Edinburgh Research Explorer

Why do established practices deinstitutionalize? An actor-centered approach

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Related Edinburgh Organisations

Open Access permissions

Open

Documents

  • Download as Adobe PDF

    Rights statement: This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Chaudhry, S. and Rubery, J. (2017), Why Do Established Practices Deinstitutionalize? An Actor-Centred Approach. Brit J Manage, which has been published in final form at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8551.12264/full. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving.

    Accepted author manuscript, 571 KB, PDF document

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)538-557
JournalBritish Journal of Management
Volume30
Issue number3
Early online date24 Nov 2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 30 Jul 2019

Abstract

Drawing on 63 in-depth interviews from three American multinationals, we investigate how individual actors negotiate the interplay of insider and outsider pressures on the deinstitutionalization of four employment practices in an institutionally complex setting. Existing institutional theory highlights different degrees of deinstitutionalization, from complete abandonment of practices to partial erosion, with an underlying presumption of organizations and actors striving for stability and stasis. However, our study finds that actor reconciliation of interacting insider and outsider pressures can result in three distinct phases of deinstitutionalization (complete, partial, and negotiated deinstitutionalization) which crucially coexist, suggesting perpetual instability and change. We conceptualize the individual-level enabling conditions for each of these different phases of deinstitutionalization, highlighting a range of actor responses as well as differences in how they exercise agency across each phase. Examining actor negotiation of the interplay of insider and outsider pressures improves our understanding of how individuals engage in differential institutional work when responding to practice deinstitutionalization.

    Research areas

  • deinstitutionalization , institutional worktion , agency, institutional complexity, multinationals, Global South

Download statistics

No data available

ID: 25334676