Neo-Institutional Theory

Transcription

1 Neo-Institutional Theory SWARAN SANDHU Hochschule der Medien Stuttgart, Germany Institutions and strategic : development of the field Neo-institutional theory or organizational institutionalism is a theoretical approach to analyze strategic. It is firmly grounded in social constructivism and stresses cognitive assumptions and processes as fundamental premises (Greenwood, Oliver, Sahlin, & Suddaby, 2008). Thus, this perspective is squarely positioned against functionalist approaches. Institutional thought hinges on the premise that actors individuals or organizations are deeply affected by the constraints and expectations of their respective environment, the so-called institutions. In the 1980s, early neo-institutionalists portrayed organizations as a dramatic enactment of environmental expectations which clashes with a functionalist understanding of organizations. To gain legitimacy, organizations complied with practices that juxtaposed managerial expectations. They implemented rules and regulations and invested resources to meet societal demands instead of following the logic of efficiency. Thus, organizations in similar situations tended to mimic their structure, processes, and strategies. This proposition of institutional isomorphism was and is one of the strongest arguments in institutional theory. However, as the theory advanced in the 1990s, researchers became more interested in how actors could build, maintain, or change institutions. With this shift, institutional theory gained traction not only in sociology but also in organizational studies and management thinking and has now advanced to one major theoretical perspective in management and organization studies. This increased visibility led to the first tentative discussions of institutional theory in public relations (PR) and strategic with a first culmination point in the 2008 Euprera Congress on Institutionalizing Public Relations and Corporate Communication (Invernizzi, Falconi, & Romenti, 2009). However, the conference also disclosed that institutional theory is a multifaceted research field with diverging interpretations of institutional theory. The last decade saw an uptake of research in strategic from an institutional perspective. Compared to the general functionalist managerial approaches to strategic, the institutionalist approach provides a provocative counterpoint in thinking. Thereisnoagreedupondefinitionofinstitutions.Itisimportanttokeepinmind that neo-institutional thinking evolved and pointedly demarcates from the old institutionalists, mostly sociologists, at the end of the nineteenth century. For them, institutions were symbolic systems like religion or culture, which embedded values and norms The International Encyclopedia of Strategic Communication. Robert L. Heath and Winni Johansen (Editors-in-Chief), Jesper Falkheimer, Kirk Hallahan, Juliana J. C. Raupp, and Benita Steyn (Associate Editors) John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. DOI: / iesc0116

2 2 NEO-INSTITUTIONAL T HEORY that were collectively shared and thus exerted an external influence on individuals. Since the 1950s, a rekindled interest in institutional thinking spanned across different disciplines like history and political science, economics, anthropology, and sociology (Sandhu, 2009). Thus, the ontology and epistemology of each stream of institutional thinking vary. As least common denominator, neo-institutionalists privilege cognitive and cultural processes over norms and values and are primarily interested in cognitive routines and schemata (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991). Historical and political scholars portray institutions as external factors, which exert formal or informal power on the decisions and choices of political actors or nation-states. Neo-institutional economists recognized that markets are not only composed of rational actors seeking equilibrium. Instead, different governance mechanisms create methods of coordination like hierarchies or networks. They make up the rules of the game that define the possible actions of the players. Anthropologists and psychologists were interested in how symbolic systems like culture shape collective mental models. For sociologists, the seminal work by Berger and Luckmann (1966) on the social construction of reality remains a significant milestone. For them, institutions are meaning systems that are passed on from generation to generation and thus become an external objective reality. To describe this process, they coined the term institutionalization. In comparison with other social science disciplines, strategic was rather late to perform an institutional turn. One reason for this time lag can be tracked back to the dominance of the functionalist management approach in PR and management in the 1990s and 2000s. Its normative key goal was to institutionalize and thus legitimize PR as a strategic management function in the boardroom (Grunig, 2011). Much research was invested to better understand the functions, processes, organizational structure, and results of excellent departments. Within this line of thought, institutionalization was understood in a single dimension: to make departments indispensable for organizations. Empirical studies wanted to understand how operations, roles, and organizational structures developed and evolved over time (Wakefield, Plowman, & Curry, 2015). Neo-institutional theory, however, rejects those normative premises and wants to explain how external factors and cognitive mechanisms shape the practice and structure of strategic. Analytical framework and levels of analysis Neo-institutional thinking encompasses at least two differing levels of analysis. The first perspective understands the environment as institutions. This traditional macro-sociological point of view analyzes how societal rules, norms, and implicit expectations affect organizations (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). The second perspective understands organizations as institutions (Zucker, 1977). Within this point of view, members of the organization are subject to institutionalization processes, for example, they adhere to rules and meet expectations. The perspective of the organizational field is a genuine result of neo-institutional theory building (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). It works as a hinge between the societal top-down perspective and the organizational

3 NEO-INSTITUTIONAL T HEORY 3 Macro-level Environment as institution Societal expectations expressed as rational myths. Institutional logics define lines of conflicts as well as categories and sensemaking processes in the organizational field. Meso-level Organizational field Collective rationality of actors bound in a common frame of reference. Institutional change by intentional actions (institutional work) to alter institutional settings. Societal systems/institutional logics Environment-as-institution Organizational field Organization Organization-as-institution Macro Meso Societal expectations define the the realm of. Reflective strategic is a result of meeting societal expectations. Meso Meso Organizations observe each other in organizational fields which leads to regulative, normative, and mimetic isomorphisms. Meso Micro Constitution of PR roles and practices in organizations as a reaction to organizational fields. Institutionalization of specific routines and practices. Micro-level Organization as institution Individuals are affected by design and mechanisms of the focal organization. Individual Group Figure 1 Levels of analysis in neo-institutional theory. Source: Adapted and translated from Sandhu (2015), p Micro Meso Active engagement of individual actors on organizations and/or fields by institutional work creates organizational structure. bottom-up point of view (see Figure 1). Using these different perspectives allows a broad range of theoretical and empirical research projects. Three pillars of institutions and their relevance for strategic A synthesis of different lines of thought is helpful to analyze various aspects of institutional thinking. The three-pillarmodel (Scott, 2014, p. 60) structures institutional thinking in three dimensions or pillars: a regulative pillar based upon rules and regulations, a normative dimension which is governed by morality and values, and a cultural-cognitive section which stresses shared understandings and cultural agreements. These columns are crossed with rows to form an explanatory matrix or analytical framework, which can also be applied to strategic (Fredriksson & Pallas, 2015, p. 149; Sandhu 2009, p. 90) (see Table 1). The framework is analytical in nature. The graphical representation of the model as a table implies that each pillar is equal to its neighbor(s). However, empirical investigations show that the analytical dimensions are often intertwined. Furthermore, each pillar is more or less aligned with its disciplinary roots, for example the regulative pillar is mostly aligned with economics, political science, and history, whereas the normative component is rooted typically in sociological thought. The cultural-cognitive dimension is the core dimension of new institutional thinking.

4 4 NEO-INSTITUTIONAL T HEORY Table 1 Analytical framework of institutional mechanisms. Regulative Normative Cultural-cognitive Basis of compliance Legitimacy mechanism Carriers Expression / Indicators Coercive: juridical/financial sanctions Regulation: legally sanctioned Government and regulating bodies (e.g., UN, EU, World Bank) Laws, rules, prescriptions, sanctions Normative: social sanction and pressure Moralization: morally governed Profession, media, public opinion Norms, standards, models, values, expectations Cognitive/mimetic: cultural support and uncertainty Socialization: shared understanding Schema, categories, symbols Concepts, ideas, common beliefs, categories, typifications, frames, routines Implications for strategic Rule of thumb doing things right the right thing to do it is unthinkable, not to do the right thing Strategic goals Oblige rules Meet expectations Fit categories Message frames Ethos (credibility) Pathos (emotional Logos (argumentation) appeal) Paradigm Instrumental Normative Reflective Source: Modified version of tables adapted from Scott (2014, p. 60 and p. 96), expanded for strategic by Sandhu (2009, p. 80), and Fredriksson and Pallas (2015, p. 149). While the pillars stress the different lines of thought in institutional theory, the dimensions in the rows distinguish various fields of application. Basis of compliance describes the central epistemological concept for each pillar. Legitimacy mechanisms show how each dimension exerts influence, be it via the power of law, moral expectations, or socialization. Each dimension relies on so-called carriers to disseminate the core aspects. Governments and regulating bodies establish and control rules, public opinion, and the media mirror moral sentiment and values. Cognitive categories, symbols, and schemata define the ways to interpret the world. Institutions can be empirically observed by relying on indicators like laws and rules, norms and standards, or ideas and routines. Thus,theregulativepillarisbaseduponrules,whichcanbesanctioned.Theyareusually embedded in systems of governance or power and observable by laws and standard operating procedures. Here, doing things right is paramount. Normative approaches focus on values and their binding expectations, which respond to societal demands by appropriate measures that are morally governed. Organizations need to do the right thing. Cultural-cognitive concepts rely on shared symbolic systems that can be found in categories, typifications or schemata that lead to mimetic routines and scripts. For organizations, it is unthinkable not to do the right thing. This framework can be adapted for strategic (Fredriksson & Pallas, 2015; Sandhu, 2009). In the extension of the classical three-pillar model, strategic

5 NEO-INSTITUTIONAL T HEORY 5 can be understood in the regulative pillar as a reaction to environmental pressures by being obliged to follow official laws and regulations. This mode of strategic is purely instrumental and limited in scope. Messages usually rely on pure facts and information to achieve credibility. From a normative perspective, strategic is the result of a particular professional structure based on certain rules and norms, which govern the practice. This point of view would focus on meeting moral expectations. Messages appeal to moral values and emotions. The cultural-cognitive perspective understands strategic as a reflective practice, which helps managers to understand their organization from an outside perspective. Thus, strategic is built upon cognitive processes that categorize the environment and observe other organizations. Here, messages usually are basedonalogicalargumentation. Organizational fields: understanding isomorphism The concept of isomorphism the striking structural homogeneity or similarity of organizational structures was popularized by DiMaggio and Powell s (1983) operationalization of the organizational field. With the field concept institutional theory has a distinctive level for empirical analysis located between the single organization and industrial sectors or organizational populations. The field was originally defined asthetotalityofactors,whoknowofeachotherbymutualobservationandincreased interaction (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983, p. 148). The authors hypothesized three distinctive types of isomorphism: 1. Coercive isomorphism is a result of real or expected sanctions by powerful organizations like state or regulatory bodies. They have the power and authority to force an organization to implement certain rules and requirements; for example, by laws and regulations. 2. Normative isomorphism is driven by the socialization process embedded in the professionalization of organizational members who uphold specific values, routines,andprocesses;forexample,educationalbackground,certifications,and membership. 3. Mimetic isomorphism comes into play in times of ambiguity or uncertainty in the organization s environment. Here organizations imitate the processes and structures of successful and highly reputed organizations as role models, for example establishing the same accounting routines or reporting systems. The three forms of isomorphism fit well into the aforementioned three-pillar model. But fields are also embedded in the macro-level since they are defined by the overarching cultural belief system. For strategic research, one relevant developmentoftheconceptistheissuefield.withthiscommunicativeturn,fieldsare conceptualized as the center of common channels of dialogue and discussion. Thus, fields are relational spaces that provide an organization with the opportunity to involve itself with other actors (Wooten & Hoffman, 2008, p. 138). This often allows a more precise understanding of relationships between organizations and the environment

6 6 NEO-INSTITUTIONAL T HEORY than prevailing concepts of environmental analysis like segmentation of publics or stakeholder salience models. Institutional logics: how cultural conflicts become visible Whilefieldsarespecifictothemeso-level,institutionallogicsaremorestronglyconnected to the societal macro-level. They are socially constructed, historical patterns of material practices, assumptions, values, beliefs, and rules by which individuals produce and reproduce cognitive frames, organize time and space, and provide meaning to their socialreality.institutionallogics,therefore,haveasymboliccorebutatthesametime a material representation (Thornton, Ocasio, & Lounsbury, 2012, p. 150) in form of categories. Categories constitute the vocabulary, which is eligible to be used as well as potential actions, which are deemed as legitimate. Logics are based on general principles or worldviews. They are a kind of package deal that governs assumptions and guides the actions of organizations and individuals. In accordance with the communicative turn in institutional theory, they are rooted in (Thornton et al., 2012, p. 159). Thus, institutional logics are created by converging categories and vocabularies, which form conventions and thus create a particular worldview. The logics, in turn, are represented by conventions, which enable and coordinate the practice. This recursive model stresses the central role of, which constitutes logics. Logics become visible in conflicts: for example, Hoffman and Jennings (2011) describe the conflicting logics of capitalism and environmental protection after the BP oil spill in The institutional logics perspective holds much potential to uncover the conflicts, which can provoke a crisis. For strategic, the concept of institutional logics is paramount, not only to better understand potential conflicts when institutional logics are colliding, but also to use strategic to alter institutional logics. Institutionalization within strategic Most discussions of institutionalization in strategic are spiked with normative expectations about how strategic should be organized in an idealworld.thisdebateistestamenttotheheritageoftheexcellencestudy.itfollows the advocacy of James E. Grunig (2011) who prioritized study of how PR can be institutionalized as a bridging activity so that PR as a strategic management function becomes the standard operating practice in organizations. The core ideas developed intheexcellencestudystillringtrueinmanypostulationslikeaccesstotheupper echelons of the organizations, involvement in strategic decision-making, budget, and personnel autonomy, and so on. While this perspective might appear relevant from a practitioners point of view, neo-institutionalists are more interested in the processes that allow or hinder the institutionalization in organizations. Institutionalization refers to the enduring establishment of rules and concepts in organizations. Full institutionalization is achieved when processes have gained taken-for-granted status

7 NEO-INSTITUTIONAL T HEORY 7 Table 2 Institutionalization of strategic in organizations. Regulative Normative Cultural-cognitive Indicators Mechanisms Application to strategic Laws, rules, sanctions Media laws, compliance rules, code of conduct in professional bodies Follow the rules of the game, e.g., publication standards, valuation methods, etc. Certification, accreditation, ethical codes, informal practices Expectation by stakeholders and publics Influence of professional associations, implementation of codes of conduct, certification of professionals Shared concepts of action, unquestionable professional standards Imitation of successful practices, influence of consultancies, agencies and professional associations, diffusion of knowledge in organizations Usage of established strategy models, participation in competitions, diffusion of new instruments Source: Modified version of tables adapted from Sandhu (2012, p. 240). and are not questioned. The framework introduced above is helpful to structure dimensions of institutionalization (see Table 2). The table uses the same dimensions for the columns, describing regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive dimensions of institutionalization. The indicators and mechanisms explain how institutional processes are useful for strategic. From an outside-in perspective (environment-as-institution), organizations are influenced by rules, values, and symbolic assumptions that, in turn, impact the practice of strategic. For the regulative dimension media laws, concepts of free speech, but also the accountability of the organization define the practice of strategic. Organizations usually follow the rules of the game because of the fear of sanctions. The normative dimension is expressed in an understanding of professional values and norms. Some countries offer the accreditation as chartered member to PR professionals. This idea is borrowed from the practice of law and tries to confer a similar legitimacy to the professional. Professional associations wield a powerful influence by defining the field and its legitimate practice. Members of professional associations secure their reputation and recognition of their peers by sticking to the rules. Finally, some processes of institutionalization are driven by the cultural-cognitive dimension. Strategists copy the practices of successful organizations orindulgeinnewmethodologiesandtoolsbecause thingsaredonethisway. The dimensions mentioned above are usually intertwined. Thus, institutionalization is not auniqueprocessfueledbyonedriverbutoftenamessymeshworkthatleadstoa certain structure.

8 8 NEO-INSTITUTIONAL T HEORY A rather neglected perspective in research is how departments (organization-as-institution) socialize new members. The professionalization of management also saw an increase in educational requirements. Most students entering the workforce hold at least a bachelor s degree in or a related field. Internships are usually expected and provide a first mental map of the daily tasks as professional. Thus, the socialization within the first few years and the exposure to professional associations infuses candidates with the norms and expectations of the field. In addition to meeting the general expectations of the field and the socialization process within the organization, the mass media are a major source of institutionalization processes. Mass media constitute a strong influencing factor for strategic. For example, media relation practices are based on implicit rules and expectations and thus a shared conception of reality held by journalists as well as corporate spokespersons alike. Communication professionals often have a journalistic background and understand the implicit expectations of journalists. For example, journalists select media releases based upon news values and the attractiveness for their audience. This implies certain expectations and rules for presenting the content. A media release that does not meet minimal formal standards nor evokes the interest of the gatekeeper will be discarded quickly. Finally, editorial rules define how the content of a media release will be interpreted. Thus, strategic needs tounderstandandlearntherulesofthemassmediasystem.however,technological innovation constantly creates new sets of expectations and media logics, which vary from the previous one. This forces communicators to monitor and adapt to the changing media landscape. Strategic as a mechanism for institutional change Up to this point, organizational structures have been described as a reaction to environmental demands. This idea changed in the 1990s when institutional scholars acknowledged the duality of action and structure. The return of the purposeful actor with the ability to intentionally manipulate its environment within certain constraints generated new avenues for research. However, this led to a schism within institutional theory. More sociologically inclined researchers were afraid of robbing institutional theory of its core differentiation: understanding how modern organizations are shaped by institutions. In turn, management scholars who often employ a strong model of agency and actorhood readily adopted an institutional perspective, which led to a wide diffusion within management and organizational studies. A fusion of both views can be found in the idea of institutional work, which is defined as purposive action of individuals and organizations aimed at creating, maintaining, and disrupting institutions (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006, p. 215). Thus, actors are portrayed as being embedded in an institutional framework but with a reflective capacity and intentional agency to alter their environment. And a key ingredient for this is language and (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006, p. 239).

9 NEO-INSTITUTIONAL T HEORY 9 Table 3 Institutional work and consequences for strategic. Creation Maintenance Transformation Regulative dimension Examples for methods Normative dimension Examples for normative methods Cognitive dimension Examples for cognitive methods Apply political pressure Lobbying, campaigning Create new identities Identity campaigns, creation of new identities Mimicry and theorization Communicate common assumptions Ensure stability and predictability Participating in governing/ruling bodies Reproduction of rules and values Communicate values by using storytelling Routinization and habitualization Provide positive examples Apply political pressure Providing alternatives, lobbying Questioning current status quo Attack established values and norms by showing alternatives Questioning basic assumptions Question the taken-for-granted assumptions and their benefits Source: Adapted from Sandhu (2012, p. 245), based upon Lawrence and Suddaby (2006). Table 3 summarizes the dimensions creation, maintenance, and transformation/ disruption of institutions in columns. The rows in the matrix use the differentiation between regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive institutions discussed earlier. Strategic plays a central role in changing institutions. Fredriksson and Pallas (2015, p. 151) conclude that strategic can be used as a carrier and translator of institutional elements, as well as their maintainer and creator. Creating institutions: providing context Creating institutions aims at providing new institutional structures. For the regulative dimension, this means to invest in political action, including advocacy, identity definitions, and vesting. Advocacy means to mobilize political and regulatory support. Usually, the actors involved need to be influential or public pressure must be high to achieve the set goal. The power to define rules and regulations is helpful to set boundaries or influence rules and regulations; for example, nonprofit organizations lobbied successfully to become part of legislative processes or to achieve a consultancy status concerning future rules and regulations. Vesting means to bargain for property rights, for example, when governments auction off services and infrastructure. Institutions can also be established by changing moral expectations like norms and values. The normative dimension stresses the construction of identities, changing associations, and constructing networks. In institutional theory, the construction of identities is often connected to the rise of professionals. Founding a professional association carries a certain weight in public discussions because goals, methods, and identitiesoftheprofessionarelegitimatedandthusitsstatusasautonomousprofession evoked.thereframingofassociationsisessentialforstrategicbut

10 10 NEO-INSTITUTIONAL T HEORY also for institutional theory. Therefore, changing associations for example, the mission of an organization are usually political contests by policy makers, which have a profound impact on the identity of the organization and its reputation. Finally, establishing networks like industry regulators or coalition building also leads to the creation of new rules and expectations. Often, competitors in an industry sector work together to achieve a common goal. These goals are communicated via extensive and integrated campaigns paid for by the members of the network. This explains how the need for a common frame of reference overrides competition. Concerning the cognitive dimension, institutions are created by mimicry, theorizing, and educating. Mimicry aims at associating existing sets of taken-for-granted routines with new ones to ease adoption. For example, new technologies often appear like the old ones even though the costs seem to be higher. LED lightbulbs mimic the traditional lightbulb, which was inspired by gaslight. By using mimicry, the new structures areeasiertounderstandandthusmorereadilyadopted.theorizingisatthecoreofthe cognitive dimension. It works by establishing causal explanations for abstract categories and thus sets a new vocabulary. These vocabularies are necessary steps in legitimizing new structures. For example, the harmonization of the European higher education system hinges on the idea of transferable competencies coined as ECTS (European Credit Transfer System). Finally, educating refers to concepts of sharing new ideas and explaining their relevance to stakeholders like recycling programs. The examples above readily show that is an essential dimension in creating institutions. For the regulative dimension, these include traditional persuasive concepts often found in campaigns. Changing attitudes and values is one of the core assumptions of strategic. Finally, can be involved in the cognitive dimension by creating new categories and vocabularies. Maintaining institutions: adhering to norms Institutionsdonotexistwithoutamaterialreproductionormaintenance.Thisrecursive setting between the guiding ideas and its material representation is a core theme of institutional theory. Communication is an important aspect in maintaining institutions. The regulative dimension is focused on predictability and stability. Institutions are maintained by policing established rules that support the institution. Organizations that establish and control the rule making can maintain institutions much more easily. Similarly, they can monitor and enforce these rules and thus deter incumbents. Those aspects depend on the legitimate authority of the actors involved and the power to sanction behavior. Communication comes into play to make these rules understandable to organizationalmembersandthepublic.thehigherthedegreeofcomprehensibility,the fewer questions appear. Also, established rule-making bodies need to be maintained by efforts. Otherwise, their legitimacy slowly erodes. Based on normative underpinnings are the strategies of valorizing/demonizing and mythologizing. Values are exemplified by communicating especially positive and negative examples, which illustrate the moral foundation of the institution. Political campaigns or negative advertising often use these strategies. Most storytelling concepts used in strategic involve ideas of heroes and villains. The usage of myths

11 NEO-INSTITUTIONAL T HEORY 11 also falls into this category, for example when founders of organizations are worshiped. Because of their powerful images, these stories are readily adopted by mass media. How institutions are maintained in their daily routines explains embedding and routinizing in the cognitive dimension. Here, institutional maintenance is embedded in the day-to-day activities of the organizational members and thus becomes a taken-forgranted process. Routines exert a powerful influence because of their repetitive nature. As soon as those practices are routinely embedded, they are difficult to question and to change. Lawrence and Suddaby (2006, p. 234) point out that the maintenance category of institutional change rests upon a continuum ranging from comprehensibility to forgetfulness. Explaining rules and regulations makes them comprehensible and thus offers strategies based on the rhetorical concept of logos and rational argumentation. Also, infusing institutions with value and communicating norms is a common strategy using persuasive or campaigns. However, maintaining institutions in the cognitive dimension is rather difficult. Here, the original purpose of the routines is often forgotten, but the routines are deeply ingrained and reproduced anyhow. This might apply to rules in a departmentthatstillwritesapressreleaseeveryweekalthoughthesereleases have no effect at all. Institutional maintenance secures the day-to-day existence of an organization by building robust barriers to institutional change to secure their position. Challenging institutions: disrupting cognitive structures Finally, institutions can be changed or disrupted. However, since institutions are in part based upon taken-for-granted assumptions, this means attacking collective belief systems and general rules. These actions are closely connected to social movement theory, which analyzes activist organizations. One strategy of institutional disruption within the regulative dimensionistodisconnect sanctions or rewards. Here the outcome of certain rules and regulations are questioned and redefined. Typically this involves a massive mobilization as found in social movements, protests, or rebellions. Often this involves a square attack on the state or rule-making bodies. This, in turn, questions the legitimate order, so the incumbentsneedtohaveanauthoritythatgoesbeyondtheregulativedimension.strategic can learn from activist movements and their attempts to change the status quo. Within the normative dimension, the moral foundation of an institution comes into question. This process can occur either incrementally over time or expand explosively when social movements and activists challenge moral authorities. One strategy is to circumvent direct attacks on the moral foundation but instead question organizational practices and their results. From a point of view, it seems to be important to convince elites of the moral superiority by coalition-building and networking. As shown above, the cognitive dimension is based on deeply rooted beliefs and assumptions. Challenging assumptions can be achieved either with a shock strategy or by gradually undermining those practices. Radically challenging assumptions is a risky

12 12 NEO-INSTITUTIONAL T HEORY strategy. However, many campaigns are based on a shock-and-awe doctrine to cut through the clutter. This can involve humor, by confronting the audience with the unexpected, or horror, by communicating the unthinkable. The dramaturgy of a campaign hinges on a thin red line and needs to be culturally sensitive to minimize backfiring. Challenging assumptions, however, will always lead to a backlash by some part of the audience. It is thus important to gain support of the larger part of the public. The gradual disintegration of assumptions is usually a long-term development based less upon efforts and more on societal change. Communicators are a powerful driver for institutional change. As Lawrence and Suddaby (2006, pp ) point out, the concepts of rhetoric, discourse, and narration or storytelling hold strong premises for institutional theory. On the other hand, these methods are deeply ingrained into strategic s. The possibilities to create a deeper cross-fertilization between both perspectives are evident. The communicative turn in institutional theory With the return of the purposeful and intentional actor, some institutional scholars became more interested in the communicative properties of institutional mechanisms. After all, is a central carrier and symbolic system for institutions. This communicative turn in institutional theory (Cornelissen, Durand, Fiss, Lammers, & Vaara, 2015) combined several streams of thought already prevalent in institutional theory. Traditional neo-institutional thinking followed the conduit metaphor of and treated as a black-box or carrier mechanism. With the mainstreaming of institutional theory, scholars became interested in communicative processes and the performative aspects of. This rhetorical institutionalism covers concepts close to the heart of strategic,includingrhetoric,framing,discourse,speechacttheory,anddiscourse.some proponents also call for a discursive institutionalism, but it covers basically the same ground: ideas and concepts are manifested in communicative properties. A more radical departure from established concepts is found in communicative institutionalism. Researchers follow the CCO (communicative constitution of organizations) flat ontology, which postulates that is constitutive for organizations and institutions. Thus, the often-implicit dualism between structure and action is eradicated. Instead, interactions fuel and maintain institutions and vice versa. This point of view challenges conventional thinking in strategic. However, it opens up new avenues for research for institutional theory as well as strategic. The contribution of institutional theory to strategic Early neo-institutional theory challenged generally accepted concepts of management and scholars by its radical social constructionist and cognitive agenda. For strategic, neo-institutional theory is helpful to uncover broadly

13 NEO-INSTITUTIONAL T HEORY 13 Table 4 Exemplary research questions for research on institutional PR. Research focus Mechanism Methods Macro-level Meso-level Professionalization, logics of strategic Organization environment relationship (De-)Institutionalization, diffusion Organizational and communicative fields Comparative studies, time sequence analysis Social network analysis, document analysis Micro-level PR-as-practice Institutional work Observation, ethnography Source: Adapted from Sandhu (2015, p. 255). held assumptions and beliefs. First, the societal perspective widens and challenges a functionalist approach to. Second, institutional processes are deeply communicative in nature, as explained by the concept of institutional work. Finally, institutional theory itself benefits from the cross-fertilization with theory. Future research based on institutional concepts is fruitful on the macro-, meso-, and micro-levels (see Table 4). Focusing on macro-level approaches, research in the professionalization of strategic as a global discipline, and distinct logics of can be realized by applying diffusion concepts in comparative studies. The meso-level research focus utilizes the organizational and communicative fields. The field model is still in its infancy for strategic but offers clear advantages to describe causalities within the organization environment relationship. Since relations are important, the integration of social network analysis might enhance research designs. On the micro-level, the actual day-to-day work of strategic communicators is the main focus. Here the practice turn in strategy research might offer a good starting point, observing the concrete institutional work of officers and document analysis outplay typical interviews or surveys, because many institutional processes are revealed by implicit research methods. Institutional theory sets out to offer a frame of reference to make sense of our world, which appears to be rational but can be very irrational. SEE ALSO: Agency, Organizational and Societal; Communication as Constitutive of Organization (CCO); Communication Theory; Legitimacy (Legitimatizing); Reflective Management: A Reflective Paradigm; Sense-Making; Society as Symbolic Action; Strategy as Discourse; Symbolic View of Organization References Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Cornelissen, J. P., Durand, R., Fiss, P. C., Lammers, J. C., & Vaara, E. (2015). Putting front and center in institutional theory and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 40(1), doi: /amr

14 14 NEO-INSTITUTIONAL T HEORY DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (Eds.). (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Fredriksson, M., & Pallas, J. (2015). Strategic as institutional work. In D. Holtzhausen & A. Zerfass (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of strategic (pp ). New York, NY: Routledge. Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K., & Suddaby, R. (2008). Introduction. In R. Greenwood, C.Oliver,K.Sahlin,&R.Suddaby(Eds.),The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 1 46). London, UK: Sage. Grunig, J. E. (2011). Public relations and strategic management: Institutionalizing organization public relationships in contemporary society. Central European Journal of Communication, 4(1), Hoffman, A. J., & Jennings, D. P. (2011). The BP oil spill as a cultural anomaly? Institutional context, conflict, and change. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(2), Invernizzi, E., Falconi, T. M., & Romenti, S. (Eds.). (2009). Institutionalizing PR and corporate. Proceedings of the Euprera 2008 Milan Congress, Italy.Milan,Italy:Pearson. Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organization studies (2nd ed., pp ). London, UK: Sage. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. The American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), Sandhu, S. (2009). Strategic : An institutional perspective. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 3(2), Sandhu, S. (2012). Public Relations und Legitimität: Der Beitrag des organisationalen Institutionalismus für die PR-Forschung [Public relations and legitimacy. The contribution of organizational institutionalism to PR research]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS. Sandhu, S. (2015). Public Relations aus neo-institutionalistischer Perspektive [PR from a neo-institutionalist point of view]. In R. Fröhlich, P. Szyszka, & G. Bentele (Eds.), Handbuch der Public Relations [Handbook of public relations] (3rd ed., pp ). Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer. doi: / Scott, R. W. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests and identities (4th ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective.oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Wakefield, R. I., Plowman, K. D., & Curry, A. (2015). Institutionalization in public relations. In D. Holtzhausen & A. Zerfass (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of strategic (pp ). New York, NY: Routledge. Wooten, M., & Hoffman, A. J. (2008). Organizational fields: Past, present and future. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp ). London, UK: Sage. Zucker, L. G. (1977). The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. American Sociological Review, 42(5), Further reading Frandsen, F., & Johansen, W. (2013). Public relations and the new institutionalism: In search of a theoretical framework. Public Relations Inquiry, 2(2), doi: / X

15 NEO-INSTITUTIONAL T HEORY 15 Fredriksson, M., Pallas, J., & Wehmeier, S. (2013). Special Issue: Public relations and neo-institutional theory. Public Relations Inquiry, 2(2), doi: / X Greenwood, R., & Meyer, R. E. (2008). Influencing ideas: A celebration of DiMaggio and Powell (1983). Journal of Management Inquiry, 17(4), Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. The American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), Ocasio, W., Loewenstein, J., & Nigam, A. (2014). How streams of reproduce and change institutional logics: The role of categories. Academy of Management Review, 40(1), doi: /amr Swaran Sandhu is Professor of Public Relations and Corporate Communication at Hochschule der Medien Stuttgart, University of Applied Science in Germany. He is responsible for public relations in the BA program for Crossmedia Journalism/Public Relations. His research interests cover the nexus between public relations and social theory with a particular focus on institutional theory, legitimacy processes, and social network analysis. He has published more than 20 articles or book chapters in, among others, the International Journal of Strategic Communication and Management Communication Quarterly, andcontributedtothehandbuch der Public Relations [Handbook of Public Relations] (3rd ed.,) and Handbuch Unternehmenskommunikation [Handbook of Corporate Communication](2nded.).