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).
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 nineteenth 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. Contemporary 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).
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 nineteenth 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. Contemporary 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.
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.