Advertisement

Phönix aus der Asche

Eine ereignisorientierte Betrachtung des Siemens-Korruptionsskandals als Nexus zwischen Organisation und Umwelt
  • Christian Gebhardt
  • Gordon Müller-Seitz
Part of the Managementforschung book series (MGTF)

Zusammenfassung

Unsere phänomengetriebene Studie hat das wechselseitige Beeinflussungsverhältnis von Organisation und organisationaler Umwelt zum Gegenstand. Gestützt auf Konzepte und Erkenntnisse der neueren Institutionentheorie untersuchen wir im Rahmen einer ethnogra-phischen Feldstudie den Siemens-Korruptionsskandal der Jahre 2006 bis 2008. Dieses Er-eignis hatte nicht nur für das betroffene Unternehmen erhebliche Konsequenzen, sondern hat auch zu einer Neubewertung des Phänomens organisationaler Korruption in regulati-ver, normativer und kultureller Hinsicht geführt, deren Konsequenzen sich erst langsam abzuzeichnen beginnen. Es eignet sich daher in besonderer Weise, die vielfältigen Auswirkungen institutionellen Wandels auf eine fokale Organisation zu untersuchen. Sowohl aufgrund der Tragweite des Skandals, als auch ob der Bedeutung des involvierten Unternehmens ermöglicht es darüber hinaus eine Untersuchung der Handlungsmuster, durch die das betroffene Unternehmen den Wandel in seiner institutionellen Umwelt im Anschluss an den Skandal mitzugestalten versucht. Entsprechend unserer Überzeugung, dass sich Wandel nur aus einer Prozessperspektive heraus adäquat erfassen lässt, rekonstruieren wir den sich ändernden institutionellen Kontext des Phänomens Korruption sowie dessen Auswirkungen auf die fokale Organisation als Abfolge von Ereignissen in einem Modell, welches Ereignisse als Nexus zwischen einer fokalen Organisation und seiner Umwelt begreift.

Keywords

Ereignisse; Organisation; Umwelt; Institutionentheorie; Institutioneller Wandel; Korruption 

Abstract

In our phenomenon-driven study we address mutual influences between a focal organiza-tion and its organizational environment. We draw on concepts and insights of new institu-tional theory as well as on the results of an extensive ethnographic field study of the Sie-mens corruption scandal from 2006 to 2008. We find that this event not only resulted in considerable consequences for Siemens, but also culminated in a reevaluation of the phe-nomenon of corporate corruption with regard to its regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive dimensions. It is therefore particularly suitable to analyze the various effects of institutional change on a focal organization like Siemens. Due to the momentum this scan-dal generated as well as due to the importance of Siemens, our case also makes it possible to analyze action patterns through which the focal company attempted to shape institutional change processes in its organizational environment subsequent to the scandal. According to our comprehension that change can only be assessed meaningfully from a process perspective, we reconstruct the development of the institutional context of the phenomenon corruption as well as its effects on the focal company as a sequence of events. We do so by proposing a model which conceptualizes events as a nexus between organizations and their organizational environment.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literaturverzeichnis

  1. Ahme, G./Brunsson, N./Garsten, C. (2002): Standardizing through organizations. In: Brunsson, N./Jacobsson, B. (Hrsg.): A world of standards. Oxford, S. 50–68.Google Scholar
  2. Alvesson, M. (2003): Beyond neopositivists, romantics, and localists: A reflexive approach to interviews in organizational research. In: Academy of Management Review 28, S. 13–33.Google Scholar
  3. Anand, N./Watson, M.R. (2004): Tournament rituals in the evolution of fields: The case of the Grammy Awards. In: Academy of Management Journal 47 (1), S. 59–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anand, V./Ashforth, B.E./Joshi, M. (2004): Business as usual: The acceptance and perpetuation of corruption in organizations. In: Academy of Management Executive 18 (2), S. 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anand, V./Ellstrand, A./Rajagopalan, A./Joshi, M. (2009): Organizational responses to allegations of corporate corruption. In: Burke, R.J./Cooper, C.L. (Hrsg.): Research companion to corruption in organizations. Cheltenham, S. 217–230.Google Scholar
  6. Arino, A./Ring, P.S. (2010): The role of fairness in alliance formation. In: Strategic Management Journal 31 (10), S. 1054–1087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arthur, W.B. (1989): Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. In: Economic Journal 99 (394), S. 116–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ashforth, B.E./Gioia, D.A./Robinson, S.L./Trevino, L.K. (2008): Re-viewing organizational corruption. In: Academy of Management Review 33 (3), S. 670–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Atkinson, P./Coffey, A. (2004): Analysing documentary realities. In: Silvermann, D. (Hrsg.): Qualitative reserach. Theory, method and practice. London, S. 56–75.Google Scholar
  10. Barley, S.R. (1983): Semiotics and the study of occupational and organizational cultures. In: Administrative Science Quarterly 28 (3), S. 393–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Barley, S.R. (1986): Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. In: Administrative Science Quarterly 31 (1), S. 78–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Barley, S.R. (2008): Coalface institutionalism. In: Greenwood, M./Oliver, C./Sahlin, K./ Suddaby, R. (Hrsg.): The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism. Los Angeles, S. 491–518.Google Scholar
  13. Barley, S.R./Tolbert, P.S. (1997): Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between action and institution. In: Organization Studies 18 (1), S. 93–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Battilana, J./Leca, B./Boxenbaum, E. (2009): How actors change institutions: Towards a theory of institutional entrepreneur ship. In: Academy of Management Annals 3, S. 65–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Berg, N. (2003): Public affairs management: Ergebnisse einer empirischen Untersuchung in multinationalen Unternehmungen. Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  16. Berger, P.L./Luckmann, T. (1967): The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowiege. Garden City, NY.Google Scholar
  17. Broughton, E. (2005): The Bhopal disaster and its aftermath: A review. In: Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source 4 (6), www.ehjournal.net/content/4/l/6, zuletzt abgerufen am 25.01.2011.
  18. Brunsson, N./Jacobsson, B. (2000): The contemporary expansion of standardization. In: Brunsson, N./Jacobsson, B. (Hrsg.): A world of standards. Oxford, S. 1–19.Google Scholar
  19. Burke, R.J./Cooper, C.L. (Hrsg.)(2009): Research companion to corruption in organizations. Cheltenham.Google Scholar
  20. Christiansen, M.K./Farkas, M.T./Sutcliffe, K.M./Weick, K.E. (2009): Learning through rare events: Significant interruptions at the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Museum. In: Organization Science 20 (5), S. 846–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Clemens, E.S./Cook, J.M. (1999): Politics and institutionalism: Explaining durability and change. In: Annual Review of Sociology 25, S. 441–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Corley, K.G./Gioia, D.A. (2004): Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spin-off. In: Administrative Science Quarterly 49 (2), S. 173–208.Google Scholar
  23. Czarniawska, B. (2008): How to misuse institutions and get away with it: Some reflections on institutional theory(ies). In: Greenwood, R./Oliver, C./Sahlin, K./Suddaby, R. (Hrsg.): The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism. Los Angeles, S. 769–782.Google Scholar
  24. Dacin, M.T./Goodstein, J./Scott, W.R. (2002): Institutional theory and institutional change: Introduction to the special research forum. In: Academy of Management Journal 45 (1), S. 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. David, P.A. (1985): Clio and the economics of QWERTY. In: American Economic Review 75 (2), S. 332–337.Google Scholar
  26. de Sousa, L./Larmour, P. (2009): Transparency international: Global franchising and the war of information against corruption. In: Burke, R.J./Cooper, C.L. (Hrsg.): Research companion to corruption in organizations. Cheltenham, S. 269–284.Google Scholar
  27. Deephouse, D.L./Suchman, M. (2008): Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. In: Greenwood, R./Oliver, C./Sahlin, K./Suddaby, R. (Hrsg.): The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism. Los Angeles, S. 49–77.Google Scholar
  28. Denis, J.-L./Langley, A./Cazale, L. (1996): Leadership and strategic change under ambiguity. In: Organization Studies 17 (4), S. 673–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Denzin, N.K. (1978): The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York.Google Scholar
  30. DiMaggio, P.J. (1988): Interest and agency in institutional theory. In: Zucker, L.G. (Hrsg.): Institutional patterns and organizations. Cambridge, MA, S. 3–12.Google Scholar
  31. DiMaggio, P.J./Powell, W.W. (1983): The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. In: American Sociological Review 48 (2), S. 263–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Djelic, M.-L./Sahlin-Andersson, K. (Hrsg.)(2006): Transnational governance. Institutional dynamics of regulation. Cambridge.Google Scholar
  33. Elsbach, K.D. (2006): Organizational perception management. Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar
  34. Fiss, P.C./Zajac, E.J. (2004): The diffusion of ideas over contested terrain: The (non)adoption of a shareholder value orientation among German firms. In: Administrative Science Quarterly 49 (4), S. 501–534.Google Scholar
  35. Fleming, P./Zyglidopoulos, S.C. (2009): Charting corporate corruption. Agency, structure and escalation. Cheltenham und Northampton, MA.Google Scholar
  36. Fligstein, N. (1991): The structural transformation of American industry: An institutional account of the causes of diversification in the largest firms, 1919–1979. In: Powell, W.W./ DiMaggio, P.J. (Hrsg.): The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago und London, S. 311–336.Google Scholar
  37. Freeman, R.E. (1984): Strategic management: A stakehoder approach. Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  38. Freeman, R.E./Harrison, J.S./Wicks, A.C. (2007): Managing for stakeholders: Survival, reputation, and success. New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
  39. Gardberg, N.A./Fombrun, C.J. (2006): Corporate citizenship: Creating intangible assets across institutional environments. In: Academy of Management Review 31 (2), S. 329–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Garud, R. (2008): Conferences as venues for the configuration of emerging organizational fields: The case of cochlear implants. In: Journal of Management Studies 45 (6), S. 1061–1088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Geertz, C. (1973): The interpretation of cultures. Selected essays. New York.Google Scholar
  42. Giddens, A. (1979): Central problems in social theory: Action, structure, and contradiction in social analysis. Berkely, CA.Google Scholar
  43. Giddens, A. (1984): The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  44. Gioia, D.A./Chittipeddi, K. (1991): Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. In: Strategic Management Journal 12 (6), S. 433–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Golant, B.D./Sillince, J.A.A. (2007): The constitution of organizationl legitimacy. A narrative perspective. In: Organization Studies 28 (8), S. 1149–1167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Graeff, P./Schröder, K./Wolf, S. (Hrsg.)(2009): Der Korruptionsfall Siemens. Analysen und praxisnahe Folgerungen des wissenschaftlichen Arbeitskreises von Transparency International Deutschland. Baden-Baden.Google Scholar
  47. Greenwood, R./Oliver, C./Sahlin, K./Suddaby, R. (2008 Hrsg.): The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism. Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  48. Hallström, K.T. (2002): Organizing the process of standardization. In: Brunsson, N./Jacobsson, B. (Hrsg.): A world of standards. Oxford, S. 85–99.Google Scholar
  49. Harding, D.J./Fox, C./Mehta, J.D. (2002): Studying rare events through qualitative case studies. In: Sociological Methods & Research 31 (2), S. 174–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hardy, C./Maguire, S. (2008): Institutional entrepreneur ship. In: Greenwood, R./Oliver, C./ Sahlin, K./Suddaby, R. (Hrsg.): The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism. Los Angeles, S. 198–217.Google Scholar
  51. Haveman, H.A./Russo, M.V./Meyer, A.D. (2001): Organizational environments in flux: The impact of regulatory punctuations on organizational domains, CEO succession, and performance. In: Organization Science 12 (3), S. 253–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Heyl, B.S. (2001): Ethnographic interviewing. In: Atkinson, P./Coffey, A./Delamont, S./Lofland, J./Lofland, L. (Hrsg.): Handbook of ethnography. London, S. 367–383.Google Scholar
  53. Hirsch, P.M. (1997): Review essay. Sociology without social structure: Neoinstitutional theory meets brave new world. In: American Journal of Sociology 102 (6), S. 1702–1723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Hoffman, A.J. (1999): Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the U.S. chemical industry. In: Academy of Management Journal 42 (4), S. 351–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Hoffman, A.J./Ocasio, W. (2001): Not all events are attended equally: Toward a middle-range theory of industry attention to external events. In: Organization Science 12 (4), S. 414–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Isabella, L.A. (1990): Evolving interpretations as a change unfolds: How managers construe key organizational events. In: Academy of Management Journal 33 (1), S. 7–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Johnson, C./Dowd, T.J./Ridgeway, C.L./Cook, K.S./Massey, D.S. (2006): Legitimacy as a social process. In: Annual Review of Sociology 32, S. 53–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kahn, M.E. (2007): Environmental disasters as risk regulation catalysts? The role of Bhopal, Chernobyl, Exxon Valdez, Love Canal, and Three Mile Island in shaping U.S. environmental law. In: Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 35, S. 17–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Kallenberg, K. (2007): The role of risk in corporate value: A case study of the ABB asbestos litigation. In: Journal of Risk Research 10 (8), S. 1007–1025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. King, B.G./Soule, S.A. (2007): Social movements as extra-institutional entrepreneurs: The effect of protests on stock price returns. In: Administrative Science Quarterly 52 (3), S. 413–442.Google Scholar
  61. Kirsch, W. (1990): Unternehmenspolitik und strategische Unternehmensführung. München.Google Scholar
  62. Kuhn, T./Ashcraft, K.L. (2003): Corporate scandal and the theory of the firm. Formulating the contributions of organizational communication studies. In: Management Communication Quarterly 17 (1), S. 20–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Lambsdorff, J.G. (2007): The institutional economics of corruption and reform: Theory, evidence, and policy. Cambridge.Google Scholar
  64. Lampel, J./Meyer, A.D. (2008): Field-configuring events as structuring mechanisms: How conferences, ceremonies, and trade shows constitute new technologies, industries, and markets. In: Journal of Management Studies 45 (6), S. 1025–1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Lampel, J./Shamsie, J./Shapira, Z. (2009): Experiencing the improbable: Rare events and organizational learning. In: Organization Science 20 (5), S. 835–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Lange, D. (2008): A multidimensional conceptual of organizaional corruption control. In: Academy of Management Review 33 (3), S. 710–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Langley, A. (1999): Strategies for theorizing from process data. In: Academy of Management Review 24 (4), S. 691–710.Google Scholar
  68. Langley, A. (2009): Studying processes in and around organizations. In: Buchanan, D./Bryman, A. (Hrsg.): Handbook of organizational research methods. London, S. 409–429.Google Scholar
  69. Lawrence, T.B./Suddaby, R. (2006): Institutions and institutional work. In: Clegg, S.R./ Hardy, C./Lawrence, T.B./Nord, W.R. (Hrsg.): The Sage handbook of organization studies. Thousand Oaks, S. 215–254.Google Scholar
  70. Leyendecker, H. (2009): Die Grosse Gier. Korruption, Kartelle, Lustreisen: Warum unsere Wirtschaft eine neue Moral braucht. Hamburg.Google Scholar
  71. Lincoln, Y.S./Guba, E.G. (1985): Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA.Google Scholar
  72. Lundin, R.A./Wirdenius, H. (1990): Interactive research. In: Scandinavian Journal of Management 6 (2), S. 125–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Maguire, S./Hardy, C./Lawrence, T.B. (2004): Institutional entrepreurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada. In: Academy of Management Journal 47 (5), S. 657–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Martin, K.D./Cullen, J.B./Johnson, J.L./Parboteeah, K.P. (2007): Deciding to bribe: A cross-level ananlysis of firm and home country influences on bribery activity. In: Academy of Management Journal 50 (6), S. 1401–1422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Meyer, A.D./Gaba, V./Colwell, K.A. (2005): Organizing far from equilibrium: Nonlinear change in organizational fields. In: Organization Science 16 (5), S. 456–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Meyer, J.W./Rowan, B. (1977): Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. In: American Journal of Sociology 83 (2), S. 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Meyer, R. (2008): New sociology of knowledge: Historical legacy and contributions to current debates in institutional research. In: Greenwood, R./Oliver, C./Sahlin, K./Suddaby, R. (Hrsg.): The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism. Los Angeles, S. 519–528.Google Scholar
  78. Miller, C.C./Cardinal, L.B./Glick, W.H. (1997): Retrospective reports in organizational research: A reexamination of recent evidence. In: Academy of Management Journal 40 (1), S. 189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Miller, K.D. (2009): Organizational risk after modernism. In: Organization Studies 30 (2-3), S. 157–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Misangyi, V.F./Weaver, G.R./Elms, H. (2008): Ending corruption: The interplay among institutional logics, resources, and institutional pressures. In: Academy of Management Review 33 (3), S. 750–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Mörth, U. (Hrsg.)(2004): Soft law in governance and regulation. An interdisciplinary approach. Cheltenham.Google Scholar
  82. Müller, N. (2008): Warum prägen Institutionen das Handeln in Organisationen? Die unbeantwortete Frage des Neo-Institutionalismus. In: Schreyögg, G./Sydow, J. (Hrsg.): Managementforschung 19. Wiesbaden, S. 221–238.Google Scholar
  83. Munir, K.A./Phillips, N. (2005): The birth of the ‚Kodak Moment‘: Institutional entrepreneurship and the adoption of new technologies. In: Organization Studies 26 (11), S. 1665–1687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Nutt, P.C. (1984): Types of organizational decision processes. In: Administrative Science Quarterly 29 (3), S. 414–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Oliver, A.L./Montgomery, K. (2008): Using field-Configuring events for sense-making: A cognitive network approach. In: Journal of Management Studies 45 (6), S. 1147–1167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Olson, M. (1971): The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  87. Ortmann, G./Zimmer, M. (2001): Strategisches Management, Recht und Politik. In Ortmann, G./Sydow, J. (Hrsg.): Strategie und Strukturation. Strategisches Management von Unternehmen, Netzwerken und Konzernen. Wiesbaden, S. 301–349.Google Scholar
  88. Ostrom, E. (2007): Governing the commons. The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge.Google Scholar
  89. Palmer, D./Biggart, N./Dick, B. (2008): Is the new institutionalism a theory? In: Greenwood, R./Oliver, C./Sahlin, K./Suddaby, R. (Hrsg.): The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism. Los Angeles, S. 739–768.Google Scholar
  90. Parmar, B.L./Freeman, R.E./Harrison, J.S./Wicks, A.C./Purnell, L./de Colle, S. (2010): Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. In: Academy of Management Annals 4, S. 403–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Perkmann, M./Spicer, A. (2007): ‚Healing the scars of history‘: Projects, skills and field strategies in institutional entrepreneur ship. In: Organization Studies 28 (7), S. 1101–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Pettigrew, A.M. (1990): Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. In: Organization Science 1 (3), S. 267–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Pfarrer, M.D./Decelles, K.A./Smith, K.G./Taylor, M.S. (2008): After the fall: Reintegrating the corrupt organization. In: Academy of Management Review 33 (3), S. 730–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Pinto, J./Leana, C.R./Pil, F.K. (2008): Corrupt organizations or organizaions of corrupt individuals? Two types of organization-level corruption. In: Academy of Management Review 33 (3), S. 685–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Ployhart, R.E./Vandenberg, R.J. (2010): Longitudinal research: The theory, design, and analysis of change. In: Journal of Management 36 (1), S. 94–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Powell, W.W./Colyvas, J.A. (2008): Microfoundations of institutional theory. In: Greenwood, M./Oliver, C./Sahlin, K./Suddaby, R. (Hrsg.): The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism. Los Angeles, S. 276–298.Google Scholar
  97. Rosen, M. (1991): Coming to terms with the field: Understanding and doing organizational ethnography. In: Journal of Management Studies 28 (1), S. 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Sanday, P.R. (1979): The ethnographic paradigm(s). In: Administrative Science Quarterly 24 (4), S. 527–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Schirm, S.A. (2001): Globalisierung und Global Governance: Multilaterales Management weltwirtschaftlicher Krisen? In: Opitz, P.J. (Hrsg.): Weltprobleme im 21. Jahrhundert. München, S. 201–213.Google Scholar
  100. Schirmer, F. (2003): Mobilisierung von Koalitionen für den Wandel in Organisationen. In: Die Betriebswirtschaft 63 (1), S. 23–42.Google Scholar
  101. Schneiberg, M./Lounsbury, M. (2008): Social movements and institutional analysis. In: Greenwood, M./Oliver, C./Sahlin, K./Suddaby, R. (Hrsg.): The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism. Los Angeles, S. 650–672.Google Scholar
  102. Schreyögg, G./Sydow, J./Koch, J. (2003): Organisatorische Pfade - Von der Pfadabhängigkeit zur Pfadkreation? In: Schreyögg, G./Sydow, J. (Hrsg.): Managementforschung 13. Wiesbaden, S. 257–294.Google Scholar
  103. Schütz, A. (1967): The phenomenology of the social world. New York.Google Scholar
  104. Scott, W.R. (2008): Institutions and organizations. Ideas and interests. Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  105. Starbuck, W.H./Farjoun, M. (Hrsg.)(2005): Organization at the limit. Lessons from the Columbia disaster. Maiden, MA.Google Scholar
  106. Stinchcombe, A.L. (1997): On the virtues of the old institutionalism. In: Annual Review of Sociology 23, S. 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Suchman, M.C. (1995): Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. In: Academy of Management Review 20 (3), S. 571–610.Google Scholar
  108. Suddaby, R./Greenwood, R. (2009): Methodological issues in researching institutional change. In: Buchanan, D./Bryman, A. (Hrsg.), The Sage handbook of organizational research Methods. London, S. 176–195.Google Scholar
  109. Thompson, J.B. (2000): Political scandal: Power and visibility in the media age. Cambridge.Google Scholar
  110. Tolbert, P.S./Zucker, L.G. (1983): Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: The diffusion of civil service reform, 1880–1935. In: Administrative Science Quarterly 28 (1), S. 22–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. United Nations - Office of Drugs and Crimes (2004): United Nations convention against corruption. New York.Google Scholar
  112. Van de Ven, A.H./Huber, G.P. (1990): Longitudinal field research methods for studying processes of organizational change. In: Organization Science 1 (3), S. 213–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Van Maanen, J. (2010): A song for my supper: More tales of the field. In: Organizational Research Methods 13 (2), S. 240–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Vaughan, D. (1990): Autonomy, interdependence, and social control: NASA and the space shuttle challenger. In: Administrative Science Quarterly 35 (2), S. 225–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Volz, H.M./Rommerskirchen, T. (2009): Die Spur des Geldes. Der Fall des Hauses Siemens. Berlin.Google Scholar
  116. Walgenbach, P. (2002): Neoinstitutionalistische Organisationstheorie - State of the Art und Entwicklungslinien. In: Schreyögg, G./Conrad, P. (Hrsg.): Managementforschung 12, S. 155–202.Google Scholar
  117. Walgenbach, P. (2006): Neoinstitutionalistische Ansätze in der Organisationstheorie. In: Kieser, A./Ebers, M. (Hrsg.): Organisationstheorien. 6. Aufl. Stuttgart, S. 353–389.Google Scholar
  118. Walgenbach, P./Meyer, R.E. (2008): Neoinstitutionalistische Organisationstheorie. Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  119. Weber, K./Heinze, K.L./DeSoucey, M. (2008): Forage for thought: Mobilizing codes in the movement for grass-fed meat and dairy products. In: Administrative Science Quarterly 53 (3), S. 529–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Weick, K.E. (1995): Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  121. Weiss, D.C. (2009): The foreign corrupt practices act, SEC disgorgement of profits, and the evolving international bribery regime: Weighing proportionality, retribution, and deterrence. In: Michigan Journal of International Law 30, S. 471–514.Google Scholar
  122. Wertheimer, R. (1968): Conditions. In: Journal of Philosophy 65 (12), S. 355–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Westphal, J.D./Zajac, E.J. (1998): The symbolic management of stockholders. Corporate governance reforms and shareholder reactions. In: Administrative Science Quarterly 43 (1), S. 127–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Westphal, J.D./Zajac, E.J. (2001): Decoupling policy from practice: The case of stock repurchase programs. In: Administrative Science Quarterly 46 (2), S. 202–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Wijen, F./Ansari, S. (2007): Overcoming inaction through collective institutional entrepreneurship: Insights from regime theory. In: Organization Studies 28 (7), S. 1079–1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Wolf, S. (2009): Die Siemens-Korruptionsaffäre - ein Überblick. In: Graeff, P./Schröder, K./ Wolf, S. (Hrsg.): Der Korruptionsfall Siemens. Analysen und praxisnahe Folgerungen des wissenschaftlichen Arbeitskreises von Transparency International Deutschland. Baden-Baden, S. 9–17.Google Scholar
  127. Wolfinger, N.H. (2002): On writing fieldnotes: Collection strategies and background expectancies. In: Qualitative Research 2 (1), S. 85–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. You, J.-S./Khagram, S. (2005): A comparative study of inequality and corruption. In: American Sociological Review 70 (1), S. 136–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Zickar, M.J./Carter, N.T. (2010): Reconnecting with the spirit of workplace ethnography: A historical review. In: Organizational Research Methods 13 (2), S. 304–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Zilber, T.B. (2002): Institutionalization as an interplay between actions, meanings, and actors: The case of a rape crisis center in Israel. In: Academy of Management Journal 45 (1), S. 234–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Zollo, M. (2009): Superstitious learning with rare strategic decisions: Theory and evidence from corporate acquisitions. In: Organization Science 20 (5), S. 894–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Zucker, L.G. (1977): The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. In: American Sociological Review 42 (5), S. 726–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Gabler Verlag | Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Gebhardt
    • 1
  • Gordon Müller-Seitz
    • 2
  1. 1.Katholische Universität Eichstädt-IngeolstadtIngolstadtGermany
  2. 2.Institut für ManagementFreie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations