Abstract
In the past half century, the theory of the firm has become a specific and prolific research field. However, the social ontology of this central institution of capitalism has never truly been the subject of investigation. I consider this negligence harmful for organizational economics and management and, more broadly, for the social sciences, notably because the first and central question raised by the theory of the firm relates to its nature: What is a firm? For this reason, I propose some novel considerations for a social ontology of the firm by focusing on social emergence, reconstitution, the two-level institutional logic of the firm, complex organizational dynamics and interacting mechanisms, and power.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Cooperation, which refers both to the ability to act for a common goal and the cohesiveness that is created to achieve this goal, is the firm’s social organization.
For Simon (1962, p. 468), a complex system is “one made up of a large number of parts that interact in a nonsimple way” so that “the whole is more than the sum of the parts in the important pragmatic sense that, given the properties of the parts and the laws of their interaction, it is not a trivial matter to infer the properties of the whole” (ibid.).
Hodgson (2013, p. 33) writes in this spirit, “Statements about what exists, or concerning the nature of reality, are very different in character from statements on how one should explain phenomena.”
For Edler-Vass (2008b, p. 463), “In the structural moment, individual action is influenced by the causal powers of social structures—though not fully determined by it, since other interacting causal powers, including those of the individual concerned, interact in determining individual action. In the agential moment, individual actions contribute to reproducing and/or transforming the structure concerned (again interacting with other causal powers).”
Hodgson and Knudsen (2010, p. 171) argue that “routines exist because structured interactions of individuals give rise to emergent properties that (by definition) are not properties of individuals taken severally.”
Zucker (1983, p. 37) writes: “organizations are institutions—indeed, the central defining institution of modern cultural systems.”
See also the correspondence between North and Hodgson on this point and presented in a 2006 paper by Hodgson.
Zucker (1983, p. 4) argues that “the external institutional environment constrains the organization, determining its internal structure, its growth or decline, and often even its survival.”
Tuomela (1989, p. 471) argues that “if collectives are construed as real entities, it must be admitted that they are entities clearly different from single human persons—to which action concepts and other mental concepts apply in the first place.”
Hofstader (1935, p. 6) writes: “the best synonym for power is ability. It readily suggests that what is signified is not absolute possession, but a possibility”.
References
Archer, M. (2000). Being human: The problem of agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Arendt, H. (1969). On violence. New York/London: A Harvest/HBJ Book.
Ashforth, B., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.
Barney, J. (1986). Organizational culture: Can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 656–665.
Baudry, B., & Chassagnon, V. (2010). The close relation between organization theory and Olivier Williamson’s transaction cost economics: A theory of the firm perspective. Journal of Institutional Economics, 6(4), 477–503.
Bhaskar, R. (2008[1975]). A realist theory of science. New York: Routledge.
Bickhard, M. (2008). Social ontology as convention. Topoi, 27(1–2), 139–149.
Blais, A. (1974). Power and causality. Quality & Quantity, 8(1), 45–64.
Brette, O. (2003). Thorstein Veblen’s theory of institutional change: Beyond technological determinism. European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 10(3), 455–477.
Brown, M. (1969). Identification and some conditions of organizational involvement. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(3), 346–355.
Chassagnon, V. (2011a). The network-firm as a single real entity: Beyond the aggregate of distinct legal entities. Journal of Economic Issues, 45(1), 113–136.
Chassagnon, V. (2011b). The law and economics of the modern firm: A new governance structure of power relationships. Revue d’Economie Industrielle, 134(1), 25–50.
Chassagnon, V. (2012). Nature et ontologie sociale de la firme. Social Science Information, 51(1), 71–96.
Coase, R. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4(16), 386–405.
Coleman, J. S. (1982). The asymmetric society. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Cordes, Ch., Richerson, P., McElreath, R., & Strimling, P. (2008). A naturalistic approach to the theory of the firm: The role of cooperation and cultural evolution. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 68(1), 125–139.
Dahl, R. A. (1957). The concept of power. Behavioral Science, 2(3), 201–215.
Dewey, J. (2002[1922]). Human nature and conduct: An introduction to social psychology. Amherst: Prometheus Books.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
Dubin, R. (1982). Management: Meanings, methods, and moxie. Academy of Management Review, 7, 372–379.
Durand, R., & Vaara, E. (2009). Causation, counterfactuals and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 30(12), 1245–1264.
Elder-Vass, D. (2008a). Integrating institutional, relational, and embodied structure: An emergentist perspective. British Journal of Sociology, 59(2), 281–299.
Elder-Vass, D. (2008b). Searching for realism, structure and agency in actor network theory. British Journal of Sociology, 59(3), 455–473.
Ennen, E., & Richter, A. (2010). The whole is more than the sum of its parts or is it? A review of the empirical literature on complementarities in organizations. Journal of Management, 36(1), 207–233.
Gavetti, G., Greeve, H., & Ocasio, W. (2012). The behavioral theory of the firm: Assessment and prospects. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 1–40.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Goldspink, C., & Kay, R. (2004). Bridging the micro–macro divide: A new basis for social science. Human Relations, 57(5), 597–618.
Grossi, D., Royakkers, L., & Dignum, F. (2007). Organizational structure and responsibility. An analysis in a dynamic logic of organized collective agency. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 15(3), 223–249.
Hall, P. A. (2010).Historical institutionalism in rationalist and sociological perspective. In J. Mahoney & K. Thelen (Eds.), Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency and power (pp. 16–58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hatch, M. J. (1993). The dynamics of organizational culture. Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 657–693.
Hodgson, G. M. (2002). Reconstitutive downward causation: Social structure and the development of individual agency. In E. Fullbrook (Ed.), Intersubjectivity in economics: Agents and structure (pp. 159–180). London: Routledge.
Hodgson, G. M. (2004). Reclaiming habit for institutional economics. Journal of Economic Psychology, 25(5), 651–660.
Hodgson, G. M. (2006). What are institutions? Journal of Economic Issues, 40(1), 1–25.
Hodgson, G. M. (2013). From pleasure machines to moral communities: An evolutionary economics without Homo Economicus. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hodgson, G., & Knudsen, T. (2010). Darwin’s conjecture: The search for general principles of social & economic evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hofstadter, A. (1935). Power and causality. Journal of Philosophy, 32(1), 5–19.
Hull, D. L. (1988). Science as a process: An evolutionary account of the social and conceptual development of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kauffman, S. (1995). At home in the universe: The search for the law of self-organization and complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Knight, F. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1996). What firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning. Organization Science, 7(5), 502–518.
Kwan, K.-M., & Tsang, E. (2001). Realism and constructivism in strategy research: A critical realist response to Mir and Watson. Strategic Management Journal, 22(12), 1163–1168.
Langlois, R. (1992). Orders and organizations: Toward an Austrian theory of social institutions. In B. Caldwell & S. Boehm (Eds.), Austrian economics: Tensions and new directions (pp. 165–183). Boston: Kluwer.
Lawson, T. (2004). A conception of ontology. Unpublished manuscript, University of Cambridge.
Lawson, T. (2005). The nature of institutional economics. The Evolutionary and Institutional Economic Review, 2(1), 7–20.
Lawson, T. (2012). Ontology and the study of social reality: Emergence, organization, community, power, social relations, corporations, artefacts and money. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36(2), 345–385.
Mäki, U. (2004). Theoretical isolation and explanatory progress: Transaction cost economics and the dynamics of dispute. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 28(3), 319–346.
March, J., & Simon, H. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.
Miles, R., Snow, C., Meyer, A., & Coleman, H. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 546–562.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Nagata, A. (2000). A firm as a knowledge-creating entity: A new perspective on the theory of the firm. Industrial and Corporate Change, 9(1), 1–20.
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Parsons, T. (1960). A sociological approach to the theory of organizations. In T. Parsons (Ed.), Structure and process in modern societies (pp. 16–58). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Rajan, R. G., & Zingales, L. (1998). Power in a theory of the firm. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(2), 387–432.
Roberts, J. (2004). The modern firm: Organizational design for performance and growth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rosser, B. (2012). Emergence and complexity in Austrian economics. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 81(1), 122–128.
Scott, R. (2008[1995]). Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.
Scott, R. W., & Meyer, J. W. (1983). The organization of societal sectors. In J. W. Meyer &R. W. Scott (Dirs.), Organizational environments: Ritual and rationality (pp. 129–153). Beverly Hills: SAGE.
Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. London: Allen Lane.
Searle, J. R. (2005). What is an institution? Journal of Institutional Economics, 1(1), 1–22.
Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Simon, H. A. (1951). A formal theory of the employment relationship. Econometrica, 19(3), 293–305.
Simon, H. A. (1962). The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106(6), 467–482.
Simon, H. A. (1991). Organizations and markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(2), 25–44.
Smith, M. G. (2007[1974]). Corporations and society: The social anthropology of collective action (2nd ed.). New Brunswick: Aldine Transaction.
Stinchcombe, A. (1991). The conditions of fruitfulness of theorizing about mechanisms in social science. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 21(3), 367–388.
Swanson, G. E. (1992). Some basic forms of agency and structure in collective action and some explanations. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(2), 94–117.
Thornton, P., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin-Andersson (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 99–129). London: Sage Publishers.
Tsang, E., & Kwan, K.-M. (1999). Replication and theory development in organizational science: A critical realist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 759–780.
Tuomela, R. (1989). Actions by collective. Philosophical Perspectives, 3, 471–496.
Tyler, T., & Blader, S. (2001). Identity and cooperative behavior in groups. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 4(3), 207–226.
Van de Ven, A. (1976). On the nature, formation, and maintenance of relations among organizations. Academy of Management Review, 1(4), 24–36.
Van de Ven, A. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. New York: Oxford University Press.
Van den Bergh, C. J. M., & Gowdy, J. M. (2009). A group selection perspective on economic behavior and organization. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 72(1), 1–20.
Veblen, T. (1898). Why is economics not an evolutionary science? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 12(4), 373–397.
Von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). Organismic psychology and system theory. Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.
Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press.
Williamson, O. E. (1996). Efficiency, power, authority and economic organization. In J. Groenewegen (Dir.), Transaction cost economics and beyond (pp. 11–42). London: Kluwer.
Wimsatt, W. (2007). Re-engineering philosophy for limited beings. Piecewise approximations to reality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Zucker, L. (1983). Organizations as institutions. In S. B. Bacharach (Ed.), Research in the sociology of organizations (2nd ed., pp. 1–47). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Acknowledgments
I acknowledge the two anonymous referees and the editors of the Journal of Business Ethics, Richard Adelstein, Bernard Baudry, Olivier Brette, Benjamin Dubrion, Geoffrey Hodgson, Tony Lawson, and Claude Parthenay, for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this essay.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chassagnon, V. Toward a Social Ontology of the Firm: Reconstitution, Organizing Entity, Institution, Social Emergence and Power. J Bus Ethics 124, 197–208 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1849-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1849-1