golden-Biddle, K. 1997. Constructing opportunities for contributions: Structuring intertextual coherence and “problematizing” in organizational studies. Academy of Management Journal, 40(5): 1023-1062.

Lounsbury, M. & Crumley, E.T. 2007. New Practice Creation: An Institutional Perspective on Innovation. Organization Studies, 28(7): 993-1012.

Maguire, S. & Hardy, C. 2008. Institutional Entrepreneurship. In R. Greenwood, R. Suddaby, C. Oliver and K. Shalin-Andersson (Eds). The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. SAGE. Maguire, S. & Hardy, C. 2006. The emergence of new global institutions: a discursive

perspective. Organization Studies, 27(1): 7-29.

Maguire, S. & Hardy, C. & Lawrence, T.B. 2004. Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5): 657-679.

Mair, Johanna and Ignasi Martí. (2006) ‘Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight’ Journal of World Business, 41: 36-44. Markowitz, L. 2007. Structural Innovators and Core-Framing Tasks: How socially

Responsible Mutual Fund Companies Build Identity among Investors. Sociological Perspectives, 50(1): 131-153.

Meyer, R.E. 2006. Visiting Relatives: Current Development in the Sociology of Knowledge,

Organization, 13(5): 725-738. Meyer, J.W. & Rowan, B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth

and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2): 340-363. Mutch, A. 2007. Reflexivity and the Institutional Entrepreneur: A Historical Explanation,

Organization Studies, 28(7): 1123-1140.

31

Munir, K. & Phillips, N. 2005. The birth of the “Kodak Moment”: Institutional entrepreneurship and the adoption of new technologies. Organization Studies, 26(11): 1665-1687.

Ocasio, W. 2002. Organizational power and dependence. In J.A.C. Baum (Ed.), Companion to Organizations, 363-385. Oxford: Blackwell.

Oliver, C. 1992. The antecedents of deinstitutionalization. Organization Studies, 13: 563-588.

Palmer, D. & Biggart, N. W. 2002. Organizational institutions. In J. A. C. Baum (Eds.), Companion to Organization, 259-280. Oxford: Blackwell.

Perkmann, M. & Spicer, A. 2007. Healing the Scars of History: Projects, Skills and Field

Strategy in Institutional Entrepreneurship. Organization Studies, 28(7): 1101-1122.

Phillips, N, Lawrence, T.B. & Hardy, C. 2000. Inter-organizational collaboration and the dynamics of institutional fields. Journal of Management Studies, 37(1): 23-44.

Phillips, N, Lawrence, T.B. & Hardy, C. 2004. Discourse and institutions. Academy of Management Review, 29(4): 635-652.

Phillips, N. & Tracey, P. 2007. Opportunity recognition, entrepreneurial capabilities and bricolage: connecting institutional theory and entrepreneurship in strategic organization. Strategic Organization. 5(3): 313–320

Ragin, C.C. 2000. Fuzzy-set social science. Chicago:University Chicago Press.

Rao, H. 1994. The social construction of reputation: Certification contests, legitimation, and the survival of organizations in the American automobile industry: 1895-1912. Strategic Management Journal, 15: 29-44.

Rao, H. 1998. Caveat emptor: The construction of nonprofit consumer watchdog organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 103(4): 912-961.

Rao, H., Morrill, C, & Zald, M.N. 2000. Power plays: How social movements and collective action create new organizational forms. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22: 239-282.

Rao, H. & Sivakumar, K. 1999. Institutional sources of boundary-spanning structures: The establishment of investor relations departments in the Fortune 500 industrials.’ Organization Science, 10(1): 27-43.

Rao, H., Monin, P. & Durand, R. 2003. Institutional Change in Toque Ville: Nouvelle Cuisine as Identity Movement in French Gastronomy, American Journal of Sociology, 108(4): 795-843.

Rao, H., Monin, P. & Durand, R. 2005. Border crossing: Bricolage and the erosion of

categorical boundaries in French gastronomy, American Sociological Review, 70: 6, 968-992.

32

Reay, T. Golden-Biddle, K. & GermAnn, K. 2006. Legitimizing a new role: Small wins and micro-processes of change. Academy of Management Journal, 49(5): 977-998.

Rothenberg, S. 2007. Environmental managers as institutional entrepreneurs: The influence of institutional and technical pressures on waste management. Journal of Business Research, 60: 749-757.

Scott, W.R. 2001. Institutions and Organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Selznick, P. 1949. TVA and the grass roots. Berkeley: University of California Press. Selznick, P. 1957. Leadership in Administration, Evanston, Ill.: Row, Peterson.

Seo, M. & Douglas Creed, W.E. 2002. Institutional contradictions, praxis and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27(2): 222-247.

Sewell, W.H. 1992. A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98(1): 1-29.

Sherer, P.D. & Lee, K. 2002. Institutional Change in Large Law Firms: A Resource Dependency and Institutional Perspective, Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 102-110.

Snow, D.A. & Benford, R.D. 1992. Master frames and cycles of protest. In Frontiers to social movement theory. A. D. Morris & C. McClung Muller(Eds.), 133-155. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Strang, D. & Sine, W.D. 2002. Interorganizational institutions. In J. Baum, (Ed.) Companion to organizations. 497-519. Oxford: Blackwell.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. 1990. Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Suchman, M.C. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3): 571-610.

Suddaby, R & Greenwood, R. 2005. Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1): 35-67.

Svejenova, S., Mazza, C. & Planellas, M. 2007. Cooking up change in haute cuisine: Ferran Adrià as an Institutional Entrepreneur, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28: 539-561.

Tolbert, P. S. & Zucker, L.G. 1983. Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of

organizations: The diffusion of civil service reform, 1880 – 1935. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 22-39.

Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker L.G. 1996. Institutionalization of institutional theory. In S. Clegg, C.

Hardy & W. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Studies: 175-190 London; Sage

33

Wade-Benzoni, K.A., Hoffman, A.J., Thompson, L.L, Moore, D.A., Gillespie, J.J. & Bazerman, M.H. 2002. Resolution in ideologically based negotiations: The role of values and institutions. Academy of Management Review, 27(1): 41- 58.

Walsh, J., Meyer, A.D. & Shoonhoven, C.B. 2006. A future for organization theory: Living in and living with changing organizations. Organization Science, 17(5): 657-671.

Wang, P. & Swanson, E.B. 2007. Launching professional services automation: Institutional entrepreneurship for information technology innovations. Information and Organization, 17: 59-88.

Wijen, F. & Ansari, S. 2007. Overcoming Inaction through Collective Institutional

Entrepreneurship: Insights from Regime Theory, Organization Studies, 28(7): 1079-1100.

Zilber, T.B. 2002. Institutionalization as an interplay between actions, meanings and actors: The case of a rape crisis center in Israel.’ Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 234-254.

Zilber, T.B. 2007. Stories and the Discursive Dynamics of Institutional Entrepreneurship: The Case of Israeli High-tech after the Bubble, Organization Studies, 28(7): 1035-1054.

Zimmerman, M. A. & Zeitz, G.J. 2002. Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review, 27(3): 414-431.

34

Figure 1: Evolution of the number of articles on institutional entrepreneurship from 1988-2007

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Number of articles per year

Total

35

AP

PE

ND

IX 1

Ref

eren

ce

Uni

t of

ana

lysi

s E

nabl

ing

cond

itio

ns

Pro

cess

M

etho

d an

d Se

ttin

g 1

Har

dy a

nd M

agui

re, 2

008

NA

Im

port

ance

of

the

soci

al p

ositi

on a

nd f

ield

co

ndit

ions

. Im

port

ance

of

inte

rpre

tive

str

uggl

es

Inst

ituti

onal

en

trep

rene

urs

use

reso

urce

s,

disc

ursi

ve

stra

tegi

es a

nd e

stab

lish

new

inte

r-ac

tor

rela

tions

The

oret

ical

pap

er

Cal

l for

pro

cess

-ce

ntri

c na

rrat

ives

2 B

attil

ana

and

Lec

a, 2

008

NA

T

he p

erce

ived

inad

equa

cy o

f th

e re

sour

ces

in r

elat

ion

to th

e in

stit

utio

nal e

nvir

onm

ent

can

lead

age

nts

to b

ecom

e in

stitu

tion

al

entr

epre

neur

s

Tan

gibl

e re

sour

ces

such

as

empl

oyee

s an

d fi

nanc

ial

and

mat

eria

l as

sets

, an

d in

tang

ible

res

ourc

es s

uch

as

know

ledg

e, r

eput

atio

n, a

nd s

ocia

l ca

pita

l ar

e us

ed b

y in

stitu

tion

al

entr

epre

neur

s w

hen

deve

lopi

ng

thei

r st

rate

gies

The

oret

ical

pap

er

3 K

ing

and

Soul

e, 2

007

Soci

al m

ovem

ent

D

evel

opm

ent o

f di

scur

sive

str

ateg

ies.

So

cial

mov

emen

ts:

- C

hang

e th

e di

scus

sion

and

deb

ate

arou

nd th

e ta

rget

ed

corp

orat

ion.

-

Rec

onst

ruct

mea

ning

with

in th

e or

gani

zati

onal

en

viro

nmen

t. -

Use

bro

ader

inst

itutio

nal l

ogic

s to

des

tabi

lize

inst

itut

iona

lized

cor

pora

te in

tere

sts.

Met

hod:

Q

uant

itat

ive

anal

ysis

(e

vent

ana

lysi

s)

base

d on

sec

onda

ry

sour

ces

Sett

ing:

Fin

anci

al

mar

ket

4

Wan

g an

d Sw

anso

n, 2

007

Indi

vidu

als

and

orga

niza

tion

s

L

egiti

mat

ion

thro

ugh

disc

ours

e.

- Su

cces

s st

ory.

-

Coh

eren

t vis

ion.

-

Com

mun

ity

mob

iliz

atio

n.

- M

embe

r fo

cus.

Met

hod:

Mul

tipl

e so

urce

s of

dat

a (p

rim

ary

and

seco

ndar

y), i

nduc

tive

co

ding

Se

ttin

g: E

mer

ging

fi

eld

(lau

nchi

ng o

f pr

ofes

sion

al s

ervi

ces

auto

mat

ion)

5

Chi

ld, L

u, a

nd T

sai,

2007

O

rgan

izat

ions

(st

ate

and

regu

lato

ry a

genc

ies)

Inst

itut

iona

l ent

repr

eneu

rs a

ct a

fter

cri

tical

ev

ents

that

infl

uenc

e th

e pa

th o

f in

stitu

tiona

l de

velo

pmen

t.

Inst

ituti

onal

ent

repr

eneu

rs e

ngag

e in

traj

ecto

ry a

ctiv

ities

(i

.e.,

activ

ities

that

rei

nfor

ce a

reg

ular

pat

h of

inst

itutio

nal

deve

lopm

ent b

etw

een

two

criti

cal e

vent

s).

Met

hod:

L

ongi

tudi

nal a

nd

hist

oric

al s

tudy

, cr

oss-

peri

od a

naly

sis

Se

ttin

g: E

mer

ging

fi

eld

(dev

elop

men

t of

Chi

na’s

36

envi

ronm

enta

l pr

otec

tion

syst

em

(EP

S) o

ver

a pe

riod

of

alm

ost 3

0 ye

ars)

6 L

ouns

bury

and

Cru

mle

y,

2007

O

rgan

izat

ions

A

pro

cess

mod

el o

f ne

w p

ract

ice

crea

tion

invo

lvin

g di

ffer

ent a

ctor

s w

ho p

erfo

rm a

ctiv

itie

s in

a m

ultit

ude

of

way

s, th

ereb

y gi

ving

ris

e to

inno

vati

on, i

s de

velo

ped.

A

key

cond

itio

n fo

r pr

actic

e cr

eatio

n is

whe

ther

inno

vatio

ns

gene

rate

d by

pra

ctic

e be

com

e so

cial

ly r

ecog

nize

d as

an

omal

ies

by f

ield

-lev

el a

ctor

s. I

f so

, fie

ld-l

evel

ne

gotia

tion

s w

ill l

ikel

y en

sue.

Met

hod:

Fie

ld

anal

ytic

app

roac

h Se

ttin

g: E

mer

ging

fi

eld

(cre

atio

n of

ac

tive

mon

ey

man

agem

ent p

ract

ice

in th

e U

S m

utua

l fu

nd in

dust

ry)

7

Lev

y an

d Sc

ully

, 200

7 N

A

T

he v

iew

of

the

Mod

ern

Prin

ce a

s a

cata

lyst

for

aut

o-em

anci

pati

on lo

cate

s th

e ke

rnel

of

chan

ge w

ithin

an

inte

rnal

pro

cess

of

orga

nizi

ng a

nd e

duca

tion

rath

er th

an

exte

rnal

sho

cks

or th

e im

port

atio

n of

for

eign

dis

cour

ses.

The

oret

ical

pap

er

Use

s th

e ex

ampl

e of

st

rugg

les

over

tr

eatm

ent a

vaila

bilit

y an

d ac

cess

ibili

ty

with

in N

orth

A

mer

ica

and

inte

rnat

iona

lly

in th

e fi

eld

of H

IV/A

IDS

drug

s of

as

an

illu

stra

tive

exam

ple

8 G

arud

, Har

dy, a

nd

Mag

uire

, 200

7

NA

Age

ncy

is d

istr

ibut

ed w

ithi

n th

e st

ruct

ures

ac

tors

hav

e cr

eate

d. C

onse

quen

tly,

em

bedd

ing

stru

ctur

es d

o no

t sim

ply

gene

rate

con

stra

ints

on

agen

cy, b

ut a

lso

prov

ide

a pl

atfo

rm f

or th

e un

fold

ing

of e

ntre

pren

euri

al a

ctiv

itie

s.

Mob

iliz

atio

n of

exi

stin

g cu

ltura

l and

ling

uist

ic m

ater

ials

. In

stitu

tion

al e

ntre

pren

eurs

bre

ak w

ith e

xist

ing

inst

itut

ions

to

hel

p in

stitu

tiona

lize

alte

rnat

ive

rule

s, p

ract

ices

, or

logi

cs.

Inst

ituti

onal

ent

repr

eneu

rs m

ust b

e sk

illed

act

ors

who

can

dr

aw o

n ex

istin

g cu

ltur

al a

nd li

ngui

stic

mat

eria

ls to

nar

rate

an

d th

eori

ze c

hang

e in

way

s th

at g

ive

othe

r so

cial

gro

ups

reas

on to

coo

pera

te, a

s by

usi

ng s

trat

egic

fra

min

g to

just

ify

and

build

ing

coal

itio

ns to

hel

p in

stit

utio

naliz

e ne

w

prac

tices

.

The

oret

ical

pap

er

9 Z

ilbe

r, 2

007

Indi

vidu

als

St

orie

s (t

hat l

ink

past

eve

nts

to f

orm

a p

lot,

posi

tion

som

e ac

tors

as

key

to th

e fu

ture

of

the

indu

stry

, def

ine

hero

es a

nd

vill

ains

, and

/or

refe

r to

met

a na

rrat

ives

) ar

e di

scur

sive

re

sour

ces

used

to a

ffec

t the

inst

itut

iona

l ord

er. S

hare

d st

orie

s ar

e pr

esen

ted

open

ly; c

ount

er n

arra

tive

s ar

e m

ore

impl

icit

.

Met

hod:

E

thno

grap

hy (

fiel

d w

ork

in a

one

-day

co

nfer

ence

, fie

ld

note

s, r

ecor

ding

of

talk

s, P

ower

Poi

nt

pres

enta

tions

,

37

hand

outs

and

ob

serv

atio

ns).

Se

ttin

g: F

ield

in

cris

is (

prof

essi

onal

co

nfer

ence

am

ong

nine

Isr

aeli

hig

h te

ch

indu

stri

es)

10

Kha

n, M

unir

, and

W

illm

ott,

2007

O

rgan

izat

ions

and

so

cial

mov

emen

ts

A

nar

rati

ve b

y a

coal

ition

of

pow

erfu

l act

ors

(e.g

., T

V

chan

nels

, NG

Os)

is in

tend

ed to

dei

nstit

utio

naliz

e in

volv

emen

t of

child

ren

in th

e pr

acti

ce o

f st

itchi

ng s

occe

r ba

lls in

Pak

ista

n. T

he “

dark

sid

e” a

nd u

nint

ende

d co

nseq

uenc

es a

re c

onsi

dere

d.

Met

hod:

Qua

litat

ive

proc

ess

anal

ysis

(f

ield

wor

ks,

inte

rvie

ws,

and

do

cum

ents

) Se

ttin

g:

Tra

nsna

tiona

l fie

ld

(Sia

khot

, Pak

ista

n’s

spor

tsw

ear

indu

stry

an

d w

este

rn

stak

ehol

ders

) 11

W

ijen

and

Ans

ari,

2007

O

rgan

izat

ions

and

go

vern

men

ts

U

se o

f di

scou

rse,

mat

eria

l res

ourc

es, a

nd s

peci

fica

lly

desi

gned

inst

itut

iona

l arr

ange

men

ts e

nabl

e in

stit

utio

nal

entr

epre

neur

s to

sol

ve a

col

lect

ive

acti

on p

robl

em b

y:

- A

chie

ving

pow

er c

once

ntra

tion

. -

Est

ablis

hing

a c

omm

on g

roun

d th

roug

h fr

amin

g.

- M

obil

izin

g ba

ndw

agon

s.

- D

esig

ning

inst

ituti

onal

arr

ange

men

ts th

at e

ncou

rage

co

llab

orat

ion.

-

Dev

isin

g ap

prop

riat

e in

cent

ives

str

uctu

res.

-

Ref

erri

ng to

eth

ics.

-

Dev

elop

ing

impl

emen

tatio

n m

echa

nism

s.

Met

hod:

Sec

onda

ry

data

and

in-d

epth

in

terv

iew

s w

ith

expe

rts,

cod

ing

of

inte

rvie

ws

usin

g A

tlas/

ti to

dev

elop

a

cohe

rent

nar

rati

ve

Sett

ing:

Em

ergi

ng

fiel

d (n

egot

iatio

n on

cl

imat

e ch

ange

and

se

ttin

g of

the

Kyo

to

Pro

toco

l)

12

Per

kman

n an

d Sp

icer

, 20

07

Org

aniz

atio

ns (

publ

ic

bodi

es)

T

heor

izat

ion

of

proj

ects

, ne

twor

king

, re

sour

ces

mob

iliza

tion,

an

d di

scou

rse

mov

e be

yond

th

e al

l en

com

pass

ing

noti

on o

f “s

ocia

l sk

ills

” to

dis

tingu

ish

thre

e ki

nds

of i

nstit

utio

nal

proj

ects

tha

t re

quir

e th

ree

diff

eren

t ki

nds

of r

equi

red

skill

s, w

hich

are

like

ly to

fol

low

in ti

me:

-

In

tera

ctio

nal

(coa

litio

n bu

ildi

ng

and

barg

aini

ng),

ne

twor

king

, re

sour

ce

mob

iliza

tion,

or

gani

zatio

n bu

ildin

g (i

mpl

ies

poli

tical

ski

lls).

-

Tec

hnic

al (

theo

riza

tion

thro

ugh

iden

tific

atio

n of

abs

trac

t ca

tego

ries

),

stud

y,

anal

ysis

, de

sign

(i

mpl

ies

anal

ytic

al

Met

hod:

Qua

litat

ive

proc

ess

anal

ysis

(i

nter

view

s an

d ar

chiv

al d

ata)

Se

ttin

g: M

ultip

le

fiel

ds (

inst

ituti

onal

en

trep

rene

urs

shif

t w

hen

fiel

ds b

ecom

e m

atur

e; e

.g.,

the

38

skill

s).

- C

ultu

ral

(mak

ing

proj

ects

app

eal

to l

arge

r au

dien

ces)

, fr

amin

g, p

ropa

gatin

g, a

dvis

ing,

tea

chin

g (i

mpl

ies

cultu

ral

skill

s).

proc

ess

of c

reat

ing

and

inst

ituti

onal

izin

g th

e “E

uror

egio

n”)

13

Mut

ch, 2

007

Indi

vidu

als

Inst

itut

iona

l ent

repr

eneu

rs a

re “

auto

nom

ous

refl

exiv

e” in

Arc

her’

s se

nse

(i.e

., th

ey c

ompl

ete

thei

r ow

n in

tern

al c

onve

rsat

ion

in r

elat

ive

isol

atio

n fr

om th

e co

ncer

ns o

f ot

hers

).

M

etho

d: H

isto

rica

l ca

se s

tudy

(ar

chiv

al

data

) Se

ttin

g: E

mer

ging

fi

eld

(act

ion

of

And

rew

Bar

clay

W

alke

r w

ho f

irst

hi

red

sala

ried

m

anag

ers

for

pubs

) 14

R

othe

nber

g, 2

007

Indi

vidu

als

Bou

ndar

y sp

anne

rs c

an c

hang

e ex

istin

g in

stit

utio

ns b

y ac

ting

as

inst

itutio

nal

inte

rpre

ters

(w

ho tr

ansl

ate

and

com

mun

icat

e in

stit

utio

nal p

ress

ures

) or

inst

itutio

nal

entr

epre

neur

s.

Fram

ing

the

capa

citie

s an

d m

eans

use

d to

eff

ect c

hang

e de

pend

s on

con

text

: -

Inst

itut

iona

l ent

repr

eneu

rs o

pera

te u

nder

bot

h in

stit

utio

nal

and

tech

nica

l pre

ssur

es.

- T

he h

ighe

r st

akeh

olde

r sa

lienc

e, th

e m

ore

inst

itut

iona

l en

trep

rene

urs

can

infl

uenc

e th

e or

gani

zatio

n an

d ex

ert

pow

er in

it.

- T

he m

ore

reso

urce

sla

ck, t

he m

ore

likel

y an

inst

itut

iona

l ch

ange

will

be

acce

pted

. -

Whe

n in

stitu

tiona

l pre

ssur

es a

re p

erce

ived

to b

e lo

w,

inst

itut

iona

l ent

repr

eneu

rs f

ram

e th

em to

pre

sent

en

viro

nmen

tal i

mpr

ovem

ents

as

oper

atio

nal e

ffic

ienc

ies.

Met

hod:

C

ompa

rati

ve a

naly

sis

(int

ervi

ews.

se

cond

ary

data

) Se

ttin

g: T

wo

auto

mob

ile

plan

ts

with

dif

fere

nt

conf

igur

atio

ns o

f pr

essu

res

15

Svej

enov

a, M

azza

, and

P

lane

llas,

200

7 In

divi

dual

s

Inno

vati

on is

link

ed to

cre

ativ

ity

and

theo

riza

tion

. R

eput

atio

n (

reco

gnit

ion,

ren

own)

and

dis

sem

inat

ion

(pub

licat

ions

, pre

sent

atio

ns)

help

to s

prea

d id

eas.

M

etho

d: Q

uali

tati

ve

long

itud

inal

ana

lysi

s,

(sec

onda

ry d

ata

such

as

new

spap

ers

and

acco

unts

, int

ervi

ews,

ad

vert

isin

g,

docu

men

tati

on, a

nd

visi

ts).

Se

ttin

g: E

mer

ging

fi

eld

of th

e nu

eva

cuis

ine

16

Jain

and

Geo

rge,

200

7 O

rgan

izat

ions

P

oliti

cal a

ctio

ns (

lobb

ying

, neg

otia

ting,

litig

atin

g) a

nd

diss

emin

atio

n (e

duca

tion)

are

am

ong

a ho

st o

f po

litic

al a

nd

soci

o-co

gniti

ve s

trat

egie

s us

ed b

y in

stit

utio

nal

entr

epre

neur

s to

pro

tect

, pro

paga

te a

nd in

flue

nce.

The

y fi

rst

prot

ect t

he te

chno

logy

for

m a

hos

tile

inst

itutio

nal

Uni

t of

ana

lysi

s:

Lon

gitu

dina

l qu

alita

tive

rese

arch

(m

edia

cov

erag

e,

inte

rnal

arc

hiva

l

39

envi

ronm

ent,

next

und

erta

ke a

ctio

ns a

imed

at d

isse

min

atin

g it

(edu

cati

on, t

rain

ing)

, the

n cr

eate

a s

uppo

rtiv

e in

stitu

tiona

l en

viro

nmen

t (th

roug

h lo

bbyi

ng, n

egot

iatio

n, a

nd li

tiga

tion)

. Se

rend

ipit

y is

Im

port

ant t

o th

e pr

oces

s.

docu

men

ts,

inte

rvie

ws)

Se

ttin

g: W

isco

nsin

A

lum

ni R

esea

rch

Foun

datio

n an

d th

e in

stit

utio

naliz

atio

n of

hu

man

em

bryo

nic

stem

cel

ls

17

Mar

kow

itz, 2

007

Org

aniz

atio

ns

In

stitu

tion

al e

ntre

pren

eurs

use

fra

min

g to

dev

elop

a s

peci

fic

iden

tity

. Bas

ed o

n B

enfo

rd a

nd S

now

’s w

orks

, Mar

kow

itz

dist

ingu

ishe

s am

ong

diag

nost

ic, p

rogn

ostic

, and

m

otiv

atio

nal f

ram

ing.

Met

hod:

Qua

lita

tive

an

alys

is (

Web

sit

es,

com

pany

pr

esen

tatio

ns,

seco

ndar

y da

ta)

Sett

ing:

Em

ergi

ng

fiel

d (s

ocia

lly

resp

onsi

ble

fund

co

mpa

nies

) 18

P

hilli

ps a

nd T

race

y, 2

007

N

A

As

entr

epre

neur

s, in

stit

utio

nal e

ntre

pren

eurs

are

in

volv

ed in

opp

ortu

nity

rec

ogni

tion

. A

s en

trep

rene

urs,

inst

itut

iona

l ent

repr

eneu

rs p

osse

ss

entr

epre

neur

ial c

apab

iliti

es a

nd e

ngag

e in

cul

tura

l br

icol

age.

The

oret

ical

pap

er

19

Hsu

, 200

6

Org

aniz

atio

ns

U

nder

uns

tabl

e co

nditi

ons

and

cont

radi

ctor

y m

oral

logi

cs,

inst

itut

iona

l ent

repr

eneu

rs c

an in

crea

se a

mbi

guit

y (i

.e.,

sim

ulta

neou

sly

adop

t con

trad

icto

ry o

rgan

izat

iona

l el

emen

ts)

in o

rder

to c

ompl

y w

ith

thos

e lo

gics

.

Met

hod:

Eth

nogr

aphy

(i

nter

view

s,

part

icip

atin

g in

the

daily

act

ivit

ies

of th

e or

gani

zati

on)

Sett

ing:

Fie

ld w

ith

cont

radi

ctor

y lo

gics

(C

hina

in tr

ansi

tion)

20

K

oene

, 200

6 In

divi

dual

s an

d or

gani

zati

ons

E

valu

ate

the

infl

uenc

e of

the

ins

titut

iona

l co

ntex

t on

the

dy

nam

ics

of

inst

itutio

nal

chan

ge

and

poss

ibili

ties

fo

r hu

man

age

ncy

in t

he p

roce

ss.

The

re a

re t

hree

ele

men

ts o

f in

stit

utio

nal c

onte

xt:

- H

igh/

low

pre

ssur

es o

n th

e em

erge

nce

of a

fie

ld.

- So

ciet

al c

onfi

denc

e in

exi

stin

g in

stit

utio

ns.

- P

ower

an

d di

scre

tion

of

the

emer

ging

in

dust

ry

(ava

ilabi

lity

of a

wel

l de

velo

ped

inst

ituti

onal

log

ic a

nd a

vo

cabu

lary

of

legi

timat

ion

to d

rive

inst

itut

iona

l cha

nge)

.

Met

hod:

Cas

e st

udy

Sett

ing:

Em

ergi

ng

fiel

d (t

empo

rary

w

ork

agen

cies

in

Ned

erla

nd)

40

21

Mag

uire

and

Har

dy, 2

006

O

rgan

izat

ions

(N

GO

s,

corp

orat

ions

) an

d st

ates

Inst

ituti

onal

ent

repr

eneu

rs n

eed

to b

e co

gniz

ant o

f an

d se

nsiti

ve to

the

disc

ursi

ve c

onte

xt in

whi

ch th

ey o

pera

te

(esp

ecia

lly w

ith r

egar

d to

the

rela

tion

ship

bet

wee

n ne

w a

nd

lega

cy d

isco

urse

s).

Met

hod:

Dis

cour

se

anal

ysis

Se

ttin

g: T

he

emer

genc

e of

the

Stoc

khol

m

Con

vent

ion

on

Per

sist

ent O

rgan

ic

Pol

luta

nts

(PO

Ps)

22

Gre

enw

ood

and

Sud

daby

, 20

06

Org

aniz

atio

ns

(pro

fess

iona

l fir

ms,

pr

ofes

sion

al

asso

ciat

ions

)

Act

ors

are

mor

e lik

ely

to a

ct a

s in

stitu

tion

al

entr

epre

neur

s w

hen

they

fac

e ad

vers

e pe

rfor

man

ce a

nd/o

r ha

ve c

onne

ctio

ns o

utsi

de

the

fiel

d su

ppor

ted

by, f

or e

xam

ple:

-

Bou

ndar

y m

isal

ignm

ent (

disc

repa

ncy

betw

een

the

scal

e of

ope

rati

ons

of a

n ac

tor

and

regu

lato

ry b

ound

arie

s).

- B

ound

ary

brid

ging

(ac

cess

to a

ctor

s ou

tsid

e th

e fi

eld)

. -

Res

ourc

e as

ymm

etry

(be

twee

n th

e in

stit

utio

nal e

ntre

pren

eur

and

othe

rs in

the

fiel

d).

M

etho

d: Q

uali

tati

ve

and

long

itud

inal

Se

ttin

g: M

atur

e fi

eld

(acc

ount

ing

prof

essi

on in

Alb

erta

)

23

Hw

ang

and

Pow

ell,

2005

N

A

Oft

en o

utsi

ders

abl

e to

ser

ve a

s br

idge

s be

twee

n di

ffer

ent s

pher

es

Prof

essi

onal

and

exp

erts

are

like

ly to

be

key

inst

itut

iona

l ent

repr

eneu

rs

Cre

ate

chan

ge in

inst

ituti

onal

arr

ange

men

ts:

expa

nsio

n of

ro

fess

iona

l jur

isdi

ctio

ns, c

reat

ion

of s

tand

ards

, rul

e m

akin

g.

- th

eori

zati

on a

nd e

labo

ratio

n of

new

inst

itut

iona

l lo

gics

and

iden

titie

s -

tran

spos

e in

stit

utio

nal l

ogic

s fr

om o

ne s

ettin

g to

an

othe

r

The

oret

ical

pap

er

24

Mun

ir a

nd P

hilli

ps, 2

005

Org

aniz

atio

n

Dis

curs

ive

stra

tegi

es in

an

emer

ging

fie

ld.

Fram

ing.

Met

hod:

His

tori

cal

(dis

cour

se a

naly

sis)

Se

ttin

g: E

mer

ging

an

d st

ruct

urin

g fi

eld

(per

sona

l ph

otog

raph

y)

25

Box

enba

um a

nd

Bat

tilan

a, 2

005

Indi

vidu

als

Indi

vidu

als

wer

e en

able

d by

mul

tipl

e em

bedd

edne

ss, p

rior

kno

wle

dge

abou

t the

tr

ansp

osed

ent

ity

(div

ersi

ty m

anag

emen

t), a

nd a

pe

rson

al in

tere

st in

dif

fusi

ng d

iver

sity

m

anag

emen

t in

Den

mar

k.

Tra

nspo

sitio

n of

a f

orei

gn p

ract

ice

to th

e fo

cal f

ield

: -

Fram

ing

of th

e tr

ansp

osed

ent

ity

as a

sol

utio

n to

a

reco

gniz

ed s

ocie

tal p

robl

em.

- T

imin

g (t

rans

posi

ng w

hen

a pr

oble

m is

see

n as

acu

te).

-

Mob

ilizi

ng o

rgan

izat

iona

l col

labo

rati

on a

nd f

inan

cial

su

ppor

t.

Met

hod:

Rea

l-tim

e da

ta f

rom

cas

e st

udy

(dis

cour

se a

naly

sis)

Se

ttin

g: M

atur

e fi

eld

(hum

an r

esou

rce

man

agem

ent i

n la

rge

Dan

ish

firm

s)

41

26

Dem

il a

nd B

ensé

drin

e,

2005

O

rgan

izat

ions

D

oubl

e st

rate

gy.

- L

egit

imat

ion

thro

ugh

conf

orm

ity.

-

Pre

ssur

es th

roug

h fi

nanc

ial p

ower

ove

r th

e pu

blic

age

ncy.

Met

hod

Qua

lita

tive

long

itud

inal

cas

e st

udy

Sett

ing

Reg

ulat

ory

proc

ess

for

man

agin

g in

dust

rial

was

tes

27

Sudd

aby

and

Gre

enw

ood,

20

05

Org

aniz

atio

ns

D

iscu

rsiv

e st

rate

gies

: -

‘ins

titu

tion

al v

ocab

ular

ies’

– i.

e. u

se o

f id

entif

ying

wor

ds

and

refe

rent

ial t

exts

to e

xpos

e co

ntra

dict

ory

inst

ituti

onal

lo

gics

em

bedd

ed in

exi

stin

g in

stitu

tiona

l arr

ange

men

ts

- A

rtic

ulat

ion

of n

ew in

stit

utio

ns w

ithi

n ex

istin

g ar

rang

emen

ts

- T

heor

izat

ion

of c

hang

e.

Met

hod:

Qua

lita

tive

an

d lo

ngit

udin

al

(usi

ng tr

ansc

ript

s of

te

stim

ony

befo

re

com

mis

sion

s,

data

ana

lysi

s in

clud

ing

qual

itat

ive

cont

ent a

naly

sis,

N

UD

*IST

) Se

ttin

g: M

atur

e fi

eld

(acc

ount

ing

prof

essi

on in

Alb

erta

) 28

D

orad

o, 2

005

NA

-

Tem

pora

l ori

enta

tion

tow

ards

the

futu

re.

- N

etw

ork

posi

tion.

-

Cog

niti

ve, s

ocia

l, an

d m

ater

ial r

esou

rce

mob

iliza

tion

by

fram

ing.

-

Inte

rper

sona

l tru

st.

- C

olla

bora

tion

. -

Thr

ee p

roce

sses

—le

vera

ging

(on

e in

stitu

tion

al

entr

epre

neur

and

bac

kers

), a

ccum

ulat

ing

(run

ning

in

pack

s), c

onve

ning

(re

orga

nizi

ng th

e fi

eld)

—th

e ef

fici

ency

of

whi

ch d

epen

ds o

n th

e ty

pe o

f fi

eld.

-

Dis

tingu

ishe

s th

ree

kind

s of

fie

lds:

opp

ortu

nity

tr

ansp

aren

t, op

port

unit

y op

aque

, and

haz

y.

The

oret

ical

pap

er

29

Dur

and

and

McG

uire

, 20

05.

Org

aniz

atio

n

- Sc

arci

ty o

f re

sour

ces

and

chal

leng

es in

the

exis

ting

dom

ain.

-

Opp

ortu

niti

es in

the

new

dom

ain

in w

hich

th

ere

is a

nee

d fo

r am

bigu

ity

redu

ctio

n.

- B

uild

s on

the

esta

blis

hed

legi

tim

acy

and

iden

tity

, the

n ad

apts

to th

e ne

w d

omai

n sp

ecif

icity

. M

etho

d: Q

uali

tati

ve

(int

ervi

ews,

tr

iang

ulat

ion

with

ea

rlie

r st

udy

of th

e sa

me

issu

e)

Sett

ing:

Mat

ure

fiel

d (b

usin

ess

scho

ol

cert

ific

atio

n in

E

urop

e)

42

30

Law

renc

e, M

auw

s, D

yck,

an

d K

leys

en, 2

005

NA

Acc

ess

to th

e ri

ght r

esou

rces

and

ski

lls in

leve

ragi

ng th

ese

reso

urce

s. D

omin

atio

n ex

erte

d th

roug

h th

is a

cces

s.

The

oret

ical

pap

er

31

Mag

uire

, Har

dy, a

nd

Law

renc

e, 2

004

Indi

vidu

als

and

orga

niza

tion

s

P

oliti

cal s

trug

gle

in e

mer

ging

fie

lds:

-

Subj

ect p

osit

ion

(wit

h w

ide

legi

timac

y an

d br

idgi

ng

diff

eren

t sta

keho

lder

s).

- T

heor

izat

ion

(fra

min

g an

d ju

stif

icat

ion)

. -

Indi

vidu

al c

hara

cter

istic

s.

Met

hod:

Qua

litat

ive

disc

ours

e an

alys

is

Sett

ing:

Em

ergi

ng

fiel

d (m

ovem

ent

agai

nst H

IV/A

IDS

in

Can

ada)

32

P

hilli

ps, L

awre

nce,

and

H

ardy

, 200

4 N

A

D

iscu

rsiv

e ac

tivi

ty: l

egit

imac

y, r

esou

rces

, for

mal

aut

hori

ty,

and

cent

rali

ty s

uppo

rt th

e ac

know

ledg

emen

t and

co

nsum

ptio

n of

text

s.

The

oret

ical

pap

er

33

Law

renc

e an

d P

hill

ips,

20

04.

Ind

ivid

uals

A

ctor

s, d

raw

ing

from

mul

tiple

pre

-exi

stin

g in

stit

utio

nal f

ield

s an

d am

bigu

ous

and

cont

este

d m

acro

-cul

tura

l dis

cour

se, a

nd a

dapt

an

d m

odif

y th

ese

inst

itut

ions

to f

it th

eir

purp

oses

.

- N

ew n

etw

orks

of

rela

tion

ship

s (c

oope

rati

on, a

ssoc

iatio

ns)

are

form

ed.

- St

rate

gies

of

the

inst

itut

iona

l ent

repr

eneu

r ar

e lik

ely

to b

e m

ore

emer

gent

than

inte

nded

in e

mer

ging

fie

lds.

-

In e

mer

ging

fie

lds,

inst

itut

iona

l ent

repr

eneu

rshi

p is

like

ly

to b

e as

soci

ated

with

rap

id im

itatio

n an

d re

lativ

ely

little

co

nflic

t.

Met

hod:

Qua

litat

ive

(int

ervi

ews

tape

d,

tran

scri

bed,

and

en

tere

d in

to

NU

D*I

ST, b

road

er

anal

ysis

of

regu

lato

ry

disc

ours

e, a

nti-

wha

ling

disc

ours

e,

popu

lar

cultu

re

disc

ours

e)

Sett

ing:

Em

ergi

ng

fiel

d (w

hale

wat

chin

g in

Bri

tish

Col

umbi

a)

34

Déj

ean,

Gon

d, a

nd L

eca,

20

04

Indi

vidu

als

and

orga

niza

tion

s

Em

ergi

ng f

ield

pro

vide

s op

port

uniti

es (

need

to

redu

ce u

ncer

tain

ty, a

ssur

e ex

tern

al s

take

hold

ers

of le

giti

mac

y).

Ali

gn o

n th

e es

tabl

ishe

d fi

eld’

s fr

ames

. M

etho

d: Q

ualit

ativ

e (i

nter

view

s ta

ped,

tr

ansc

ribe

d, a

nd

ente

red

into

NV

ivo

soft

war

e pr

ogra

m,

seco

ndar

y so

urce

s)

Sett

ing:

Em

ergi

ng

fiel

d (s

ocia

lly

resp

onsi

ble

inve

stm

ent i

n Fr

ance

)

43

35

Ana

nd a

nd W

atso

n, 2

004

O

rgan

izat

ions

-

Mob

ilize

col

lect

ive

reso

urce

s.

- Fr

ame

clai

m-m

akin

g ef

fort

s.

- D

eleg

itim

ize

or a

ssim

ilate

into

exi

stin

g in

stitu

tions

. -

Cre

ate

self

-ser

ving

logi

cs a

nd c

ateg

orie

s.

.

Met

hod:

Qua

lita

tive

an

d qu

antit

ativ

e (h

isto

rica

l and

lo

ngit

udin

al s

tudy

) Se

ttin

g: E

mer

ging

an

d st

ruct

urin

g fi

eld

(Gra

mm

y A

war

ds in

th

e U

.S. m

usic

in

dust

ry)

36

Hug

hes,

200

3 O

rgan

izat

ions

and

in

divi

dual

s

T

hree

ste

ps:

- E

mer

genc

e of

inst

itut

iona

l ent

repr

eneu

rs (

jour

nalis

ts)

who

ho

ld v

alue

s th

at o

ppos

e m

aint

enan

ce o

f th

e ex

isti

ng r

egim

e an

d be

com

e ch

ange

age

nts.

-

Dis

pers

ion

thro

ugh

mac

ro e

vent

s (e

cono

mic

and

pol

itica

l lib

eral

izat

ion)

exp

ands

the

netw

ork

of c

ivic

jour

nalis

ts.

- C

ivic

con

solid

atio

n th

roug

h m

aint

enan

ce o

f pr

ofes

sion

al

iden

tity

des

pite

opp

osin

g pr

essu

res.

Met

hod:

E

thno

grap

hy (

in-

dept

h in

terv

iew

s,

surv

ey a

nd s

econ

dary

so

urce

s)

Sett

ing:

Mat

ure

fiel

d (M

exic

an jo

urna

lism

) 37

L

evy

and

Ega

n, 2

003

Org

aniz

atio

ns

In

stit

utio

nal e

ntre

pren

eurs

can

be

posi

tion

ed a

t th

e m

argi

ns a

nd in

ters

tices

(fa

cili

tate

d by

fr

agm

ente

d an

d ov

erla

ppin

g in

stitu

tiona

l fi

elds

).

- P

ower

lies

in th

e al

ignm

ent o

f fi

eld

forc

es c

apab

le o

f re

prod

ucin

g th

e fi

eld.

-

Inst

itut

iona

l ent

repr

eneu

rs m

ust p

rovo

ke s

hift

s in

this

bl

ock.

-

“War

of

posi

tions

” w

ith in

cum

bent

s to

coo

rdin

ate

sour

ces

of p

ower

and

bui

ld a

llian

ces.

Met

hod:

Qua

litat

ive

rese

arch

(se

mi-

stru

ctur

ed in

terv

iew

s an

d se

cond

ary

sour

ces,

nar

rativ

e)

Sett

ing:

Em

ergi

ng

and

stru

ctur

ing

fiel

d (n

egot

iati

ons

to

cont

rol g

reen

hous

e ga

s em

issi

ons)

38

C

reed

, Scu

lly,

and

Aus

tin,

20

02

Soci

al m

ovem

ents

-

Fram

ing

proc

ess

usin

g m

ulti

ple

cultu

ral a

ccou

nts

sele

cted

fo

r th

eir

reso

nanc

e an

d th

e w

ay th

ey a

lter

eac

h ot

her.

-

Leg

itim

atin

g ac

coun

ts f

ram

e w

hat i

t mea

ns w

hen

a pe

rson

su

ppor

ts o

r op

pose

s a

caus

e.

- T

hese

acc

ount

s fr

ame

iden

titie

s.

Met

hod:

Tex

ts a

nd

inte

rvie

ws

anal

yzed

vi

a fr

amin

g an

alys

is

Sett

ing:

Deb

ate

over

w

orkp

lace

no

n-di

scri

min

atio

n on

the

ba

sis

of

sexu

al

44

orie

ntat

ion

39

Zim

mer

man

and

Zei

tz,

2002

N

A

St

rate

gies

: -

Dec

oupl

ing

(lim

it in

stit

utio

nal e

ntre

pren

eurs

hip

to o

ne

area

and

com

ply

in th

e ot

her

area

s w

ith e

stab

lishe

d ru

les)

. -

Inst

itut

iona

l ent

repr

eneu

rs c

an u

se s

ocia

l gro

ups’

fa

scin

atio

n w

ith n

ovel

pra

ctic

es a

nd s

tyle

s.

The

oret

ical

pap

er

Sett

ing:

Em

ergi

ng

fiel

ds

40

Seo

and

Cre

ed, 2

002

N

A

Con

trad

ictio

ns a

mon

g in

stit

utio

nal l

ogic

s (i

.e.,

rupt

ures

and

inco

nsis

tenc

ies

both

am

ong

and

with

in e

stab

lishe

d so

cial

arr

ange

men

ts)

are

the

fund

amen

tal d

rivi

ng f

orce

of

inst

itutio

nal

chan

ge. P

raxi

s is

a b

oth

a re

flex

ive

mom

ent,

invo

lvin

g th

e cr

itiqu

e of

exi

stin

g pa

ttern

s an

d se

arch

for

alte

rnat

ives

, and

an

activ

e m

omen

t in

volv

ing

mob

iliza

tion

and

colle

ctiv

e ac

tion

.

Inst

ituti

onal

ent

repr

eneu

rs m

ust:

- D

evel

op a

ltern

ativ

e m

odel

s of

soc

ial a

rran

gem

ents

. -

Dev

elop

fra

mes

that

are

inco

mpa

tible

with

the

exis

ting

ar

rang

emen

t and

res

onat

e w

ith

max

imiz

e m

obil

izat

ion.

-

Mob

ilize

res

ourc

es f

or p

olit

ical

act

ion.

The

oret

ical

pap

er

41

de H

olan

and

Phi

llips

, 20

02

Ind

ivid

uals

and

or

gani

zati

ons

-

Leg

itim

atin

g na

rrat

ives

bui

ld o

n ex

istin

g so

ciet

al f

ram

es.

- In

tern

ally

, new

app

roac

hes

to h

uman

res

ourc

es

man

agem

ent a

re f

orm

ulat

ed to

att

ract

and

rew

ard

wor

kers

in

way

s co

mpa

tible

wit

h th

e do

min

ant i

deol

ogy.

Met

hod:

In-d

epth

an

d lo

ngit

udin

al c

ase

stud

y (i

nter

view

s,

visi

ts, n

otes

, and

in

form

al

conv

ersa

tions

) Se

ttin

g: M

atur

e fi

eld

(Cub

an to

bacc

o in

dust

ry)

42

Dac

in, G

oods

tein

, and

Sc

ott,

2002

N

A

Pres

sure

s to

cha

nge,

whe

ther

fun

ctio

nal,

poli

tical

, or

soci

al (

Oliv

er, 1

992)

, ope

rate

as

a st

arte

r.

Cha

nge

goes

thro

ugh

a cr

itica

l sta

ge o

f th

eori

zatio

n an

d le

gitim

atio

n by

act

ors.

Act

ors’

inte

rpre

tati

on is

impo

rtan

t. T

heor

etic

al p

aper

A

utho

rs r

ecom

men

d co

mbi

ning

qua

lita

tive

and

quan

titat

ive

met

hods

, int

ensi

ve

inte

rvie

ws,

arc

hiva

l re

cord

s, a

nd

part

icip

ant

obse

rvat

ion

45

43

Gre

enw

ood,

Sud

daby

, an

d H

inin

gs, 2

002

Org

aniz

atio

ns

- So

cial

, tec

hnol

ogic

al a

nd r

egul

ator

y jo

lts

brin

g ab

out d

eins

titut

iona

lizat

ion.

-

Inst

itut

iona

l ent

repr

eneu

rs a

re le

ss c

aptu

red

by p

reva

ilin

g ro

utin

es.

-

Bei

ng a

t the

inte

rsti

ces

of d

iffe

rent

fie

lds

favo

rs a

war

enes

s of

em

ergi

ng o

ppor

tuni

ties

.

Seve

ral s

tage

s of

inst

itutio

nal c

hang

e (i

nstit

utio

nal

entr

epre

neur

s op

erat

e m

ainl

y du

ring

dei

nstit

utio

naliz

atio

n an

d th

eori

zatio

n):

- T

heor

izat

ion

invo

lves

bot

h sp

ecif

icat

ion

of th

e fa

ilin

gs o

f ex

isti

ng n

orm

s an

d pr

actic

es a

nd ju

stif

icat

ion

of n

ew n

orm

s an

d pr

actic

es.

- R

esou

rces

hel

p in

stit

utio

nal e

ntre

pren

eurs

res

ist

oppo

sitio

n.

- P

ower

ful e

stab

lishe

d al

lies

(su

ch a

s pr

ofes

sion

al

asso

ciat

ions

) pl

ay a

n im

port

ant r

ole

in th

eori

zing

cha

nge.

Met

hod:

Arc

hiva

l da

ta a

naly

sis

supp

lem

ente

d by

in

terv

iew

s (a

ch

rono

logy

of

even

ts

was

con

stru

cted

and

te

xtua

l ana

lysi

s pe

rfor

med

) Se

ttin

g: M

atur

e fi

eld

(aud

itin

g pr

ofes

sion

in

Alb

erta

) 44

G

arud

, Jai

n, a

nd

Kum

aras

wam

y, 2

002

Org

aniz

atio

ns

New

tech

nolo

gies

fav

or in

stit

utio

nal

entr

epre

neur

ship

. D

iscu

rsiv

e st

rate

gies

cre

ate

a ne

w s

yste

m o

f m

eani

ng th

at

ties

the

func

tioni

ng o

f di

spar

ate

sets

of

inst

itutio

ns to

geth

er.

The

y do

not

exa

cerb

ate

the

cont

radi

ctio

ns in

here

nt in

in

stit

utio

ns, b

ut r

athe

r pr

ovid

e sy

nthe

sis.

P

oliti

cal s

trat

egie

s de

fine

, leg

itim

ize,

com

bat,

or c

o-op

t ri

vals

, and

ene

rgiz

e ef

fort

s to

war

ds c

olle

ctiv

e ac

tion.

St

rate

gies

for

est

ablis

hing

sta

ble

sequ

ence

s of

inte

ract

ion

wit

h ot

her

orga

niza

tions

are

dev

ised

.

Met

hod:

Nat

ural

istic

in

quir

y (t

race

hi

stor

ical

roo

ts u

sing

in

duct

ive

logi

c,

iter

ativ

e pr

oces

s th

at

uses

pub

licly

av

aila

ble

docu

men

t to

bri

dge

data

and

th

eory

) Se

ttin

g: U

.S.

soft

war

e in

dust

ry

45

Zil

ber,

200

2 In

divi

dual

s In

stit

utio

nal e

ntre

pren

eurs

are

like

ly to

be

cent

ral a

ctor

s.

Inst

ituti

onal

izat

ion

is a

pol

itica

l pro

cess

imbu

ed w

ith

pow

er

and

indi

vidu

al in

tere

sts

(p. 2

36).

Ins

titut

iona

l pra

ctic

es a

nd

sym

bols

are

use

d by

dif

fere

nt a

ctor

s to

gai

n po

litic

al p

ower

. In

stitu

tion

aliz

atio

n is

an

inte

rpre

tatio

n pr

oces

s w

ith

poli

tical

out

com

es. P

eopl

e ha

ve th

e po

wer

to d

ecid

e to

be

com

e ac

tive

part

icip

ants

in th

e pr

oces

s of

inte

rpre

ting

inst

itut

ions

.

Met

hod:

Inte

rpre

tive

re

sear

ch

(eth

nogr

aphi

c,

part

icip

ant

obse

rvat

ion,

in

terv

iew

s,

adm

inis

trat

ive

text

s)

Sett

ing:

Isr

aeli

rap

e cr

isis

cen

ter

46

L

awre

nce,

Har

dy, a

nd

Phi

llips

, 200

2 C

olla

bora

tion

betw

een

orga

niza

tion

s C

olla

bora

tion

can

play

a r

ole

in th

e pr

oduc

tion

of n

ew

emer

ging

inst

itut

ions

(pr

oto

inst

ituti

ons)

by

faci

lita

ting

thei

r cr

eatio

n an

d m

akin

g th

em a

vail

able

inte

r-or

gani

zati

onal

ly.

Col

labo

ratio

ns th

at e

njoy

hig

h le

vels

of

invo

lvem

ent a

mon

g pa

rtne

rs a

nd a

re h

ighl

y em

bedd

ed in

thei

r in

stit

utio

nal

fiel

ds w

ill b

e po

sitiv

ely

asso

ciat

ed w

ith

the

crea

tion

of

new

pr

oto-

inst

ituti

ons.

Met

hod:

Qua

lita

tive

, m

ulti

-cas

e,

com

para

tive

res

earc

h de

sign

Se

ttin

g: S

mal

l NG

O

in P

ales

tine

46

Unc

erta

inty

fav

ors

colla

bora

tion

.

47

Flig

stei

n, 2

001

NA

C

rise

s an

d ex

tern

al jo

lts f

avor

inst

itut

iona

l en

trep

rene

urs.

- T

o he

lp in

duce

coo

pera

tion,

fra

me

stor

ies

that

app

eal t

o id

enti

ty a

nd in

tere

st.

- A

ctin

g em

phat

ical

ly is

cen

tral

. -

Dir

ect a

utho

rity

fav

ors

the

diff

usio

n of

mes

sage

s.

- T

o ap

pear

har

d to

rea

d an

d w

itho

ut v

alue

s or

ient

ed

tow

ards

per

sona

l gai

n he

lps

inst

ituti

onal

ent

repr

eneu

rs to

ap

pear

mor

e op

en to

oth

ers’

nee

ds

The

oret

ical

pap

er

Cal

l for

long

itud

inal

st

udie

s

48

Wad

e-B

enzo

ni, H

offm

an,

Tho

mps

on, M

oore

, G

illes

pie,

and

Baz

erm

an,

2002

Org

aniz

atio

ns a

nd

grou

ps

Act

ivis

t gro

ups

conn

ect t

he v

alue

s of

thei

r ca

use

with

thei

r pe

rson

al id

enti

ties

to c

reat

e a

valu

e co

ngru

ence

that

is a

pot

ent f

orce

for

so

cial

cha

nge.

The

y ha

ve li

ttle

mat

eria

l sta

ke in

or

gani

zati

onal

out

put,

but w

ill i

nflu

ence

it

ideo

logi

call

y.

T

heor

etic

al p

aper

49

Rao

, Mor

rill,

and

Zal

d,

2000

O

rgan

izat

ions

Opp

ortu

niti

es a

rise

fro

m m

arke

t fai

lure

s:

- Fa

ilure

of

trad

e as

soci

atio

ns.

- In

adeq

uacy

of

“nor

mal

” in

cent

ives

. -

Failu

re o

f m

arke

t mec

hani

sms

to r

educ

e so

cial

co

sts.

-

Exc

lusi

on o

f ac

tors

fro

m tr

aditi

onal

cha

nnel

s.

- N

ew o

rgan

izat

iona

l for

ms

enta

il an

inst

ituti

onal

izat

ion

proj

ect.

- G

riev

ance

s ne

ed to

be

fram

ed a

nd m

obili

zatio

n st

ruct

ures

es

tabl

ishe

d to

obt

ain

supp

ort.

- D

efin

ing

and

rede

fini

ng id

enti

ty is

cen

tral

to b

uild

ing

a su

stai

nabl

e co

aliti

on.

- O

ppon

ents

to in

stit

utio

nal c

hang

e in

clud

e re

acti

ve p

oliti

cs

agai

nst s

ocia

l mov

emen

ts s

uch

as “

spin

-off

mov

emen

ts,”

“c

ount

er m

ovem

ents

,” a

nd “

boun

dary

truc

es.”

The

oret

ical

pap

er

47

50

Phi

llips

, Law

renc

e, a

nd

Har

dy, 2

000

Org

aniz

atio

ns

- C

ompl

ex a

nd m

ulti

-fac

eted

pro

blem

s no

t pr

evio

usly

add

ress

ed.

- C

olla

bora

tion

wit

h ac

tors

fro

m o

ther

fie

lds

enab

les

tran

slat

ion

of in

stitu

tion

s.

- In

stit

utio

nal e

ntre

pren

eurs

dra

w f

rom

exi

stin

g in

stitu

tiona

l st

ruct

ures

use

d as

res

ourc

es in

thei

r ne

gotia

tion

s.

- In

nova

tions

are

mor

e lik

ely

to e

mer

ge f

rom

col

labo

ratio

n.

- C

ontr

ol o

f sc

arce

and

cri

tical

res

ourc

es in

the

fiel

d by

in

stit

utio

nal e

ntre

pren

eurs

fav

ors

inst

itutio

naliz

atio

n.

- In

stit

utio

nal e

ntre

pren

eurs

’ in

volv

emen

t in

colle

ctiv

e ar

rang

emen

ts in

the

fiel

d fa

vors

inst

ituti

onal

izat

ion.

The

oret

ical

pap

er

51

Bec

kert

, 199

9 N

A

Inst

itut

iona

l sta

bilit

y is

the

basi

s fo

r ac

tion

by

inst

itut

iona

l ent

repr

eneu

rs.

Inst

ituti

onal

ent

repr

eneu

rs d

estr

oy e

xist

ing

inst

ituti

ons

to

crea

te th

e ne

ed f

or c

erta

inty

, and

con

trol

the

inst

itutio

nal

re-e

mbe

dded

ness

pro

cess

.

The

oret

ical

pap

er

52

Law

renc

e, 1

999

Org

aniz

atio

ns a

nd

indi

vidu

als

The

pot

entia

l for

org

aniz

atio

nal a

ctor

s to

m

anag

e in

stit

utio

nal s

truc

ture

s de

pend

s on

the

natu

re o

f th

e in

stit

utio

nal c

onte

xt a

nd th

e re

sour

ces

held

by

the

inte

rest

ed a

ctor

s.

Tw

o ty

pes

of d

ocum

ente

d in

stit

utio

nal s

trat

egie

s:

- M

embe

rshi

p st

rate

gies

. -

Stan

dard

izat

ion

stra

tegi

es.

Met

hod:

Qua

lita

tive

st

udy

(pur

posi

ve

sam

plin

g, s

emi-

stru

ctur

ed in

terv

iew

s)

Sett

ing:

Em

ergi

ng

fiel

d (f

oren

sic

acco

unti

ng in

C

anad

a)

55

Rao

and

Siv

akum

ar, 1

999

Org

aniz

atio

ns a

nd

soci

al m

ovem

ents

Com

plem

enta

rity

bet

wee

n tw

o ki

nds

of in

stitu

tion

al

entr

epre

neur

s:

- A

ctiv

ists

(in

vest

or r

ight

s ac

tivis

ts).

-

Pro

fess

iona

ls (

fina

ncia

l ana

lyst

s).

Met

hod:

Qua

lita

tive

an

d qu

antit

ativ

e st

udy

Sett

ing:

Inv

esto

r re

lati

ons

depa

rtm

ents

in

the

Fort

une

500

indu

stri

als

54

Har

dy a

nd P

hilli

ps, 1

999

NA

In

stitu

tiona

l ent

repr

eneu

rs d

evel

op d

iscu

rsiv

e st

rate

gies

bas

ed o

n di

scur

sive

mat

eria

l ava

ilab

le

in th

e fi

eld

and

at th

e so

ciet

al le

vel.

Dis

cour

se a

t the

soc

ieta

l lev

el p

rovi

des

cons

trai

nts

and

reso

urce

s fo

r ac

tors

’ st

rate

gies

in th

e fi

eld.

M

etho

d: Q

uali

tati

ve

disc

ours

e an

alys

is

Sett

ing:

Edi

tori

al

cart

oons

as

an

indi

cato

r of

bro

ader

so

ciet

al d

isco

urse

on

refu

gees

in C

anad

a

55

Cle

men

s an

d C

ook,

199

9

NA

T

hree

con

diti

ons

faci

litat

e in

stitu

tiona

l en

trep

rene

ursh

ip:

- M

utab

ility

of

the

rule

s (o

ptio

nal r

ules

- In

stit

utio

nal e

ntre

pren

eurs

mig

ht m

obil

ize

by d

eplo

ying

fa

mili

ar m

odel

s of

soc

ial o

rgan

izat

ion

in u

nfam

ilia

r w

ays.

-

- T

hey

mig

ht a

lso

prop

ose

new

mod

els

whe

n ne

w p

oliti

cal

The

oret

ical

pap

er

48

faci

lita

te m

ore

chan

ge th

an m

anda

tory

one

s).

- In

tern

al c

ontr

adic

tions

of

inst

itut

iona

l ar

rang

emen

ts.

- M

ultip

licit

y of

com

petin

g in

stitu

tion

s co

nstit

utes

an

oppo

rtun

ity f

or a

genc

y.

Exo

geno

us e

vent

s m

ight

pla

y a

key

role

in

init

iatin

g in

stitu

tion

al c

hang

e.

even

ts o

r ar

rang

emen

ts m

ust b

e in

terp

rete

d fo

r an

d le

gitim

ated

to m

ultip

le a

udie

nces

.

56

Rao

, 199

8 O

rgan

izat

ions

and

so

cial

mov

emen

ts

Pol

itica

l sup

port

fro

m s

tate

s, p

rofe

ssio

ns, k

ey

supp

liers

, res

ourc

e an

d pr

oduc

t con

sum

ers,

re

gula

tory

age

ncie

s, a

nd o

ther

org

aniz

atio

ns

that

pro

duce

sim

ilar

good

s an

d se

rvic

es.

- In

stit

utio

nal e

ntre

pren

eurs

rec

ombi

ne p

reva

lent

cul

tura

l m

ater

ials

to f

ram

e th

e ne

w f

orm

as

nece

ssar

y, v

alid

, and

ap

prop

riat

e.

- T

hey

asse

mbl

e re

sour

ces

to le

gitim

ate

the

new

for

m a

nd

inte

grat

e it

with

the

prev

alen

t ins

titut

iona

l ord

er.

- T

hey

mus

t als

o id

entif

y so

urce

s of

res

ourc

es, f

orge

al

lianc

es, a

nd d

eal w

ith

anta

goni

sts

and

com

peti

tors

.

Met

hod:

His

tori

cal

case

stu

dy (

mos

tly

qual

itativ

e an

alys

is o

f pr

imar

y da

ta, s

uch

as

fact

s an

d ra

w

num

bers

, fro

m

arch

ival

sou

rces

su

pple

men

ted

with

se

cond

ary

sour

ces

and

theo

reti

cal t

exts

)

Sett

ing:

Em

ergi

ng

fiel

d (n

onpr

ofit

cons

umer

wat

chdo

g or

gani

zati

ons)

57

C

olom

y, 1

998

NA

Inst

ituti

onal

ent

repr

eneu

rs d

evel

op in

stit

utio

naliz

atio

n pr

ojec

ts th

at c

onde

mn

exis

ting

inst

ituti

ons

as e

vil,

and

deve

lop

alte

rnat

ives

wit

h va

riou

s sc

opes

. -

Impo

rtan

ce o

f co

nflic

ts a

nd c

oalit

ions

. -

Impo

rtan

ce o

f ac

coun

ts, n

arra

tive

s, a

nd c

ultu

ral

dim

ensi

ons.

The

oret

ical

pap

er

58

Hav

eman

and

Rao

, 199

7

Org

aniz

atio

ns a

nd

soci

al m

ovem

ents

G

row

ing

dem

ands

by

cons

umer

s co

nsti

tute

an

oppo

rtun

ity f

or in

stitu

tion

al e

ntre

pren

eurs

.

Ideo

logi

cal c

onfl

ict b

etw

een

two

mod

els:

-

Pol

itica

l str

ateg

ies

(lob

byin

g, p

ublic

atta

cks

on th

e op

posi

te m

odel

).

- Fr

amin

g (m

odel

ass

ocia

ted

with

pos

itive

cul

tura

l el

emen

ts).

T

he in

stit

utio

nali

zed

mod

el w

as a

pra

ctic

al s

olut

ion

to a

w

idel

y ex

peri

ence

d pr

oble

m a

nd w

as n

este

d in

impe

rson

al,

inst

itut

ion-

base

d tr

ust (

stan

dard

str

uctu

res,

sta

ble

rule

s, a

nd

legi

timat

e cu

ltur

al e

lem

ents

).

Met

hod:

His

tori

cal

anal

ysis

(qu

anti

tati

ve

and

qual

itati

ve

anal

ysis

) Se

ttin

g: E

mer

ging

fi

eld

(ear

ly th

rift

in

dust

ry)

49

59

Flig

stei

n, 1

997

N

A

“Whe

n th

e or

gani

zatio

nal f

ield

has

no

stru

ctur

e,

the

poss

ibili

ties

for

stra

tegi

c ac

tion

are

the

grea

test

” (p

. 401

).

The

pro

cess

is o

ne o

f us

ing

sele

ctiv

e ta

ctic

s in

res

pons

e to

ot

her

acto

rs. T

he in

stitu

tiona

l ent

repr

eneu

r m

ust c

onsi

der

the

curr

ent c

ondi

tion

of

the

orga

niza

tion

al f

ield

, the

pla

ces

of th

e va

riou

s gr

oups

in th

at f

ield

, and

the

type

s of

str

ateg

ic

actio

n th

at “

mak

e se

nse”

giv

en th

e ob

ject

ive

cond

ition

s be

fore

cho

osin

g a

tact

ic. M

any

tact

ics

are

poss

ible

.

The

oret

ical

pap

er

60

Flig

stei

n an

d M

ara-

Dri

ta,

1996

In

divi

dual

s an

d pu

blic

au

thor

itie

s A

n ex

tern

al jo

lt th

at c

anno

t be

fixe

d ge

nera

tes

a po

litic

al o

ppor

tuni

ty f

or in

stitu

tion

al

entr

epre

neur

s.

Inst

ituti

onal

ent

repr

eneu

rs m

ust p

erce

ive

a cr

isis

and

re

cogn

ize

thei

r in

terd

epen

denc

e. T

hey

mus

t con

vinc

e po

tent

ial a

llies

that

the

prop

osal

for

a n

ew a

rran

gem

ent i

s in

th

eir

inte

rest

, the

n ne

goti

ate

and

trad

e of

f th

e in

tere

sts

of

surr

ound

ing

acto

rs.

Met

hod:

Q

uant

itat

ive

anal

ysis

(t

he a

utho

rs u

se

seco

ndar

y so

urce

s to

de

velo

p hy

poth

eses

to

geth

er w

ith p

rim

ary

arch

ival

dat

a)

Se

ttin

g: M

atur

e fi

eld

(Eur

opea

n U

nion

in

the

mid

198

0s)

61

Hol

m, 1

995

O

rgan

izat

ions

E

nabl

ing

cond

ition

s in

clud

ed a

mar

ket c

risi

s,

rela

tive

bar

gain

ing

posi

tion

of

acto

r gr

oups

, co

ndit

ions

for

col

lect

ive

actio

n, a

nd th

e ac

cess

st

ruct

ure

of th

e po

litic

al s

yste

m.

- M

obili

zatio

n of

alli

es.

- C

onst

ruct

ion

of a

ccou

nts

that

mak

es s

ense

of

the

prop

osed

in

stit

utio

nal p

roje

ct a

nd d

iscr

edits

alt

erna

tives

. -

Use

of

chan

ging

inst

ituti

onal

logi

cs.

- C

onst

ruct

ion

and

polit

iciz

atio

n of

the

prob

lem

that

be

com

es s

o im

port

ant t

hat i

t mer

its a

pla

ce o

n th

e po

litic

al

agen

da.

- In

stit

utio

nal e

ntre

pren

eurs

ens

ure

that

the

solu

tion

surv

ives

the

vari

ous

stag

es o

f th

e de

cisi

on-m

akin

g pr

oces

s an

d th

at v

otes

are

cas

t in

thei

r fa

vor.

Met

hod:

His

tori

cal

case

stu

dy

(qua

litat

ive

anal

ysis

of

fac

ts a

nd r

aw

num

bers

obt

aine

d fr

om a

rchi

val a

nd

seco

ndar

y so

urce

s)

Sett

ing:

Mat

ure

fiel

d (N

orw

egia

n fi

sher

ies)

62

Su

chm

an, 1

995

NA

A

wea

k te

chni

cal o

r in

stit

utio

nal e

nvir

onm

ent

faci

lita

tes

the

task

of

inst

ituti

onal

en

trep

rene

urs.

.

Inst

ituti

onal

ent

repr

eneu

rs m

ust l

egiti

miz

e th

eir

inst

itut

iona

l pro

ject

usi

ng p

ragm

atic

legi

timac

y (o

rgan

izat

iona

l and

per

sona

l rep

utat

ion

with

res

pect

to

relia

bili

ty a

nd p

erfo

rman

ce),

mor

al le

gitim

acy

(em

bedd

ing

new

str

uctu

res

and

prac

tices

in n

etw

orks

of

alre

ady

legi

timat

e in

stit

utio

ns),

and

cog

niti

ve le

giti

mac

y (c

onfo

rmin

g to

est

ablis

hed

mod

els

or s

tand

ards

).

The

oret

ical

pap

er

50

63

Col

omy

and

Rho

ades

, 19

94

NA

- In

stit

utio

nal e

ntre

pren

eurs

car

ve a

fre

e sp

ace

by

form

uliz

ing

and

atte

mpt

ing

to in

stit

utio

naliz

e an

inno

vati

ve

proj

ect.

- P

roje

cts

are

elab

orat

ed a

nd le

gitim

ated

thro

ugh

prot

otyp

ing

(loo

k to

the

past

or

pres

ent t

o de

fine

the

proj

ect)

. -

Inst

itut

iona

l ent

repr

eneu

rs f

ram

e pr

ojec

ts to

max

imiz

e su

ppor

t and

def

use

resi

stan

ce.

The

oret

ical

pap

er

64

Rao

, 199

4 O

rgan

izat

ions

and

as

soci

atio

ns

Am

bigu

ity,

fie

ld e

mer

genc

e, la

ck o

f st

anda

rds

in a

fie

ld.

Inst

ituti

onal

ent

repr

eneu

rs e

ngag

e in

a le

gitim

atio

n pr

oces

s w

hen

purs

uing

rep

eate

d ce

rtif

icat

ion

of th

eir

orga

niza

tion.

-

Def

ine,

legi

timat

e, c

omba

t, or

co-

opt r

ival

s to

suc

ceed

in

thei

r in

stitu

tion

al p

roje

cts.

-

Skill

fully

use

cul

ture

to le

gitim

ate

thei

r or

gani

zatio

nal

inno

vatio

ns.

Met

hod/

Arc

hiva

l da

ta (

quan

tita

tive

pa

per

on th

e ca

usal

re

lati

onsh

ip b

etw

een

cert

ific

atio

n (i

ndep

ende

nt

vari

able

) an

d (a

) re

puta

tion,

(b)

or

gani

zati

onal

su

rviv

al)

Sett

ing:

Em

ergi

ng

fiel

d (U

.S.

auto

mob

ile

indu

stry

)

65

DiM

aggi

o, 1

991

O

rgan

izat

ions

and

in

divi

dual

s In

crea

sed

mun

icip

al s

uppo

rt f

or th

e se

ctor

and

id

eolo

gica

l fit

betw

een

inst

ituti

onal

en

trep

rene

urs

and

stra

tegi

call

y po

sitio

ned

grou

ps in

the

sect

or in

crea

sed

the

ideo

logi

cal,

hum

an, a

nd f

inan

cial

res

ourc

es th

at w

ere

avai

labl

e.

The

pro

cess

is o

ne o

f in

tere

st-d

rive

n co

nflic

t and

pr

ofes

sion

aliz

atio

n. T

he f

orm

atio

n of

for

mal

ass

ocia

tions

an

d em

erge

nce

of a

dis

cipl

inar

y vo

ice

(i.e

., pr

ofes

sion

aliz

atio

n) le

d to

the

esta

blis

hmen

t of

a ne

w f

ield

de

fine

d by

info

rmal

and

ass

ocia

tiona

l act

ivit

ies

amon

g in

stit

utio

nal e

ntre

pren

eurs

. The

em

erge

nt f

ield

attr

acte

d ad

ditio

nal r

esou

rces

for

dev

elop

men

t. T

he p

roce

ss

cons

iste

d of

the

crea

tion

of a

bod

y of

kno

wle

dge,

or

gani

zati

on o

f pr

ofes

sion

al a

ssoc

iati

ons,

con

solid

atio

n of

a

prof

essi

onal

elit

e, in

crea

ses

in th

e or

gani

zati

onal

sal

ienc

e of

pro

fess

iona

l exp

ertis

e, d

ensi

ty o

f or

gani

zatio

nal

cont

acts

, and

flo

w o

f in

form

atio

n, a

nd th

e em

erge

nce

of

cent

er-p

erip

hery

str

uctu

re a

nd c

olle

ctiv

e de

fini

tion

of

a fi

eld.

Met

hod:

His

tori

cal

case

stu

dy

(qua

litat

ive

anal

ysis

of

arc

hiva

l dat

a an

d se

cond

ary

sour

ces)

Se

ttin

g: U

.S. A

rt

Mus

eum

s, 1

920-

1940

51

66

Leb

lebi

ci,S

alan

cik,

Cop

ay,

and

Kin

g, 1

991

Uni

t of

ana

lysi

s:

Org

aniz

atio

ns

The

soc

ial o

rder

exh

ibite

d in

cons

iste

ncy

or

conf

lict a

t the

mac

ro a

nd m

icro

leve

ls.

In

stitu

tion

al e

ntre

pren

eurs

act

fro

m th

e fr

inge

to th

e ce

nter

, de

velo

ping

agr

eem

ents

with

iden

tifi

able

par

ties

, dif

fusi

ng

to k

ey c

onst

ituen

ts, a

nd th

ereb

y er

odin

g th

e ce

ntra

lity

of

the

esta

blis

hed

play

ers.

Met

hod:

Qua

litat

ive

anal

ysis

of

raw

dat

a an

d ev

ents

fro

m

arch

ival

and

se

cond

ary

sour

ces

Se

ttin

g: E

mer

ging

fi

eld

(U.S

. rad

io

broa

dcas

ting

indu

stry

) 67

D

iMag

gio,

198

8 In

divi

dual

s

Rec

ogni

tion

of in

divi

dual

inte

rest

s be

yond

the

univ

ersa

l hum

an in

tere

sts

in c

erta

inty

and

su

rviv

al, b

oth

of w

hich

are

alr

eady

ac

know

ledg

ed in

inst

itutio

nal t

heor

y.

Inst

ituti

onal

eff

ects

occ

ur b

ecau

se a

ctor

s en

gage

in

stru

ctur

al p

oliti

cs. I

nstit

utio

nal r

epro

duct

ion,

cre

atio

n of

in

stit

utio

ns a

nd d

e-in

stitu

tiona

lizat

ion

all r

equi

re p

olit

ical

ac

tion,

e.g

., le

gitim

atin

g ac

coun

ts o

f an

inst

itut

iona

lizat

ion

proj

ect,

and

mob

iliz

atio

n of

con

stit

uent

s an

d fi

nanc

ial

supp

ort.

The

oret

ical

pap

er