Institutional Entrepreneurship

Institutional entrepreneurship refers to the process through which actors in an interorganizational field create new institutions, change existing ones, or tear down old ones. Actors to whom responsibility for new or altered institutional arrangements is attributed are called institutional entrepreneurs. In some instances, these are individuals; in others, they are collective actors such as organizations, coalitions, or social movements. Although the term institutional entrepreneur(ship) can be traced to earlier usages, Paul Di aggio!s elaboration of the concept in "#$$ did much to highlight its importance for institutional theories of organization. %y describing how actors are constrained by and conform to the expectations of their institutional environments& actors unreflectively adopt ta'en(for(granted practices and, in so doing, individually ac)uire legitimacy and collectively reproduce the institutional order&institutional theorists have had success explaining stability in fields but have been challenged by novel action and change. Institutional entrepreneurship is therefore an important concept; it helps to explain nonisomorphic change in fields and, in so doing, brings to the fore two concepts addressed problematically in much recent institutional theorizing&agency and interests. It is thus a promising concept for bridging what have come to be called, since Di aggio and Powell!s essay of "##", the old and new institutionalisms in organizational analysis, and it serves as a 'ey conceptual locus of efforts to advance the agency( structure debate.

Conceptual Overview
The Paradox of Embedded Agency
*he theoretical puzzle is this+ If actors are embedded in an institutional field and thus sub,ect to the regulative, normative, and cognitive processes, which, li'e pillars, support institutions therein, how is it that they are motivated and able to envision new practices, then can subse)uently get others to adopt them- Actors who are truly embedded are not supposed to desire, imagine, or realize alternative ways of doing things because institutionalized arrangements and practices structure cognitions, define interests, and, in the limit, produce actors! identities. .ven if conceiving of alternatives becomes possible, those actors who are disadvantaged by or peripheral in a field and thus motivated to change institutions typically lac' the power to do so. /everal solutions to this puzzle have been proposed, relating to the sources of institutional entrepreneurs! 0"1 motivations, 021 ideas for change, and 031 ability to realize new institutional arrangements.

Motivations for Change

otivations for changing institutional environments vary depending on whether a field is emerging, mature, or in crisis. In emerging fields, institutional entrepreneurs do not have to escape the so(called iron cages of existing institutions before building new ones. In these contexts&where actors are only beginning to recognize themselves as belonging to a common enterprise, relationships are fluid, meanings are heterogeneous, understandings "

are not widely shared, and multiple possible scripts for action exist&actors are motivated to stabilize relationships, meanings, and practices to reduce uncertainty for themselves and to facilitate development of the field in ways congruent with the realization of constructed interests that predate or are emerging with the field. Different actors will, however, prefer different relationships, meanings, and practices to become institutionalized. In mature fields, motivations for change vary with actors! positions. Peripheral actors who are disadvantaged by existing institutional arrangements have a greater incentive to brea' with current practices, while more powerful central actors have less. 4ith more to gain and less at sta'e, peripheral actors are more willing to experiment with alternative practices, as demonstrated in a "##" study of 5./. radio broadcasting by 6useyin 7eblebici, 8erald /alanci', Anne 9opay, and *om :ing. 6istorically, innovative departures from transaction conventions originated with peripheral players, and only once their merits were demonstrated were they adopted by central players and institutionalized as new conventions. %ut powerful actors in mature fields can be motivated to change too. *his is the case when, for example, current practices result in problems or prevent field elite from capitalizing on opportunities. *hus, the social construction of problems or opportunities from the perspective of powerful actors can wea'en the grip of existing institutional arrangements and motivate change. *his was the case, for example, when large accounting firms pioneered the multidisciplinary practice as a new organizational form because it brought with it opportunities for cross(selling other professional services in addition to accounting, as described by ;oyston 8reenwood and ;oy /uddaby in 2<<=. In addition to these endogenous mechanisms, actors in mature fields can also become motivated to change as a result of exogenous shoc's, such as natural disasters, social unrest, new technologies, regulatory change, or authoritative publications critical of the field, all of which can give rise to field(level crises. %y generating problems and causing ta'en(forgranted assumptions to be )uestioned, environmental ,olts disrupt field(level consensus and motivate institutional change.

Ideas for Change

4hat is the origin of institutional entrepreneurs! ideas- *his is a particularly 'ey )uestion in mature fields where the repeated reenactment of institutionalized practices and iterated reproduction of institutions are supposed to reinforce cognitive structures that prevent field members from conceiving of alternatives. .mpirically, several mechanisms have been identified, including transposition and translation of practices from other fields by less or multiply embedded actors, competing logics within a field, sensema'ing, and contradictions within and among institutions. >ovel ideas in a field commonly originate in other fields, so the transposition and subse)uent translation of practices are important mechanisms for initiating change. 4hereas transposition refers to importation of practices, translation refers to how

imported practices are tailored and adapted to ma'e them fit, both materially and discursively, with other practices, values and meanings in the field. *hese changes are more li'ely to be initiated by actors who somehow avoid or resist a field!s cognitive processes such that they are more open to and aware of alternative action scripts&by actors who are less embedded in the field, in other words. *hus, because new field participants, even those that ta'e up highly institutionalized central roles, are initially less embedded and arrive with cognitive structures and norms learned elsewhere, they are important sources of ideas for change. In addition, longtime field participants can also serve as vectors of ideas for change if they are multiply embedded, which means that they are simultaneously socialized participants in other fields in addition to the focal one. In this way, even central actors can become aware of and open to alternatives if they occupy positions that bridge beyond the field!s boundaries, as demonstrated by 8reenwood and /uddaby in 2<<=. %ut ideas for change can originate within a field as well. *his becomes more obvious if fields are conceived as political arenas in which actors promoting different means(ends scripts compete. Although a single institutional logic tends to dominate in a field at any point in time, its stability, persistence, and hegemony is not guaranteed; the accumulation of events can shift power relations slowly until a truce(brea'ing threshold is crossed causing promoters of a longavailable rival logic to openly rechallenge prevailing institutional arrangements. /imilarly, but more speedily and dramatically, an exogenous shoc' can surface longstanding tensions and transform latent or covert conflict into the manifest or overt 'ind. oreover, in addition to reviving old struggles, ,olts to a field can also spawn new struggles as a result of sensema'ing; because fieldlevel crises give rise to ambiguity and confusion, a novel rival logic can emerge in the wa'e of a ,olt as field participants ma'e sense of their new situation. ?inally, institutional contradictions can also be the impetus for change. 9ontradictions, which are inconsistencies and incompatibilities among institutional imperatives within or across fields, are unavoidable by(products of institutionalization. As yeung(8u /eo and 4. .. Douglas 9reed explained in 2<<2, the development and deepening of contradictions within and between institutional fields&the accumulation of experiences of contradictions and associated tensions by greater numbers of actors&increases the li'elihood of praxis, a concept comprising actors! self(awareness and critical reflexivity as well as their mobilization and subse)uent collective action. %ecause contradictions give rise to ambiguity, they disrupt ta'en(for(granted enactment of a dominant logic; when more than one prescribed logics of appropriateness can be logically considered appropriate, field participants are presented, effectively, with choices or opportunities for sensema'ing that can lead to change.

eali!ing Institutional Change

Institutional change pro,ects re)uire the support of actors inside and, sometimes, outside the field, all of whom do not necessarily share the motivations and ideas of the institutional entrepreneur, so it is common to conceptualize institutional entrepreneurship as a political process. As a result, social movement theory has been influential, as with

6ayagreeva ;ao, 9al orrill, and ayer @ald!s discussion in 2<<< of institutional entrepreneurship to create and legitimate new organizational forms. *hus, resource mobilization, framing and rhetoric, as well as capitalizing on opportunity structures, are important components of the process. ;esearch has also focused on the attributes and s'ills of institutional entrepreneurs that help them to lead collective action to realize institutional change. ;esources can be accessed and mobilized through material means such as bargaining and negotiation, exercising formal authority, or exploiting extant networ's, associations, and coalitions in the field, depending of course on field organization and the institutional entrepreneur!s position therein. In addition to mobilizing resources through preexisting interorganizational relationships, institutional entrepreneurs can also initiate new ones, and several studies suggest that field(level change often begins with new collaborations among a small number of actors in a field. In addition, appropriate framing, rhetoric, and discursive strategies in institutional entrepreneurs! legitimating accounts of the changes they champion can result in more and different resources being accessed and mobilized. Persuasion is thus another important means by which actors motivate cooperation for institutionalization pro,ects. Indeed, it might be said that institutional entrepreneurship involves, most generally, accessing and mobilizing material and symbolic resources in creative or even artful ways, a conceptualization suggestive of bricolage and consistent with 4illiam /ewell!s "##2 theorization of agency as a capacity, through acts of communication, to reinterpret and harness resources using schemas not typically associated with them. *he collective action frames of institutional entrepreneurs constitute and legitimate change by constructing it as aligned with difficult(to(contest ideals that may be field(level or entrenched beyond the field as societal values. In addition to these rhetorical appeals to dignitas and bonum 0i.e., the worthy and the good1 to secure normative legitimacy, institutional entrepreneurship also involves appeals to utilitas 0i.e., the useful or advantageous1 to secure pragmatic legitimacy. ?or example, in their 2<<A study of an emergent field, /teve aguire, 9ynthia 6ardy, and *homas %. 7awrence demonstrated how institutional entrepreneurs deployed not one but an entire array of arguments that translated the interests of a diverse set of constituencies in the field and showed how many goals would be realized via the institutionalization pro,ect. *hus, theorization of novel practices&the elaboration of a theory of the practices that, in abstract categories, lin's them in means(end relations to outcomes valued highly by field constituencies who are the targets of persuasive appeals&is re)uired for institutional change. %ecause persuasion of field participants to support institutionalization pro,ects is so important, the rhetorical and discursive strategies of institutional entrepreneurs are increasingly receiving researchers! attention, as with /uddaby and 8reenwood!s presentation in 2<<B of five generic theorizations commonly drawn upon to legitimate institutional change. Cpportunity structures in a field are also important. ?or example, aguire and 6ardy, in their 2<<= study of the emergence of a new global institution governing the chemical industry, show how norms of negotiating global treaties provided opportunities for

nonstate actors such as environmentalist nongovernmental organizations and industry associations to influence the institution building process through the strategic production and distribution of texts, even though the actual negotiations included only state actors. In mature fields, professional associations serve as arenas for debate that may have reforming rather than conservative outcomes, and thus can provide for institutional entrepreneurs to champion ideas for change, as described by 8reenwood, /uddaby, and 9. ;. 6inings in 2<<2. In other instances, institutional entrepreneurship may involve the creation of opportunities. /uch is the case with convening+ actors can initiate institutional change in the absence of clear alternative practices to be championed by bringing field participants together to begin to discuss some problem, as explained by /ilvia Dorado in 2<<B. >ot all actors in a field are e)ually endowed or s'illed to lead collective action pro,ects as institutional entrepreneurs. In emerging fields, for example, research suggests that institutional entrepreneurs are actors who have wide legitimacy among, and who can thus bridge between, diverse constituencies controlling different resources in a field. ;elated research has underlined the importance of institutional entrepreneurs! trustworthiness, and how efforts at building trust among influence targets in the field may be re)uired prior to initiating change. ?inally, social s'ills are vital to success; >eil ?ligstein argued in "##D that institutional entrepreneurs are able to motivate cooperation because they can imaginatively identify with other actors and, in the legitimating accounts they offer for their institutionalization pro,ects, provide those actors with common meanings and identities.

Critical Commentary and "uture #irections

As an emerging locus of the agency(structure debate, the concept of institutional entrepreneurship is a promising one for social theorists and for critical management researchers in particular, given that many institutions have effects that disadvantage some social groups. *o realize this promise, several research directions are suggested. ?irst, classification schemes for distinguishing and developing more nuanced theories of different types or modes of institutional entrepreneurship would be valuable. *o give ,ust one example, from a critical perspective there is a need to distinguish those instances of institutional entrepreneurship that reinforce power relations, consolidating or augmenting power among field elite, from those where power relations are transformed. /econd, solutions are re)uired for the problem of bounding institutional entrepreneurship temporally and conceptually. As described above, change often occurs in response to a problem or opportunity or contradiction. 6owever, these are not ob,ective phenomena; they are socially constructed. .ven ,olts are not inherently disruptive but must be constructed as such to give rise to crises, as pointed out by :amal unir in 2<<B. It is unclear, therefore, whether institutional entrepreneurship begins with the construction of a problem, its proposed solution, or the mobilization of support for the solution. And once support has been generated, when does institutional entrepreneurship end- 4hat degree of adoption and institutionalization of new practices is re)uired before an old B

institution is declared changed or a new one declared built- In the limit, one may reasonably as' whether successful institutional change is re)uired at all or whether simply entrepreneurial effort to change institutions is sufficient. 9ertainly, current research is characterized by a strong bias for studying only instances of success, depriving researchers and practitioners of lessons to be derived from systematic investigation of failed efforts to change institutions. Insights could be gained, for example, by researching how actors exercise agency to successfully resist institutional change and maintain institutional arrangements in the face of challenges. All in all, models that endogenously capture institutional stability and change would be welcome contributions. *hird, the roles of actors other than institutional entrepreneurs re)uire more attention. 9urrently, there is a strong tendency to attribute responsibility for new institutional arrangements to only one or a few actors ,udged 'ey by field participants or researchers as they narrate stories of institutional change. In singling out and focusing on only these actors, the critical roles played by others who participate in but do not lead institutionalization pro,ects are overshadowed, leaving a distorted view of institutional change as a linear process motored directly by the activities of heroic individuals or organizations. *his problem is compounded in research that, in foregrounding agency, presents actors as incredibly rational, opportunistic, strategic, and seemingly unconstrained by institutional arrangements or other actors. A more balanced and realistic approach to embedded agency within a context of collective action is called for. ?inally, organizational researchers, especially critical management scholars, should ta'e seriously the idea that institutional entrepreneurship is a political process and develop theory accordingly. %ringing contemporary typologies, models and theories of power to bear in analyses of institutional entrepreneurship would go a long way toward bridging the old and new institutionalisms in organizational analysis.