Microfoundations of institutional change: Contrasting institutional sabotage to entrepreneurship
| Author | Manzoom Akhter,C. Lakshman |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.1325 |
| Published date | 01 September 2015 |
| Date | 01 September 2015 |
Microfoundations of institutional change:
Contrasting institutional sabotage to
entrepreneurship
C. Lakshman*
Tongji University
Manzoom Akhter
KEDGE Business School
Abstract
This paper addresses little understood microfoundations of
institutionally driven organizational change and utilizes an
institutional-conflict-based approach to examine innovation
in organizational forms. Using a two-case comparative
analysis, we longitudinally examine the antecedents, mecha-
nisms, and success/failure of attempts at change by institu-
tional entrepreneurs. We analyze and develop theoretical
insights on the interplay between internal political processes
and external competitive actions in the creation of innovation
in organizational forms and the subsequent legitimacy strug-
gles through which an organizational field evolves in a
sports (cricket) business context. We draw implications for
institutional actors by observing patterns in organizational
and institutional evolution in such contexts. We contribute
to institutional entrepreneurship literature by developing a
nuanced process model of success and failure in institutional
entrepreneurship. Copyright © 2015 ASAC. Published by
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Keywords: institutional entrepreneurship/sabotage,
antecedents, mechanisms, theory development, conflicts,
failure/success
Résumé
Cet article se penche sur le phénomène peu connu des
microfondations du changement organisationnel institution-
nellement motivé. Il utilise l’approche basée sur les conflits
institutionnels pour examiner l’innovation dans les formes
organisationnelles. S’appuyant sur une analyse comparative
de deux cas, il explore de façon longitudinale les antécédents,
les mécanismes et les tentatives de réussite/d’échec de
changement, engagées par les entrepreneurs institutionnels.
Il analyse et propose des éclairages théoriques sur, d’une
part, la relation entre les processus politiques internes et les
actions concurrentielles externes dans la création de
l’innovation dans les formes organisationnelles, et d’autre
part, les luttes de légitimité subséquentes à travers lesquelles
un champ organisationnel évolue dans un contexte d’affaires
en sport (le cricket). L’observation des constantes dans
l’évolution organisationnelle et institutionnelle dans de tels
contextes permet de mettre en évidence les implications de
l’étude pour les acteurs institu tionnels. L’article contribue
aux travaux sur l’entrepreneuriat institutionnel en élaborant
un modèle de processus nuancé du succès et de l’échec dans
l’entrepreneuriat institutionnel. Copyright © 2015 ASAC.
Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Mots-clés : entrepreneuriat/sabotage institutionnel,
antécédents, mécanismes, élaboration de la théorie, conflits,
échec/succès
Institutional change is a complex and dynamic
process involving a variety of forces and agents. Despite
advances in the institutional entrepreneurship literature
(e.g., DiMaggio, 1988), our understanding of the dynam-
ics of institutional change is in its infancy (Battilana, Leca,
& Boxem baum, 2009). Our knowledge, or lack thereof, of
the microfoundations of institutionally driven change (Powell
& Colyvas, 2008) is a keycontributing factor. The concept of
institutional entrepreneurship (DiMaggio, 1988) provides a
basis for the examinationof such microfoundations,and there-
fore has been argued to be central to future developments of
institutional theory (Battilana et al., 2009). Responding to
criticisms of neo-institutionalism’s reliance on oversocialized
action and failure to account for institutional change,
DiMaggio (1988) introduced the notion of institutional
entrepreneurship, thereby reviving dimensions of the old
institutionalism (Stinchcombe, 1997). The ensuing literature
on institutional entrepreneurship provides a strong body of
*Please address correspondence to: C. Lakshman, Tongji University,
School of Economics & Management, Shanghai, China. Email:
clakshman2007@gmail.com
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences
Revue canadienne des sciences de l’administration
32: 160–176 (2015)
Published online 11 May 2015 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/CJAS.1325
Can J Adm Sci
32(3), 160–176 (2015)Copyright © 2015 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 160
knowledge on the complex process of institutional change
(Battilana et al., 2009). For example, this literature has
identified a number of enabling conditions, ranging from
institutional field characteristics (e.g., DiMaggio, 1988;
Phillips, Lawrence, & Hardy, 2000) to actors’characteris-
tics (e.g., Greenwood & Suddaby, 2006), that precipitate
actors becoming institutional entrepreneurs. Despite the rapid
strides in this literature, there is still a dearth of studies on
failed attempts at institutional entrepreneurship, which has
introduced a strong bias in our understanding of institutional
entrepreneurship (see Battilana et al., 2009). Additionally, but
for a few exceptions, multicase comparisons of failed-versus-
successful institutional entrepreneurship are absent in the litera-
ture. Although this literature has focused on the institutional
field and organizational levels of analysis, the community and
individual levels of analysis have received scant attention,
thereby limiting knowledge of the impact of individual level
variables on the process of institutional entrepreneurship. Thus,
processes surrounding inter- and intra-organizational conflicts
as potential antecedents to institutional entrepreneurship have
remained underexamined.
We contribute to this literature by providing a cross-
comparison of two cases of institutional entrepreneurship
in the novel empirical context of the sport of cricket. Of
these two cases, one represents a failed attempt and one a
successful attempt at institutional entrepreneurship. The for-
mer is set in India, while the latter is set in Australia.
Examination of these two cases allowed us to develop
insights into the individual and community levels of analysis
variables, hitherto underaddressed in the literature, while
also allowing theory development from comparative
analysis of a failed-versus-successful attempt at institutional
entrepreneurship. The primary aim of this paper is to
longitudinally examine the antecedents, mechanisms, and
success/failureof attempts at divergent change by institutional
entrepreneurs.We focus on and analyze the microsociological
processes in an institutional field leading to the birth of an in-
novative organizational form, the subsequent reactions of the
institutional defender, ensuing competitive and institutional
battles, and the resulting death (or success) of the innovative
organizationalform. We draw implicationsfor institutional ac-
tors by observing patterns in organizational and institutional
evolution in such contexts.
We longitudinally examine the evolution of the institu-
tional field of cricket in two instances, the first involving
the creation of a new organization form of Twenty20 (T20)
cricket in India (Indian Cricket League, ICL) and its even-
tual demise, and the second involving the launch of World
Series Cricket (WSC) by Channel Nine in the 1970s in
Australia and subsequent events leading to success for this
institutional entrepreneur. We intricately capture the details
of the dynamics involved in the process in both instances
to extract theoretical insights from the resulting analysis. In
both instances, individuals embedded within organizations
in the institutional field experienced ongoing institutional
contradictions, motivating them to redress the situation by
creating new organizational forms that challenged embedded
institutional agents (Board of Control for Cricket in India -
BCCI; and Australian Cricket Board - ACB). Whereas in
one instance (ICL, India) the institutional entrepreneur was
rebuffed at the end of a long process, in the other the insti-
tutional entrepreneur (Channel Nine, Australia) achieved
success. We present the results of the comparative analysis
of these two cases and develop insights into the process of
institutional entrepreneurship, including its antecedents and
associated mechanisms of implementing divergent change.
We contribute to the literature on institutional entrepre-
neurship by examining the interaction of individual and or-
ganizational level variables as antecedents to institutional
entrepreneurship, hitherto unaddressed in this literature.
We highlight the actions of institutional actors and their in-
fluence in bringing about change in an institutional field,
which in turn influences actors’behaviour. We contrast the
ability of the institutional defender (BCCI) to influence and
mobilize one institutional field with that of the institutional
defender (ACB) in another, with varying consequences for
the resulting institutional field. By contrasting a failed at-
tempt at institutional sabotage with a relatively successful at-
tempt at institutional entrepreneurship, we contribute to the
development of a more nuanced process of institutional
entrepreneurship.
In the following sections of the paper, we first summa-
rize the current state of knowledge on institutional entrepre-
neurship. Drawing from this literature, we highlight the
importance of focusing on individual and community levels
of analysis variables, and the importance of focusing on
microsociological processes as antecedents to institutional
entrepreneurship. We then describe our research method,
following which we present our analyses and findings. We
then discuss these findings in the context of the literature,
develop theoretical propositions, and develop implications
for research and practice.
Theoretical Orientation
The concept of institutional entrepreneurship was intro-
duced by DiMaggio (1988) to address serious criticisms of
neo-institutional theory (e.g., DiMaggio & Powell, 1983)
that argued that the theory provides an oversocialized
account of action without providing for institutional change.
Recent reviews of the institutional entrepreneurship literature
(e.g., Battilana et al., 2009) have documented the tremendous
volume of literature generated since the development of the
concept, and have organized the body of knowledge on the
process of institutional change. Most accounts of the phe-
nomenon of institutional entrepreneurship note that, while
on the one hand it provides for a response to serious
criticisms, it also risks reverting to limitless human agency
and accounts of heroism (Battilana et al., 2009) and has in
MICROFOUNDATIONS OF INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE LAKSHMAN AND AKHTER
Can J Adm Sci
32(3), 160–176 (2015)Copyright © 2015 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 161
To continue reading
Request your trial