Workplace Innovation as Institutional Entrepreneurship

Chapter
Part of the Aligning Perspectives on Health, Safety and Well-Being book series (AHSW)

Abstract

Workplace Innovation (WPI) ascribes to the tradition of Sociotechnical Systems (STS) in organisational development. Experiences of promoting STS show that neither economic arguments nor arguments of humanising work are sufficient to get companies to implement WPI activities. This chapter therefore examines the institutional conditions for implementation of WPI practices. It focuses particularly on institutional entrepreneurship exercised when WPI-related activities are implemented. The article is based on six case studies of Danish companies that have introduced WPI activities. It thus indicates that institutional alliances and coalitions are an important part of institutional entrepreneurship that creates change in the direction of WPI. The case studies also indicate that the sustainability of the introduced WPI activities depends on the institutional alliances related to their activity.

References

  1. Alasoini, T. (2016). Workplace development programmes as institutional entrepreneurs: Why they produce change and why they do not. Aalto University, Espoo.Google Scholar
  2. Alvesson, M., Bridgman, T., & Willmott, H. (2009). The Oxford handbook of critical management studies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P., & Kalleberg, A. E. (2000). Manufacturing advantage: Why high-performance work systems pay off. London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Battilana, J., Leca, B., & Boxenbaum, E. (2009). How actors change institutions: Towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. The Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 65–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boxall, P., & Macky, K. (2009). Research and theory on high-performance work systems: Progressing the high-involvement stream. Human Resource Management Journal, 19(1), 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boxall, P., & Winterton, J. (2015). Which conditions foster high-involvement work processes? A synthesis of the literature and agenda for research. Economic and Industrial Democracy, Epub ahead of print (September 2, 2015). doi: 10.1177/0143831X15599584
  7. Brödner, P., & Latniak, E. (2003). Sources of innovation and competitiveness: National programmes supporting the development of work organisation. Gelsenkirchen: Report to DG Employment and Social Affairs.Google Scholar
  8. de Sitter, L. U., den Hertog, J. F., & Dankbaar, B. (1997). From complex organizations with simple jobs to simple organizations with complex jobs. Human Relations, 50(5), 497–534.Google Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Flyvbjerg, B. (2004). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. F. Gubrium, & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 390–405). London: SAGE Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fricke, W. (2000). Twenty five years of German research and development programs “Humanization of work/work and technology”. Concepts and Transformation, 5(1), 133–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gittell, J. H., Seidner, R., & Wimbush, J. (2012). A relational model of how high-performance work systems work. Organization Science, 21(2), 490–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gustavsen, B. (2007). Work organization and ‘the Scandinavian model’. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 28(4), 650–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2008). Institutional entrepreneurship. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 198–217). Los Angeles: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hirsch, P., & Lounsbury, M. (2015). Toward a more critical and “powerful” institutionalism. Journal of Management Inquiry, 24(1), 96–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Karasek, R. A. J. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 285–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Karasek, R. A. J., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity and the reconstruction of working life. New York: BasicBooks.Google Scholar
  18. Kettunen, P. (2012). Reinterpreting the historicity of the Nordic model. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 2(4), 21–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lopes, H., Lagoa, S., & Calapez, T. (2014). Declining autonomy at work in the EU and its effect on civic behavior. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 35(2), 341–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Oeij, P., Žiauberytė-Jakštienė, R., Dhondt, S., Corral, A., Totterdill, P., & Preenen, P. (2015). Workplace innovation in European companies. Luxemburg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  21. Oinas, T., Anttila, T., Mustosmäki, A., & Nätti, J. (2012). The Nordic difference: Job quality in Europe 1995-2010. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 2(4), 135–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pasmore, W. A. (1995). Social science transformer: The socio-technical perspective. Human Relations, 48(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Scott, R. W. (2001). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  24. Standing, G. (2011). The Precariat: The new dangerous class. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  25. Totterdill, P., Exton, O., Exton, R., & Sherrin, J. (2009). Workplace innovation policies in European countries. Nottingham: UKWON.Google Scholar
  26. Trist, E., & Bamforth, K. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method. Human Relations, 4(3), 3–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. van Eijnatten, F. M. (1993). The paradigm that changed the work place. Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
  28. van Eijnatten, F. M. (2007). Socio-technical systems. In S. Clegg & J. R. Bailey (Eds.), International encyclopedia of organization studies (pp. 1448–1451). London: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Roskilde UniversityRoskildeDenmark
  2. 2.Copenhagen Business SchoolFrederiksbergDenmark

Personalised recommendations