Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-69cd664f8f-5rtl5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-13T03:34:52.932Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 17 - An Institutional Perspective on Strategy as Practice

from Part III - Theoretical Resources: Organization and Management Theories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2025

By
Michael Smets ,
Royston Greenwood ,
Michael Lounsbury  and
Deborah A. Anderson
Edited by
Damon Golsorkhi ,
Linda Rouleau ,
David Seidl  and
Eero Vaara
Damon Golsorkhi
Affiliation:
emlyon Business School
Linda Rouleau
Affiliation:
HEC Montréal
David Seidl
Affiliation:
Universität Zürich
Eero Vaara
Affiliation:
Saïd Business School, University of Oxford
Get access

Summary

Michael Smets, Royston Greenwood and Mike Lounsbury show the potential of institutional theory for strategy as practice and its acceleration since 2015. As one of the most vital research areas of organization theory, institutional perspectives bring new insights for the understanding of strategic activities and practice. More precisely, it can help understand the linkage between the different levels of strategic activities but also the internal life of institutions. As a result, scholars in the fields of institutional theory and strategy as practice have begun to reach out to each other to broaden and nuance their respective theorizing. They identify natural points of connection between the two literatures and outline a research agenda for future studies at the intersection of institutional theory and strategy as practice.

Keywords

strategy as practicepractice approachinstitutional theory
Type
Chapter
Information
Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice , pp. 313 - 331
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ansari, S., Wijen, F. and Gray, B. (2013), ‘Constructing a climate change logic: an institutional perspective on the “tragedy of the commons”’, Organization Science, 24/4: 1014–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baba, S., Sasaki, I. and Vaara, E. (2021), ‘Increasing dispositional legitimacy: progressive legitimation dynamics in a trajectory of settlements’ Academy of Management Journal, 64/6: 1927–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barley, S. R. (2017), ‘Coalface institutionalism’, in Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Lawrence, T. B., and Meyer, R. E. (eds), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism: 338–64. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Battilana, J. and d’Aunno, T. (2009), ‘Institutional work and the paradox of embedded agency’, in Lawrence, T., Suddaby, R., and Leca, B. (eds), Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations: 31–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battilana, J. and Dorado, S. (2010), ‘Building sustainable hybrid organizations: the case of commercial microfinance organizations’, Academy of Management Journal, 53/6: 1419–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battilana, J. and Lee, M. (2014), ‘Advancing research on hybrid organizing: insights from the study of social enterprises’, Academy of Management Annals, 8/1: 397–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battilana, J., Leca, B. and Boxenbaum, E. (2009), ‘How actors change institutions: towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship’, Academy of Management Annals, 3/1: 65–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bento da Silva, J. and Quattrone, P. (2021), ‘Mystery-driven institutionalism: the Jesuit spiritual exercises as a book of practices leading nowhere’, in Lounsbury, M., Anderson, D. A., and Spee, P. (eds), Research in the Sociology of Organizations, vol. 71, On Practice and Institution: New Empirical Directions: 145–64. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing.Google Scholar
Besharov, M. and Smith, W. (2014), ‘Multiple logics in organizations: explaining their varied nature and implications’, Academy of Management Review, 39/3: 364–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besharov, M. L. and Mitzineck, B. C. (2020), ‘Organizational hybridity: perspectives, processes, promises’, in Lounsbury, M., Anderson, D. A., and Spee, P. (eds), Research in the Sociology of Organizations, vol. 69, Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1977), Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1990), The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carberry, E. J. and King, B. G. (2012), ‘Defensive practice adoption in the face of organizational stigma: impression management and the diffusion of stock option expensing’, Journal of Management Studies, 49/7: 1137–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardinale, I. (2018), ‘Beyond constraining and enabling: toward new microfoundations for institutional theory’, Academy of Management Review, 43/1: 132–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chia, R. and Holt, R. (2009), Strategy without Design: The Silent Efficacy of Indirect Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chia, R. and MacKay, B. (2007), ‘Post-processual challenges for the emerging strategy-as-practice perspective: discovering strategy in the logic of practice’, Human Relations, 60/1: 217–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dacin, M. T., Munir, K. and Tracey, P. (2010), ‘Formal dining at Cambridge colleges: linking ritual performance and institutional maintenance’, Academy of Management Journal, 53/6: 1393–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalpiaz, E., Rindova, V. and Ravasi, D. (2016), ‘Combining logics to transform organizational agency: blending industry and art at Alessi’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 61/3: 347–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delmestri, G. (2006), ‘Streams of inconsistent institutional influences: middle managers as carriers of multiple identities’, Human Relations, 59/11: 1515–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denis, J.-L., Lamothe, L. and Langley, A. (2001), ‘The dynamics of collective leadership and strategic change in pluralistic organizations’, Academy of Management Journal, 44/4: 809–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denis, J.-L., Langley, A. and Rouleau, L. (2007), ‘Strategizing in pluralistic contexts: rethinking theoretical frames’, Human Relations, 60/1: 179–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiMaggio, P. (1988), ‘Interest and agency in institutional theory’, in Zucker, L. G. (ed.), Institutional Patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment: 3–21. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
DiMaggio, P. (1997), ‘Culture and cognition’, Annual Review of Sociology, 23: 263–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiMaggio, P. and Powell, W. (1983), ‘The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields’, American Sociological Review, 48/2: 147–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorado, S. (2005), ‘Institutional entrepreneurship, partaking and convening’, Organization Studies, 26/3: 385–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emirbayer, M. (1997), ‘Manifesto for a relational sociology’, American Journal of Sociology, 103/2: 281–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emirbayer, M. and Mische, A. (1998), ‘What is agency?’, American Journal of Sociology, 103/4: 962–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etzion, D. and Ferraro, F. (2010), ‘The role of analogy in the institutionalization of sustainability reporting’, Organization Science, 21/5: 1092–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedland, R. (2021), ‘Toward a religious institutionalism: ontologies, teleologies and the Godding of institution’, in Lounsbury, M., Anderson, D.A., and Spee, P. (eds), Research in the Sociology of Organizations, vol. 70, On Practice and Institution: Theorizing the Interface: 29–118. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing.Google Scholar
Friedland, R. and Arjaliès, D.-L. (2021), ‘Putting things in place: institutional objects and institutional logics’, in Lounsbury, M., Anderson, D.A., and Spee, P. (eds), Research in the Sociology of Organizations, vol. 71, On Practice and Institution: New Empirical Directions: 45–86. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing.Google Scholar
Friedland, R. and Alford, R. R. (1991), ‘Bringing society back in: symbols, practices and institutional contradictions’, in Powell, W., and DiMaggio, P. (eds), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis: 232–63. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gawer, A. and Phillips, N. (2013), ‘Institutional work as logics shift: the case of Intel’s transformation to platform leader’, Organization Studies, 34/8: 1035–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giddens, A. (1984), The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Goodrick, E. and Reay, T. (2011), ‘Constellations of institutional logics’, Work and Occupations, 38/3: 372–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, R. and Hinings, C. R. (1996), ‘Understanding radical organizational change: bringing together the old and the new institutionalism’, Academy of Management Review, 21/4: 1022–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, R. and Suddaby, R. (2006), ‘Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: the big five accounting firms’, Academy of Management Journal, 49/1: 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, R., Hinings, C. R. and Whetten, D. A. (2014), ‘Rethinking institutions and organizations’, Journal of Management Studies, 51/7: 1206–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, R., Jennings, P. D. and Hinings, C. R. (2015), ‘Sustainability and organizational change: an institutional perspective’, in Henderson, R., Gulati, R., and Tushman, M. (eds), Leading Sustainable Change: An Organizational Perspective: 323–55. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R. and 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, R., Magàn Diaz, A., Li, S. and Céspedes Lorente, J. (2010), ‘The multiplicity of institutional logics and the heterogeneity of organizational responses’, Organization Science, 21/2: 521–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micellota, E. and Lounsbury, M. (2011), ‘Institutional complexity and organizational responses’, Academy of Management Annals, 5/1: 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Lawrence, T. B. and Meyer, R. E. (2017), ‘Introduction: into the fourth decade’, in Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Lawrence, T. B., and Meyer, R. E. (eds), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism: 1–24. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gümüşay, A. A., Smets, M. and Morris, T. (2020), ‘“God at work”: engaging central and incompatible institutional logics through elastic hybridity’, Academy of Management Journal, 63/1: 124–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hampel, C. E., Lawrence, T. B. and Tracey, P. (2017), ‘Institutional work: taking stock and making it matter’, in Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Lawrence, T. B., and Meyer, R. E. (eds), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism: 558–90. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Hardy, C. and Phillips, N. (1998), ‘Strategies of engagement: lessons from the critical examination of collaboration and conflict in an interorganizational domain’, Organization Science, 9/2: 217–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hargrave, T. J. and van de Ven, A. H. (2006), ‘A collective action model of institutional innovation’, Academy of Management Review, 31/4: 864–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heimer, C. A. (1999), ‘Competing institutions: law, medicine, and family in neonatal intensive care’, Law and Society Review, 33/1: 17–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helfen, M. and Sydow, J. (2013), ‘Negotiating as institutional work: the case of labour standards and international framework agreements’, Organization Studies, 34/8: 1073–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, P. M. and Lounsbury, M. (1997), ‘Putting the organization back into organization theory’, Journal of Management Inquiry, 6/1: 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hosking, D. M. (2011), ‘Telling tales of relations: appreciating relational constructionism’, Organization Studies, 32/1: 47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jancsary, D., Meyer, R. E., Höllerer, M. A. and Barberio, V. (2017), ‘Toward a structural model of organizational-level institutional pluralism and logic interconnectedness’, Organization Science, 28/6: 1150–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P. (2005), Strategy as Practice: An Activity-Based Approach. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P., Balogun, J. and Seidl, D. (2007), ‘Strategizing: the challenges of a practice perspective’, Human Relations, 60/1: 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P., Lê, J. and van de Ven, A. H. (2013), ‘How the recursive relationship between paradoxes shapes restructuring over time’, Strategic Organization, 11/3: 245–80.Google Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P., Seidl, D. and Balogun, J. (2022), ‘From germination to propagation: two decades of Strategy-as-Practice research and potential future directions’, Human Relations, 75/8: 1533–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P., Spee, P. and Smets, M. (2013), ‘Material artifacts: practices for doing strategy with “stuff”’, European Management Journal, 31/1: 41–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P., Smets, M., Bednarek, R., Burke, G. and Spee, P. (2013), ‘Institutional ambidexterity: leveraging institutional complexity in practice’, in Lounsbury, M., and Boxenbaum, E. (eds), Research in the Sociology of Organizations, vol. XXXIX, Institutional Logics in Action, part B: 37–61. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing.Google Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P., Kaplan, S., Seidl, D. and Whittington, R. (2016), ‘On the risk of studying practices in isolation: linking what, who, and how in strategy research’, Strategic Organization, 14/3: 248–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaghan, W. and Lounsbury, M. (2011), ‘Institutions and work’, Journal of Management Inquiry, 20/1: 73–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellogg, K. C. (2009), ‘Operating room: relational spaces and micro-institutional change in surgery’, American Journal of Sociology, 115/3: 657–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellogg, K. C., Orlikowski, W. J. and Yates, J. (2006), ‘Life in the trading zone: structuring coordination across boundaries in post-bureaucratic organizations’, Organization Science, 17/1: 22–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraatz, M. S. and Block, E. (2017), ‘Institutional pluralism revisited’, in Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Lawrence, T. B., and Meyer, R. E. (eds), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism: 532–57. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Lawrence, P. R. and Lorsch, J. W. (1967), Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Lawrence, T. B. and Suddaby, R. (2006), ‘Institutions and institutional work’, in Clegg, S., Hardy, C., Lawrence, T. B., and Nord, W. R. (eds), The Sage Handbook of Organization Studies: 215–53. 2nd edn. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R. and Leca, B. (2009), ‘Introduction: theorizing and studying institutional work’, in Lawrence, T., Suddaby, R., and Leca, B. (eds), Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations: 1–28. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R. and Leca, B. (2011), ‘Institutional work: refocusing institutional studies of organization’, Journal of Management Inquiry, 20/1: 52–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leblebici, H., Salancik, G. R., Copay, A. and King, T. (1991), ‘Institutional change and the transformation of interorganizational fields: an organizational history of the US radio broadcasting industry’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 36/3: 333–63.Google Scholar
Lounsbury, M. (2001), ‘Institutional sources of practice variation: staffing college and university recycling programs’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 46/1: 29–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lounsbury, M. (2002), ‘Institutional transformation and status mobility: the professionalization of the field of finance’, Academy of Management Journal, 45/1: 255–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lounsbury, M. (2007), ‘A tale of two cities: competing logics and practice variation in the professionalizing of mutual funds’, Academy of Management Journal, 50/2: 289–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lounsbury, M. and Beckman, C. (2015), ‘Celebrating organization theory’, Journal of Management Studies, 52/2: 288–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lounsbury, M. and Boxenbaum, E. (eds) (2013), Research in the Sociology of Organizations: Institutional Logics in Action, vol. XXXIX. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing.Google Scholar
Lounsbury, M. and Crumley, E. T. (2007), ‘New practice creation: an institutional perspective on innovation’, Organization Studies, 28/7: 993–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lounsbury, M. and Glynn, M. A. (2001), ‘Cultural entrepreneurship: stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources’, Strategic Management Journal, 22/6–7: 545–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lounsbury, M. and Wang, M. (2020), ‘Into the clearing: back to the future of constitutive institutional analysis’, Organization Theory, 1: 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lounsbury, M., Anderson, D. A. and Spee, P. (2021a), ‘On practice and institution’, in Lounsbury, M., Anderson, D. A., and Spee, P. (eds), Research in the Sociology of Organizations, vol. 70, On Practice and Institution: Theorizing the Interface: 1–28. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing.Google Scholar
Lounsbury, M., Anderson, D. A. and Spee, P. (2021b), ‘On practice and institution’, in Lounsbury, M., Anderson, D. A., and Spee, P. (eds), Research in the Sociology of Organizations, vol. 71, On Practice and Institution: New Empirical Directions: 1–28. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing.Google Scholar
Lounsbury, M., Steele, C. W. J., Wang, M. S. and Toubiana, M. (2021), ‘New directions in the study of institutional logics: from tools to phenomena’, Annual Review of Sociology, 47/1: 261–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohtamäki, M., Whittington, R., Vaara, E. and Rabetino, R. (2022), ‘Making connections: harnessing the diversity of strategy-as-practice research’, International Journal of Management Reviews, 24: 210–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maguire, S., Hardy, C. and Lawrence, T. (2004), ‘Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada’, Academy of Management Journal, 47/5: 657–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. G. (1981), ‘Footnotes to organizational change’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 26/4: 563–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, A. D. (1982), ‘Adapting to environmental jolts’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 27/4: 515–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyer, J. W. and Rowan, B. (1977), ‘Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony’, American Journal of Sociology, 83/2: 340–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Micelotta, E. R. and Washington, M. (2013), ‘Institutions and maintenance: the repair work of Italian professions’, Organization Studies, 34/8: 1137–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Micelotta, E. R., Lounsbury, M. and Greenwood, R. (2017), ‘Pathways of institutional change: an integrative review and research agenda’, Journal of Management, 43: 1885–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mountford, N. and Cai, Y. (2022), ‘Towards a flatter ontology of institutional logics: how logics relate in situations of institutional complexity’, International Journal of Management Reviews, 25/2.Google Scholar
Mutch, A., Delbridge, R. and Ventresca, M. (2006), ‘Situating organizational action: the relational sociology of organizations’, Organization, 13/5: 607–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicolini, D., Reinecke, J. and Ismail, M. A. (2021), ‘You’re grounded!: toward a theory of enactive legitimation, materiality and practice’, in Lounsbury, M., Anderson, D. A., and Spee, P. (eds), Research in the Sociology of Organizations, vol. 71, On Practice and Institution: New Empirical Directions: 1–28. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing.Google Scholar
Ocasio, W., Thornton, P. and Lounsbury, M. (2017), ‘Advances to the institutional logics perspective’, in Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Lawrence, T. B., and Meyer, R. E. (eds), Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism: 535–58. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Orlikowski, W. J. (1996), ‘Improvising organizational transformation over time: a situated change perspective’, Information Systems Research, 7/1: 63–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orlikowski, W. J. (2002), ‘Knowing in practice: enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing’, Organization Science, 13/3: 249–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orlikowski, W. J. (2010), ‘The sociomateriality of organisational life: considering technology in management research’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34/1: 125–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orlikowski, W. J. and Scott, S. V. (2008), ‘Sociomateriality: challenging the separation of technology, work and organization’, Academy of Management Annals, 2/1: 433–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pache, A.-C. and Santos, F. (2010), ‘When worlds collide: the internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands’, Academy of Management Review, 35/3: 455–76.Google Scholar
Pache, A.-C. and Santos, F. (2013a), ‘Embedded in hybrid contexts: how individuals in organizations respond to competing institutional logics’, in Lounsbury, M., and Boxenbaum, E. (eds), Research in the Sociology of Organizations, vol. XXXIX, Institutional Logics in Action, Part B: 3–35. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing.Google Scholar
Pache, A.-C. and Santos, F. (2013b), ‘Inside the hybrid organization: selective coupling as a response to conflicting institutional logics’, Academy of Management Journal, 56/4: 972–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, N., Lawrence, T. B. and Hardy, C. (2004), ‘Discourse and institutions’, Academy of Management Review, 29/4: 635–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plowman, D. A., Baker, L. T., Beck, T. E., Kulkarni, M., Solansky, S. T. and Travis, D. V. (2007), ‘Radical change accidentally: the emergence and amplification of small change’, Academy of Management Journal, 50/3: 515–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, W. W. and Rerup, C. (2017), ‘Opening the black box: microfoundations of institutional theory’, in Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Lawrence, T. B., and Meye, R. E. (eds), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism: 311–37. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Raaijmakers, A., Vermeulen, P., Meeus, M. and Zietsma, C. (2015), ‘I need time! Exploring pathways to compliance under institutional complexity’, Academy of Management Journal, 58/1: 85–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramus, T., Vaccaro, A. and Brusoni, S. (2017), ‘Institutional complexity in turbulent times: formalization, collaboration, and the emergence of blended logics’, Academy of Management Journal, 60/4: 1253–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reay, T. and Hinings, C. R. (2009), ‘Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics’, Organization Studies, 30/6: 629–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reay, T., Golden-Biddle, K. and Germann, K. (2006), ‘Legitimizing a new role: small wins and microprocesses of change’, Academy of Management Journal, 49/5: 977–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauermann, H. and Stephan, P. (2013), ‘Conflicting logics? A multidimensional view of industrial and academic science’, Organization Science, 24/3: 889–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schatzki, T. R. (2001), ‘Introduction: practice theory’, in Schatzki, T. R., Knorr Cetina, K., and von Savigny, E. (eds), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory: 1–14. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schatzki, T. R. (2002), The Site of the Social: A Philosophical Account of the Constitution of Social Life and Change. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schatzki, T. R. (2006), ‘On organizations as they happen’, Organization Studies, 27/12: 1863–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schatzki, T. R. (2021), ‘Forming alliances’, in Lounsbury, M., Anderson, D. A., and Spee, P. (eds), Research in the Sociology of Organizations, vol. 70, On Practice and Institution: Theorizing the Interface: 119–38. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing.Google Scholar
Schildt, H., Kodeih, F. and Tarabichi, H. (2021), ‘Field-level evaluation practices and practice experimentation: social impact bonds and market logic encroachment in the field of social integration’, in Lounsbury, M., Anderson, D. A., and Spee, P. (eds), On Practice and Institution: New Empirical Directions: 117–44. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing.Google Scholar
Scott, W. R. (1987), ‘The adolescence of institutional theory’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 32/4: 493–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidl, D. and Whittington, R. (2014), ‘Enlarging the strategy-as-practice research agenda: towards taller and flatter ontologies’, Organization Studies, 35/10: 1407–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seo, M. G. and Creed, W. E. D. (2002), ‘Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: a dialectical perspective’, Academy of Management Review, 27/2: 222–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smets, M. and Jarzabkowski, P. (2013), ‘Reconstructing institutional complexity in practice: a relational model of institutional work and complexity’, Human Relations, 66/10: 1279–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smets, M., Aristidou, A. and Whittington, R. (2017), ‘Towards a practice-driven institutionalism’, in Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Lawrence, T. B., and Meyer, R. E. (eds), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism: 365–91.London: Sage.Google Scholar
Smets, M., Morris, T. and Greenwood, R. (2012), ‘From practice to field: a multilevel model of practice-driven institutional change’, Academy of Management Journal, 55/4: 877–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smets, M., Jarzabkowski, P., Spee, P. and Burke, G. (2015), ‘Reinsurance trading in Lloyd’s of London: balancing conflicting-yet-complementary logics in practice’, Academy of Management Journal, 58/3: 932–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, W. K. and Besharov, M. L. (2019), ‘Bowing before dual gods: how structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 64/1: 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spee, P. and Jarzabkowski, P. (2009), ‘Strategy tools as boundary objects’, Strategic Organization, 7/2: 223–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spee, P. and Jarzabkowski, P. (2011), ‘Strategic planning as communicative process’, Organization Studies, 32/9: 1217–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steele, C., Hannigan, T. R., Glaser, V., Toubiana, M. and Gehman, J. (2021), ‘Macrofoundations: exploring the institutionally situated nature of activity’, Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 68: 3–16.Google Scholar
Strang, D. and Meyer, J. W. (1993), ‘Institutional conditions for diffusion’, Theory and Society, 22/4: 487–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suddaby, R. and Greenwood, R. (2005), ‘Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 50/1: 35–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suddaby, R., Seidl, D. and Lê, J. (2013), ‘Strategy-as-practice meets neo-institutional theory’, Strategic Organization, 11/3: 329–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornton, P. H. (2002), ‘The rise of the corporation in a craft industry: conflict and conformity in institutional logics’, Academy of Management Journal, 45/1: 81–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornton, P. H. (2004), Markets from Culture: Institutional Logics and Organizational Decisions in Higher Educational Publishing. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornton, P. H. and Ocasio, W. (1999), ‘Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958–1990’, American Journal of Sociology, 105/3: 801–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W. and Lounsbury, M. (2012), The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure, and Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolbert, P. S. and 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, 28/1: 22–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townley, B. (1997), ‘The institutional logic of performance appraisal’, Organization Studies, 18/2: 261–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tracey, P., Phillips, N. and Jarvis, O. (2011), ‘Bridging institutional entrepreneurship and the creation of new organizational forms: a multilevel model’, Organization Science, 22/1: 60–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsoukas, H. and Cummings, S. (1997), ‘Marginalization and recovery: the emergence of Aristotelian themes in organization studies’, Organization Studies, 18/4: 655–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaara, E. and Whittington, R. (2012), ‘Strategy-as-practice: taking social practices seriously’, Academy of Management Annals, 6/1: 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van de Ven, A., Ganco, M. and Hinings, C. R. (2013), ‘Returning to the frontier of contingency theory of organizational and institutional design’, Academy of Management Annals, 7/1: 393–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, M.S. and Lounsbury, M. (2021), ‘Cultural encounters: a practice-driven institutional approach to the study of organizational culture’, in Lounsbury, M., Anderson, D. A., and Spee, P. (eds), Research in the Sociology of Organizations, vol. 71, On Practice and Institution: New Empirical Directions: 1–28. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing.Google Scholar
Whittington, R. (1996), ‘Strategy as practice’, Long Range Planning, 29/5: 731–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittington, R. (2006), ‘Completing the practice turn in strategy research’, Organization Studies, 27/5: 613–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zietsma, C. and Lawrence, T. B. (2010), ‘Institutional work in the transformation of an organizational field: the interplay of boundary work and practice work’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 55/2: 189–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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: 234–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zilber, T. B. (2011), ‘Institutional multiplicity in practice: a tale of two high-tech conferences in Israel’, Organization Science, 22/6: 1539–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zilber, T. B. (2021), ‘Practice-driven institutionalism: a path toward a fruitful borrowing’, in Lounsbury, M., Anderson, D. A., and Spee, P. (eds), Research in the Sociology of Organizations, vol. 70, On Practice and Institution: Theorizing the Interface: 225–42. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing.Google Scholar
Zucker, L. G. (1983), ‘Organizations as institutions’, in Bacharach, S. B. (ed.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations: 1–47. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Zucker, L. G. (1987), ‘Institutional theories of organization’, Annual Review of Sociology, 13/1: 443–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×