For the purpose
of this study, the theoretical frame work will be drawn from institutional
theory (Fillipo, 1980:207).Because the theory attends to the deeper and more
resilient aspect of social structure.
It consider the process by which structures, including schemas, rules, norms and routines, become established as authoritative guidline for social behaviors, it inquires into how these elements are created, diffused, adopted, adapted over space and time and how they fall into decline and disuse. Although, the ostensible subject is stability and order in social life, students of institutions must perforce attend not just to consensus and conformity but also to conflict and change in social structures (Scott,2004:142).
It consider the process by which structures, including schemas, rules, norms and routines, become established as authoritative guidline for social behaviors, it inquires into how these elements are created, diffused, adopted, adapted over space and time and how they fall into decline and disuse. Although, the ostensible subject is stability and order in social life, students of institutions must perforce attend not just to consensus and conformity but also to conflict and change in social structures (Scott,2004:142).
The roots of institutional theory run richly
through the formative of scholars ranging from Marx and webber, cooley and Mead
to Veblen and Commons. Much of this work, carried out at the end of ninteenth
century and beginning of the twentieth centuries was submerged under the
onslaught of neoclassical theory in economics, behaviouralism in political
science and positivism in sociology but
has experienced a remarkable renaissance in our own time. Contemporay
institutional theory has capture the attention of a wide range of scholars
across the social science and employed to examine systems ranging from micro
interpersonal interactions to macro global frameworks (Hardgrave, 1981:263).
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.