Theory and Society

, Volume 36, Issue 6, pp 547–571 | Cite as

For love and money: Organizations’ creative responses to multiple environmental logics

Article

Abstract

The recent “inhabited institutions” research stream in organizational theory reinvigorates new institutionalism by arguing that organizations are not merely the instantiation of environmental, institutional logics “out there,” where organizational actors seamlessly enact preconscious scripts, but are places where people and groups make sense of, and interpret, institutional vocabularies of motive. This article advances the inhabited institutions approach through an inductive case study of a transitional housing organization called Parents Community. This organization, like other supportive direct service organizations, exists in an external environment relying increasingly on federal funding. Most scholars studying this sector argue that as federal monies expand to pay for these organizations’ services, non-profit organizations will be forced to become ever more bureaucratic and rationalized. However, I find that three key service departments at Parents Community respond in multiple ways to this external environment, depending on each department members’ creative uses of institutional logics and local meanings, which emerge from their professional commitments, personal interests, and interactional, on-the-ground decision making. By looking carefully at these three departments’ variable responses to the external environment, we have a better map for seeing how human agency is integrated into organizational dynamics for this and other organizations.

References

  1. Becker, H. S. (1982). Art Worlds. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  2. Binder, A. (2000). Why do some curricular challenges ‘work’ while others do not? The case of three afrocentric challenges: Atlanta, Washington DC, and New York State. Sociology of Education, 73, 69–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Binder, A. (2002). Contentious curricula: afrocentrism and creationism in American Public Schools. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: perspective and method. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, D., & Brown, J. C. (1983). Organizational microcosms and ideological negotiation. In M. Bazerman & R. J. Lewicki (Eds.) Negotiating in organizations. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, D., & Covey, J. (1987). Development and organizations and organization development: Toward and expanded paradigm for organization development. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 1, 59–87.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, L., & Troutt, E. (2004). Funding relations between nonprofits and government: A positive example. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33, 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell, J. (1998). Institutional analysis and the role of ideas in political economy. Theory and Society, 27, 377–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Capizzano, J., Koralek, R., Botsko, C., & Bess, R. (2001). Recent changes in Colorado welfare and work, child care, and child welfare systems. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Retrieved 2005 from http://www.urban.org/publications/310299.html.
  10. Chaskin, B. (2001). Building community capacity: A definitional framework and case studies from a comprehensive community initiative. Urban Affairs Review, 36, 291–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chaves, M., Stephens, L., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2004). Does government funding suppress nonprofits’ political activity. American Sociological Review, 6, 292–316.Google Scholar
  12. Clemens, E., & Cook, J. M. (1999). Politics and institutionalism: Explaining durability and change. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 441–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coburn, C. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77, 211–244.Google Scholar
  14. Creed, D., Scully, M., & Austin, J. (2002). Clothes make the person? The tailoring of legitimating accounts and the social constuction of identity. Organization Science, 13, 475–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davies, S., & Binder, A. (2007). Importing school across societaldomains: Frames, hybrids and institutional effects. San Diego: Unpublishedmanuscript, Department of Sociology, University of California.Google Scholar
  16. De Hoog, R. H. (1990). Competition, negotiation, or cooperation: Three models for service contracting. Administration & Society, 22, 317–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. DiMaggio, P. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L. Zucker (Ed.) Institutional patterns and organizations: Culture and environment. Camridge: Ballinger.Google Scholar
  18. DiMaggio, P. (1997). Culture and cognition. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 263–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983a). Iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983b). Introduction. In W. Powell & P. DiMaggio (Eds.) The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Dobbin, F., Sutton, J., Meyer, J., & Scott, W. R. (1993). Equal opportunity law and the construction of internal labor markets. American Journal of Sociology, 99, 396–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Douglas, M. (1986). How institutions think. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Fine, G. A. (1984). Negotiated orders and organizational cultures. Annual Review of Sociology, 10, 239–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fligstein, N. (1997). Social skill and institutional theory. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 397–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Friedland, R., & Alford, R. (1991). Bringing society back. In P. DiMaggio & W. Powell (Eds.) Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions. The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  26. Froelich, K. (1999). Diversification of revenue strategies: Evolving resource dependence in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28, 246–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Frumkin, P. (1996). Review of Lester Salamon’s partners in public service. American Journal of Sociology, 101, 1451–1453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Frumkin, P. (2001). Sector at work: Identity under construction. The Nonprofit Quarterly 8. Retrieved from http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/section/88.html.
  29. General Accounting Office (1991). Transitional housing shows initial success, but long-term effects unknown. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office. Retrieved from http://161.203.16.4/d18t9/145180.pdf.
  30. Gerstel, N., Bogard, C., McConnell, J. J., & Schwartz, M. (1996). The therapeutic incarceration of homeless families. Social Service Review, 4, 543–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gouldner, A. (1954). Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
  32. Gronbjerg, K. (1993). Understanding Nonprofit Funding. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  33. Gronbjerg, K. (2001). The U.S. nonprofit human service sector: A creeping revolution. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30, 276–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hallett, T., & Ventresca, M. (2006a). How institutions form: Loose coupling as mechanism in Gouldner’s patterns of industrial bureaucracy. American Behavioral Scientist, 49, 908–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hallett, T., & Ventresca, M. (2006b). Inhabited institutions: Social interaction and organizational forms in Gouldner’s patterns of industrial bureaucracy. Theory and Society, 35, 213–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hasenfeld, Y. (1972). People processing organizations: An exchange approach. American Sociological Review, 37, 256–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hasenfeld, Y. (2000). Organizational forms as moral practices: The case of welfare departments. Social Service Review, 74, 329–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hasenfeld, Y., & English, R. (1974). Human service organizations. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  39. Hasenfeld, Y., & Schmid, H. (1989). The community center as a human service organization. Nonprofit and Voluntary Service Sector Quarterly, 18, 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Heimer, C. (1992). Doing your job and helping your friends: Universalistic norms about obligations to particular others. In N. Nohria & R. Eccles (Eds.) Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  41. Heimer, C. A. (1999). Competing institutions: Law, medicine, and family in neonatal intensive care. Law and Society Review, 33(1), 17–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Heimer, C., & Staffen, L. (1995). Interdependence and reintegrative social control: Labeling and reforming ‘inappropriate’ parents in neonatal intensive care units. American Sociological Review, 60, 635–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Heimer, C., & Stevens, M. (1997). Caring for the organization: Social workers as frontline risk managers in neonatal intensive care units. Work and Occupations, 24, 133–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hirsch, P., & Lounsbury, M. (1997). Ending the family quarrel: Toward a reconciliation of ‘old’ and ‘new’ instititutionalisms. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 406–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Jencks, C., & Phillips, M. (Eds.) (1998). The black-white test score gap. Washington: Brookings.Google Scholar
  46. Jepperson, R. (2002). The development and application of sociological institutionalism. In P. Berger & M. Zelditch (Eds.) Contemporary sociological theory: New directions. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  47. Joffe, C. (1979). Symbolic interaction and the study of social services. In N. Denzin (Ed.) Studies in symbolic interaction. Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  48. Keating, E., & Frumkin, P. (2003). Reengineering nonprofit financial accountability: Toward a more reliable foundation for regulation. Public Administration Review, 63, 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: The dilemma of individuals in public services. New York: Sage.Google Scholar
  50. Lipsky, M., & Smith, S. (1989). Nonprofit organizations, government, and the welfare state. Political Science Quarterly, 104, 625–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lounsbury, M., Ventresca, M., & Hirsch, P. (2003). Social movements, field frames, and industry emergence: A cultural-political perspective. Socio-Economic Review, 1, 2–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Maines, D. (1977). Social organization and social structure in symbolic interactionist thought. Annual Review of Sociology, 3, 235–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Marwell, N. (2004). Privatizing the welfare state: Nonprofit community-based organizations as political actors. American Sociological Review, 69, 265–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1978). The structure of educational organizations. In M. Meyer (Ed.) Environments and Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  56. Meyer, J., Scott, W. R., & Deal, T. (1981). Institutional and technical sources of organizational structure: Explaining the structure of educational organizations. In H. Stein (Ed.) Organization and the human services. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Meyer, J., Scott, W. R., & Strang, D. (1994). Centralization, fragmentation, and school district complexity. In W. R. Scott, & J. Meyer (Eds.) Institutional environments and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  58. Meyerson, D. (1991). ‘Normal’ ambiguity? A glimpse of an occupational culture. In P. Frost, L. Moore, M. Reis Louis, C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.) Reframing organizational culture. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  59. Meyerson, D., & Martin, J. (1987). Cultural change: An integration of three different views. Journal of Management Studies, 24, 623–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Minkoff, D., & Powell, W. (forthcoming). Nonprofit mission: Constancy, responsiveness, or deflection? In The Nonprofit Sector 2nd (ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Morrill, C. (1995). The executive way: Conflict management in corporations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  62. Perrow, C. (1972). Complex organizations: A critical essay. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.Google Scholar
  63. Pfeffer, J. (1978). The micropolitics of organizations. In M. Meyer (Ed.) Environments and organizations: theoretical and empirical perspectives. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  64. Pfeffer, J. (1982). Organizations and organization theory. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.Google Scholar
  65. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  66. Salamon, L. (1995). Partners in public service. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Salamon, L. (1999). America’s nonprofit sector: A primer. New York: The Foundation Center.Google Scholar
  68. Schmid, H. (2004). Organization-environment relationships: Theory for management practice in human service organizations. Administration in Social Work, 28, 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Scott, R. (1967). The selection of clients by social welfare agencies. Social Problems, 14, 248–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Scott, W. R. (1987). Organizations: Rational, natural and open systems (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  71. Scott, W. R. (1994). Institutions and organizations: A theoretical synthesis. In W. R. Scott & J. Meyer (Eds.) Institutional environments and organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  72. Scully, M., & Creed, D. (1997). Stealth legitimacy: Employee activism and corporate response during the diffusion of domestic partner benefits. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meetings, Boston MA, August.Google Scholar
  73. Scully, M., & Segal A. (2002). Passion with an umbrella: Grassroots activists in the workplace. In M. Lounsbury & M. J. Ventesca (Eds.) Social structure and organizations revisited. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  74. Selznick, P. (1953). TVA and the grass roots. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  75. Sewell, W. H. Jr. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. The American Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Smith, S., & Lipsky, M. (1993). Nonprofits for hire: The welfare state in the age of contracting. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Spillane, J., & Burch, P. (2005). Policy, administration, and instructional practice: ‘Loose Coupling’ revisited. Working paper, Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University. Retrieved from http://www.northwestern.edu/ipr/publications/papers/2003/WP-03-04.pdf.
  78. Stone, M. (1996). Competing contexts: The evolution of a nonprofit organization’s governance system in multiple environments. Administration and Society, 28, 61–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Stevens, M., & Roksa, J. (2005). Symbols and substance: Institutional pressures and diversity practices in selective college admissions. Unpublished paper, New York University.Google Scholar
  80. Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51, 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Swidler, A. (2001). Talk of love: How culture matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  82. Thompson, J. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  83. Ventresca, M. (2006). Personal communication with the author.Google Scholar
  84. Weber, M. (1946). Bureaucracy. In H. H. Gerth & C. Wright Mills (Eds.) From Max Weber: Essays in sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  85. Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Westenholz, A., Pedersen, J. S., & Dobbin, F. (2006). Introduction. Institutions in the making: Identity, power, and the emergence of new organizational forms. American Behavioral Scientist, 49, 889–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Zelizer, V. (2005). The purchase of intimacy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Zucker, L. (1988). Where do institutional patterns come from? Organizations as actors in social systems. In L. Zucker (Ed.) Institutional patterns and organizations. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+ Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of California-San DiegoLa JollaUSA

Personalised recommendations