THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL AGENDA OF INSTITUTIONAL THEORISTS FROM BEGINNING OF THE MODERN PERIOD

Although, the presence of institutional scholars in may disciplines provides important opportunities for exchange and cross-fertilization, an astonishing variety of approached and something conflicting assumptions limits scholarly discourse.

A wide variety of institutional systems have existed over space and time providing diverse guidelines for social behaviour many of which sanction quite arbitrary behaviour, but the modern world is dominated by system embracing rationality and these, in turn support the proliferation of organizations. Norms of rationality play a casual role in the creation of formal organizations (Meyer and Rowan, 1977:410). Many of the models giving rise to organization are based on “rationalized Myths” rule-like systems that “depend on their efficacy, for their reality, on the fact that they are widely shared, or have been promulgated by individuals or groups that have been granted the right to determine such matter” (scott, 1983:147). The model provides templates for the design of organizational structures, “the positions, policies, programmes and procedures of modern organizations” (Myer and Rowan, 1977:343).

Too much early theorizing and research on institutions posited “top-down” models of social influence. Scholars examined the various ways in which rules, norms, and share beliefs impacted organizational forms. Such a focus is understandable since a necessary condition for calling attention to the importance of institutions is to demonstrate their influence on organizations. However, the language  used was predominantly that of “institutional effect” as if given set of environmental focus was able to exert influence in a  unilateral manner on complaint organizations. Two corrections were required, and both are now well underway. First, we need to recognize that institutional environment is not monolithic, but often varied and conflicted. Authoritative bodies may diverge indeed, in liberal state, they are often designed to do so, providing “check and balances”, schemes and models may compete .

The element of institution, regulative, normative and cultural cognitive may not be aligned and one may undermine the effects of the other. The boundaries of organizational fields are often vague or weak, allowing alternative logics to penetrate and support divergent models of behaviour. Suppressed groups and interests may mobilize and successfully promote new models of structure and repertories of acting. Some of the most interesting work of the past two decades has helped to unpack the multiplicity of institutional arrangements, both between and within a given fields, examining the intersection of structures and documenting the transportability of schemas, as actors and ideas flows across field boundaries (Friedland and Alford,1991:129).

The classic founding statements linking organizations with latter-day versions of institutional theory struck a common chord on contrasting institutional with rational or efficiency-based arguments. Thus, according to Meyer and Rowan (19997:335).”Formal structure that celebrate institutionalized myths differ from structures that act efficiently. Categorical rules conflict with the logic of efficiency”.

Dimagio and powell (1983:147) concur, asserting that institutions produce structural changes as a result of processed that make organizations more similar without necessarily making them more efficient. These and other related arguments focusing on “myth, “ceremonial behavior”, and mindless conformity, placed sociological institutionalists in danger of focusing exclusively on the irrational and the superficial aspects of organization. The problem posed by the persistence of errors associated with thee founding   period of an intellectual perspective are not unique to institutional theory.

It is all too common that errors present at the origins prove difficult to correct. They seem to be built-in to the fabric of the enterprise. And it takes considerable energy, even courage to confront them. But think, this is one of the important roles of empirical research in building theory. When predictions are confounded by findings, it suggest the needs to re-examine premises and assumptions, as well as propositions and logics. Empirical research does not just test arguments, it provides the bases for reformulating them, sometimes in quite basic ways. Broadening the agenda for studying institutional change processes, convergent and disruptive change.

Finally in an important sense, a concern with institutional change has been present in both the theoretical and empirical agenda of institutional theorists from beginning of the modern period. However, virtually all-early work focused on “convergent” change explanation for evidence of increasing similarity among organizational structures and process. Because of the prevailing emphasis on top-down models, it was presumed that institutional arguments were primarily of use to explain increased conformity to a given rule or model.