Has Institutional Theory Lost its Way?
通过正反观点辩论，探讨制度理论是否过度关注制度本身而偏离了对组织结构和管理的核心研究，并讨论如何通过制度逻辑重新聚焦于组织差异。
The ‘new’ institutional theory emerged in the late 1970s and early 1980s (see DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Meyer and Rowan, 1977). The strength of institutional theory was that it sought to make sense of organizations as part of complex social systems, as a corrective to then-dominant conceptualizations which understood organizations in rationalist and decontextualized ways. Since that time, it has become a dominant stream in organization and management theory (OMT). The question addressed by this Point–Counterpoint is whether institutional theory, in highlighting the role of institutions, has shifted its attention too far from what should be its primary focus – understanding how organizations are structured and managed. Greenwood et al. (2014) argue that this is indeed the case. They start their paper with a brief review of the emergence and development of institutional theory which, incidentally, provides an excellent overview for anyone not familiar with this body of theory. Their argument for a refocusing of institutional theory is built around two themes. The first is that institutional theory, over time, has begun to substitute what was originally its independent variable – institutions – for its dependent variable – organizations. That is, it now focuses far too heavily on explaining institutions and institutional processes, rather than how organizations work. The second theme is that institutional theory assumes that the correct focus in understanding organizations is the similarities between them, which has led scholars in this tradition to ignore differences between organizations and overlook the value of comparative organizational studies. Having developed this critique, the authors then ask what is to be done to shift institutional theory in a direction which will facilitate both a focus on organizations as the object of interest and analysis of differences between organizations. The answer which Greenwood et al. put forward is institutional logics, which assumes differences between organizations and seeks to explain them. Further, they suggest that because institutional logics has its impact on the nature of organizations at the level of organizational fields, fields should also be central to the project of refocusing on the organization as the primary focus of institutional theory. In responding to Greenwood et al., Meyer and Höllerer (2014) broadly accept their central arguments, but caution against potential dangers inherent in the proposed way forward. Their first central argument is that if there is too much focus on organizations or organizational forms as the object of inquiry, institutional theory may ignore critically important contemporary developments in organizing. Meyer and Höllerer make the point that a key focus for institutional theorists should be on understanding the interactions between institutions and forms of organizing which may include formal organizations but should not be limited to them. Second, they caution against losing sight of the fact that similarities are important and moving too far away from a focus on institutions. Meyer and Höllerer suggest that Greenwood et al. overlook the extent to which the issues they raise are already on the radar of institutional theorists and also ask whether the term ‘institutional’ theory is used too loosely, in ways which risk diluting what is distinctive about this body of theory. The exchanges within this Point–Counterpoint highlight the need to refresh and redirect any extant body of theory, as well as providing a stimulating set of ideas about how institutional theorists might move their specific theory forward. In doing so, the contributors provide many potentially fruitful avenues for theory and research. We believe that scholars working within institutional theory, as well as the broader community of management studies scholars, will find this a stimulating Point–Counterpoint and that it will play a vital role in the continued development of this important body of theorizing and research.